On limiting population growth thru contraception

[Warrior1979]

The mocking of “the manner in which” Christ’s Church “handles infallibility” is to create a straw man against Christ’s mandate since we must, on divine command, heed the pope, he has to be infallible.

Your continued use of derogatory terms such as “mocking,” “purile,” etc., is, quite simply, pathetic.

That said, I’m not creating a straw man. I’m simply having a theological discussion. It makes since to me that if infallible means “free from error,” God can simply do as He pleases, including acts that we might perceive as immoral (e.g., slaughter of the Canaanites). If it means anything more, as it currently does, God cannot do these things without what we perceive as serious theological contradictions.

The reason I have these questions is because anything that has the appearance of tying the Hands of God raises my hackles. Naturally, you think think that is unfounded and inherently evil, and worthy of mocking and denigrating…how dare one think that God is Almightly!

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979 ,#101
anything that has the appearance of tying the Hands of God raises my hackles….how dare one think that God is Almightly!

That’s precisely why arrogantly tying the actions of Almighty God in Christ is so perverse when His words and actions are so clear, leaving only Warrior1979 as infallible!

For Warrior1979, Christ is wrong; His Church is wrong; His Popes are wrong; the Sacred Scriptures are wrong; the Ecumenical Councils Vatican I and II are wrong; David Gregson of EWTN is wrong; the CDF is wrong:
For Pope Paul VI addresses “public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called dissent” (CDF Donum Veritatis, #32, 1990).

But, a defined doctrine on faith or morals must be firmly embraced and held, on the faith of the Church. (Canon 750 #2).

But, CCC #2039 teaches “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

But, Donum Veritatis, CDF, #36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

But, in fact, this is because the teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

Who is raising the hackles of God?

 

[Hastrman]

Sorry, but the Church has defined what is and isn’t a matter of prudential judgment.

Contraception, or abortion, aren’t a matter of prudential judgment but of doctrine, so there is no field for disagreement. You either accept the church’s teaching or find another religion.

Whether to go to war or execute a criminal are a matter of prudential judgment, because, while the Church can say “these are the situations in which you may go to war or execute”, it has no authority to say whether those situations actually exist in any particular circumstance. Anyone who has a different opinion from you over war or the death penalty is, unless disputing the principles the Church has defined as governing those questions, differing over facts and how to interpret them, not denying the Church’s teaching.

Any assertions to the contrary are ad hominem fallacies, have a nice day.

 

[Warrior1979]

That’s precisely why arrogantly tying the actions of Almighty God in Christ is so perverse when His words and actions are so clear, leaving only Warrior1979 as infallible!

For Warrior1979, Christ is wrong; His Church is wrong; His Popes are wrong; the Sacred Scriptures are wrong; the Ecumenical Councils Vatican I and II are wrong; David Gregson of EWTN is wrong; the CDF is wrong:
For Pope Paul VI addresses “public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called dissent” (CDF Donum Veritatis, #32, 1990).

Your continued insinuations and denigration of people is disgusting.

Your just shoving words words in my mouth left and right.

By the way, I’m trying out for a martial arts part in a major movie tomorrow. I need a sparring partner. You interested?

 

[Nate13]

I’m more than happy to learn, so educate me. On what basis are babies guilty, and worthy to be killed (note: I’m using the word “killed” rather than “murdered,” since your question presupposes guilt)? Certainly there is no such basis in any current Church doctrine.

Have you never been in a situation where someone else’s sins ended up affecting you even though you may have been innocent? Is God unjust then? If a man gets drunk and is driving around with his kids in the back and they have a car accident, wouldn’t it almost appear as if God was “punishing” those kids for the sins of their father? Sin affects the innocent just as much as it affects the guilty. Ask an aborted baby sometime.

 

[Warrior1979]

Have you never been in a situation where someone else’s sins ended up affecting you even though you may have been innocent?

Once again, wrong analogy…unless God ORDERED that person to commit what we perceive to be as sin.

Is God unjust then?

I’m not questioning God. I’m just curious as to why God choose to limit Himself, which MUST be the case due to the manner infallibility is applied.

 

[TarkanAttila]

There is a very evident problem.

I’ll give two common examples. We are not supposed to kill others, or more specifically murder innocents. However, as we know from the Old Testament that God did just that through His people. Naturally, God has His own motives that we may never understand. Yet, if we are to believe that the 10 Commandments are infallible and irreformable, this is objectively evil and can never happen again, because of the Church’s understanding of infallibility.

No; we are not supposed to murder others. Check most translations - even Catholic ones - and it is rendered “murder”, not “kill”. There is a distinct and important difference between the two.

So, with the Church’s position on infallibility, which includes irreformable, the only possible explanation that would support the Church’s position is that God decided to NEVER to allow certain things again, including those things permitted in the past. To do so under current Church policy means a contradiction in infallible dogma will appear.

Now if infallible simply meant “free from error,” there is no problem. That allows God to do as He pleases, including some of the things that appear objectively sinful from our perspective. If “infallible” also includes “irreformable” these acts cannot occur without causing major theological and philosophical problems.

The problem being that simply being “free from error” and not “irreformable” means 1) The church could potentially say that ANYTHING could be morally inerrant (even murder, in a strange way), and more importantly 2) God’s love could change its definition on the drop of a hat. This also poses serious problems, as a God that one moment says “go forth and multiply” and the next “copulate but do not procreate”, or “do not murder” one moment and the next “take no prisoners”, is a flippant, capricious, unreliable God who cannot truly be called good, or loving, or even all-powerful.

That God limits Himself to one certain way of thinking, whatever that may be, shows the tremendous power He does have, as He is not subject to the whims and fancies animals or humans have. It’s kind of the ultimate example of discipline. God doesn’t kick puppies because He feels like doing so, if doing so will not lead to a gain in love and life (among other things).

 

[TarkanAttila]

I am aware of all that. However, I don’t recall Christ saying this can NEVER happen again. There are instances in the Old Testament where God states He will never do things again, but this is certainly not one of them. In this case, the manner in which Church handles infallibility implicitly states “No.”

We’re talking about different things. As an example of what I am referring to is the God-given command of slaughtering the Canaanites, including children.

We do not know what He did with their souls.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not questioning God. I’m just curious as to why God choose to limit Himself, which MUST be the case due to the manner infallibility is applied.

Perhaps because He chose to. It was His decision to choose to limit Himself in some ways and not in others.

Why, He said Himself, if we were exposed to His true, full nature for even a second we would be forced to submit to Him, as He is just that powerful.

Yet He limits Himself, and allows others to choose to follow Him. Why do you suppose that is?

Because He chooses to make it tougher. He doesn’t do it to spite people. He limits Himself and His creation… to make it interesting, I guess. I have no idea.

But the Church isn’t tying His hands down; it’s merely attesting to the way He has chosen to tie His hands down.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Forgive me for QUADRUPLE POSTING, but I have something further to add:

The dogmas of the Catholic Church, which you claim “tie God’s hands”, are not nearly so profound a tying down of God as the ultimate slavery God put Himself into when He came to Earth as a man, to
“serve in the ranks like a common soldier”, as G.K. Chesterton once put it, and to die like a lamb given to the slaughter.

God walls Himself in because, well He knows, that dogma and doctrine are walls, but they are the walls surrounding a playground (also Chesterton).

:twocents:

 

[Abu]

Great posts TarkanAttila.

“It is still supposed by many to be old-fashioned to dogmatize about dogmatic things, such as dogmas; but the new fashion is to dogmatise about undogmatic things, about mere likes and dislikes, about things that cannot be stated as dogmas even by the dogmatists.” [G K Chesterton].

 

[Warrior1979]

Great posts TarkanAttila.

Is that because he actually made an attempt to answer the question, rather than shove words into people mouths, demonize, and repeat the same thing over and over ad nasuem?

His answers are the correct ones. To bad you couldn’t figure them out…

 

[Nate13]

Once again, wrong analogy…unless God ORDERED that person to commit what we perceive to be as sin.

I’m not questioning God. I’m just curious as to why God choose to limit Himself, which MUST be the case due to the manner infallibility is applied.

I think you missed the analogy. The Canaanite men and women committed sins and more importantly were a great threat to his people and God punished them for it. My point was that when men and women sin it is not an uncommon event that their children feel the resulting effects of committing those sins. I’m curious as to what you believe a loving God would have done in that situation? Would he have told the Israelite’s to kill all the Canaanite men and women and leave the children that were too young to as yet be guilty of a sin? Would your happy story have been if he told the Israelite’s to adopt the children? How do you think that would have played out?

 

[Warrior1979]

I think you missed the analogy. The Canaanite men and women committed sins and more importantly were a great threat to his people and God punished them for it. My point was that when men and women sin it is not an uncommon event that their children feel the resulting effects of committing those sins. I’m curious as to what you believe a loving God would have done in that situation? Would he have told the Israelite’s to kill all the Canaanite men and women and leave the children that were too young to as yet be guilty of a sin? Would your happy story have been if he told the Israelite’s to adopt the children? How do you think that would have played out?

I’m the adopted parent of several abandoned children, so my position should be blatantly obvious.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Is that because he actually made an attempt to answer the question, rather than shove words into people mouths, demonize, and repeat the same thing over and over ad nasuem?

His answers are the correct ones. To bad you couldn’t figure them out…

I will admit, Abu: in retrospect, you were a little harsh with him…

At the same time, Warrior, it is rather arrogant to suppose your understanding of the morality of contraception is greater than the Church’s, which has been accumulating for the past 2000 years…

Do not forget, Warrior: our goal on this planet is not to end poverty, or to make everyone pleased or tranquil. It is to love others, to love God, and to help others to love others and God. And it is not loving to kill anyone. Hard a pill though it is to take, we must raise our children as well as we can, whether they are born into poverty, or wealth. If our children die in our arms, we are comforted with knowing two things: 1) We raised them as well as we could with what God gave us, and 2) hopefully, they will be in God’s care forever after they have died.

It’s not much of a consolation to know you have several saints in Heaven. But it is better than knowing you have saints in Heaven and that you murdered them in cold blood. And it’s more consolation than seeing one or two children live to maturity only to forget God, gorge on the world, and drop into the fires of Hell, as many do nowadays.

I’m the adopted parent of several abandoned children, so my position should be blatantly obvious.

Jews fighting the Palestinians have access to some experience that would seem to posit that children are not always innocence.

The sad truth is sometimes children are taught to fight and die hating the Jews (or whomever their enemy is). This happens in Israel today. And who knows? It may have happened in Canaan 2000 years ago.

As for children and infants, I cannot be sure. Perhaps God wished to deal with them directly, rather than leaving them with the Israelites, who could hardly keep themselves in spiritual order, much less pagan children.

I wonder if there were several prayers from the Israelites like the ones of the sailors in Jonah:
Jonas 1:14:

And they cried to the Lord, and said: We beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased thee.

 

[Warrior1979]

At the same time, Warrior, it is rather arrogant to suppose your understanding of the morality of contraception is greater than the Church’s, which has been accumulating for the past 2000 years…

This is an example of a major problem with Internet forums. It’s not particular to this site, but it is worse on religious sites because people tend to respond with emotion first.

Did I ever state that my understanding was greater than the Church’s? The answer is of course “No.” People like Abu believe that is the case because emotion trumps all. Do I believe that the Church’s basis for position is weak? Yes. It is based more on Tradition, rather than anything the Savior said. I personally cringe when infallibility is placed on matters based in Tradition. But one should note that at the same time I believe that one should not disrespect the Church and the teaching is authoritative.

As for children and infants, I cannot be sure. Perhaps God wished to deal with them directly, rather than leaving them with the Israelites, who could hardly keep themselves in spiritual order, much less pagan children.

FWIW, I almost majored in Judaic studies in college. In one of my course, the teacher (a reform Rabbi) noted that marrying non-Jews had it’s advantages, notably that there would not be any issues pertaining to marrying a relative. The interesting thing about raising a non-Jew as a Jew is when they get married, they will be of the Jewish religion and guaranteed not to be related to anyone of Jewish blood.

 

[Warrior1979]

FWIW, I almost majored in Judaic studies in college.

For clarification, I meant “minored,” not “majored.”

Do not forget, Warrior: our goal on this planet is not to end poverty, or to make everyone pleased or tranquil. It is to love others, to love God, and to help others to love others and God. And it is not loving to kill anyone. Hard a pill though it is to take, we must raise our children as well as we can, whether they are born into poverty, or wealth. If our children die in our arms, we are comforted with knowing two things: 1) We raised them as well as we could with what God gave us, and 2) hopefully, they will be in God’s care forever after they have died.

I also wanted to add that the first two statements, in particular, are interesting, because they shoot down one of the major arguments against contraception and subsequent population declines: economic.

 

[Nate13]

For clarification, I meant “minored,” not “majored.”
I also wanted to add that the first two statements, in particular, are interesting, because they shoot down one of the major arguments against contraception and subsequent population declines: economic.

I think what he was getting at with that statement is that the end goal is not to end poverty by any means necessary (including communism). It would be equally bad to not worry about poverty at all. The point is that we don’t use unmoral means to achieve a moral end. I think that is the definition of contraception btw

 

[Nate13]

I’m the adopted parent of several abandoned children, so my position should be blatantly obvious.

They lived in a different time. If you studied Judaic studies in college I’m sure you know plenty about how different civilizations interacted back then. I also think there is a difference between adopting a child who has been hurt because of other people, and adopting a child that doesn’t have parents because you just took them out. You would also have to consider how important bloodline was to the Israelite’s.

 

[Warrior1979]

They lived in a different time. If you studied Judaic studies in college I’m sure you know plenty about how different civilizations interacted back then. I also think there is a difference between adopting a child who has been hurt because of other people, and adopting a child that doesn’t have parents because you just took them out. You would also have to consider how important bloodline was to the Israelite’s.

Are you attempting to support my thesis that morals can change over time?