Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
OK, let’s take that at face value. Would it concern you if there were?
Click to expand...
It would concern me.

There are NO CIRCUMSTANCES at all (not for rape or disease or whatever) that any artificial contraception is permitted when the prime motive is to prevent pregnancy.
 
thistle said:
It would concern me.

There are NO CIRCUMSTANCES at all (not for rape or disease or whatever) that any artificial contraception is permitted when the prime motive is to prevent pregnancy.
Click to expand...
“the officials of the Church many decades ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse.”
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4594/contraception_congo_nuns_choosing_the_lesser_evil_and_conflict_of_commandments.aspx
 
Tomdstone said:
“the officials of the Church many decades ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse.”
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4594/contraception_congo_nuns_choosing_the_lesser_evil_and_conflict_of_commandments.aspx
Click to expand...
Boom!
 
thistle said:
It would concern me.

There are NO CIRCUMSTANCES at all (not for rape or disease or whatever) that any artificial contraception is permitted when the prime motive is to prevent pregnancy.
Click to expand...
A woman may surely force early withdrawal of a rapist, and that is no different than inserting a condom or any other measure you care to name. so I’m afraid I disagree entirely. Do not confuse rape with something different.

You will note hospitals are permitted by USCCB to expunge semen and take other measures to prevent conception for rape victims, short of any act that could terminate a pregnancy.
 
Tomdstone said:
“the officials of the Church many decades ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse.”
catholicworldreport.com/Item/4594/contraception_congo_nuns_choosing_the_lesser_evil_and_conflict_of_commandments.aspx
Click to expand...
We don’t know the facts actually, Regardless, such would not involve the moral act of contraception.
 
Parents read in the newspaper that many young women in US high school and college are subject to “date rape”. There have been reported cases where the male rapist is given a slap on the wrist by the American judge while the girl is left to hang even after proving she was put under drugs and raped by several fraternity members. Under these present dire circumstances that female students face in the United States of America, where male rapists essentially go unpunished, would the parents be justified in recommending that their daughters in the USA take the birth control pill, just as Catholic Church officials, according to credible reports as noted above, had recommended to Belgian Congo nuns?
 
Tomdstone said:
Parents read in the newspaper that many young women in US high school and college are subject to “date rape”. There have been reported cases where the male rapist is given a slap on the wrist by the American judge while the girl is left to hang even after proving she was put under drugs and raped by several fraternity members. Under these present dire circumstances that female students face in the United States of America, where male rapists essentially go unpunished, would the parents be justified in recommending that their daughters in the USA take the birth control pill, just as Catholic Church officials, according to credible reports as noted above, had recommended to Belgian Congo nuns?
Click to expand...
I don’t know the facts of the latter assertion about nuns, but I can’t see any moral wrong in wearing a chastity belt, a female condom, or taking a pill if one feels threatened and has no intention whatsoever of engaging in sexual relations. Contraception - nor any other human act (in the theological sense) - is defined merely by an action in the physical world.

I wonder why US judges are so forgiving of those perpetrating a proven date rape? Is this widely accepted, or just your perspective on the matter Tom?
 
That sentence in the post above should have read:
Rau said:
Neither Contraception - nor any other human act (in the theological sense) - is defined merely by an action in the physical world.
Click to expand...
 
 
 
Rau said:
We don’t know the facts actually, Regardless, such would not involve the moral act of contraception.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to show the Church allowed these nuns to do that. That is speculation only.

Artificial means to prevent pregnancy is never allowed and whatever the circumstances it is contraception.
 
thistle said:
There is no evidence to show the Church allowed these nuns to do that. That is speculation only.

Artificial means to prevent pregnancy is never allowed and whatever the circumstances it is contraception.
Click to expand...
I concur with your first sentence. Your second sentence is nonsense thistle, and I have given you reasons to which you have made no response. Your theological error is to equate a physical act to a particular “human act” (which is the stuff subject to moral assessment). Pope St JP II addresses this error in Veritatis Splendor.
 
Rau said:
I concur with your first sentence. Your second sentence is nonsense thistle, and I have given you reasons to which you have made no response. Your theological error is to equate a physical act to a particular “human act” (which is the stuff subject to moral assessment). Pope St JP II addresses this error in Veritatis Splendor.
Click to expand...
You have not given me any evidence to back your claim.

Show me a Church document that specifically states artificial means to prevent pregnancy is permitted. What you have given already is not that.
 
Rau said:
OK, let’s take that at face value. Would it concern you if there were?
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. I’m liberal in many Catholic issues. But I was just stating what the Vatican says. The Vatican says contraception is an intrinsically evil act, it does not suffer any exceptions.
 
TheAdvocate said:
Can anyone think of a few examples of teachings that are NOT infallibly taught to the faithful, but that we are still required to assent to by what Vatican II calls “religious assent” of the will and intellect? (Please do not use the prohibition against contraception…I believe this is infallible because it is unanimously taught by the bishops worldwide and has been so since the beginning.)
Click to expand...
How about the former teaching on limbo for unbaptized babies
 
thistle said:
There is no evidence to show the Church allowed these nuns to do that. That is speculation only.

Artificial means to prevent pregnancy is never allowed and whatever the circumstances it is contraception.
Click to expand...
Please see post #26 and the report by a Catholic journal.
 
fladreamer said:
Not in the slightest. I’m liberal in many Catholic issues. But I was just stating what the Vatican says. The Vatican says contraception is an intrinsically evil act, it does not suffer any exceptions.
Click to expand...
And that is correct.. But contraception needs to be properly recognized first, and then one can assert what is never permitted. Thistle confuses physical actions with the “human act” of contraception. If he witnessed sexual intercourse, and withdrawal prior to ejaculation, is this “contraception” in action, or is this force to bring about cessation of rape? Are we not correct to say that one act is good and the other bad - once what is actually happening is understood?

You see, on this point there is no need to be “liberal”, only to understand the moral theology of the Church.
 
thistle said:
You have not given me any evidence to back your claim.

Show me a Church document that specifically states artificial means to prevent pregnancy is permitted. What you have given already is not that.
Click to expand...
Is there a Church document to countenance all acts that might otherwise be thought wrong, but are not? Sometimes one has to just know how to correctly apply the principals.

Thistle - are you aware of the treatments that may be justly (per USCCB) offered to a woman post-rape? Are you aware they include actions that may prevent conception? I can try to find the relevant document, though I think I have in fact presented it to you in the past (?).

The key point is that an action to stop a rape, which rape continues after withdrawal of the rapist is simply not the moral wrong of contraception. It is another act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top