On limiting population growth thru contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Warrior1979 said:
Are you attempting to support my thesis that morals can change over time?😃
Click to expand...
Not anymore than I’m trying to say that the Church’s position of the death penalty has changed over time. The Church’s position hasn’t changed but the conditions on which it is applied have changed. Where before there were very few cases where we could be sure to keep someone locked up, this is now becoming something we are capable of doing. The same would apply to the commandment to not murder. Determining whether killing is murdering is subject to that person’s innocence. I’m suggesting that while today we would assume all children are innocent by virtue of being children, would people at that time have held the same view?
 
Nate13 said:
I’m suggesting that while today we would assume all children are innocent by virtue of being children, would people at that time have held the same view?
Click to expand...
The standard isn’t what “people” think, but rather what God thinks. We have situations in the past where God ordered the killing of children below the age of understanding (i.e., innocent), whereas today this is prohibited by the Church (who represent God on Earth). One cannot argue that morals are consistent and unchanging with regard to this particular matter.
 
Warrior1979 said:
The standard isn’t what “people” think, but rather what God thinks. We have situations in the past where God ordered the killing of children below the age of understanding (i.e., innocent), whereas today this is prohibited by the Church (who represent God on Earth). One cannot argue that morals are consistent and unchanging with regard to this particular matter.
Click to expand...
Why is saying that God changed his mind about whether murder was wrong at times easier for you to believe than that the determination of innocence has changed?
 
Nate13 said:
Why is saying that God changed his mind about whether murder was wrong at times easier for you to believe than that the determination of innocence has changed?
Click to expand...
It may not have changed. But maybe someone can explain to me how babies become guilty and worthy of killing. What is the Church standard for allowing this to occur?
 
Warrior1979, #116
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.
Click to expand...
Those similarly confused may consult Doctrine, Dogma, Infallible Statement
Question on 12-05-2008, (EWTN) to see the truth at tinyurl.com/3rr3lrr
  1. Ignored among the things “the Saviour said” is the rock of fact that Jesus transferred His authority to teach on Peter:
    All four promises to Peter alone:
    “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
    “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
    I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
    “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
    Sole authority:
    “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
    “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
  2. Consequently, ignored is the fact that one of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).
  3. Ignored is the fact that Vatican I declared an infallible dogma on papal infallibility on faith and morals, so that in Casti Connubii contraception is defined infallibly by Pius XI as:
    “56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
  4. Ignored is the fact that in *Humanae Vitae *confronting the challenge of the “Pill”, Paul VI defined infallibly:
    “14…. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
  5. Ignored is the fact that even for non-infallible authoritative teaching “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.”
Bl John Paul II has affirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Donum Veritatis, CDF, 1990, #36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”……which is “public opposition to the Magisterium” (#32), which we’ve seen here.

The problem is that some who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices (William James).​

 
Warrior1979 said:
It may not have changed. But maybe someone can explain to me how babies become guilty and worthy of killing. What is the Church standard for allowing this to occur?
Click to expand...
Put yourself in the shoes of the Israelite’s at that time and ask yourself that question. I think the answer may lie in how people outside of the Israelite’s were treated. If a married Israelite man having sex with a non-Israelite slave is not considered adultery, would it be surprising if killing non-Israelite children was not considered murder?
 
Abu said:
Those similarly confused
Click to expand...
Why do you bother? Reason isn’t relevant in your world, so you will never have the slightest clue as to what anyone outside your myopic little world is referring to.
 
Nate13 said:
Put yourself in the shoes of the Israelite’s at that time and ask yourself that question. I think the answer may lie in how people outside of the Israelite’s were treated. If a married Israelite man having sex with a non-Israelite slave is not considered adultery, would it be surprising if killing non-Israelite children was not considered murder?
Click to expand...
What the Israelis think is not relevant. What God thought and ordered is the issue.
 
Warrior1979 said:
What the Israelis think is not relevant. What God thought and ordered is the issue.

How about this. No one could claim innocence back then no matter what their age because they all had the scar of original sin. The Israelite’s were told to circumcise their children which did not remove the scar, but still was a sign of their faith in God which set them apart from the rest. Am I on to something here?

Also, the fact that God wanted them dead tells us nothing. God allows lives to end everyday regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty so it tells us nothing that God wanted these people dead in regards to their innocence or guilt. This goes back to where we started though. You didn’t have a problem with God killing innocent people, but rather with his method. If he had wiped them all out with a disease we would have nothing to discuss. The problem you had was the method used which involved people.

Why do you bother? Reason isn’t relevant in your world, so you will never have the slightest clue as to what anyone outside your myopic little world is referring to.
Are you nuts? A majority of the time differences of opinion occur because of the premises by which each side basis their reason on, not their ability to reason itself. Thus someone who debates about abortion with the premise that a child is not a life until he/she is outside the mother’s womb 9 months later can make a reasonable argument, but still be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Warrior1979 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We live not for the world, but for God. Once again, that trumps everything.

“And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth [M]e.” Matt 18:5.

Contraception may be Tradition (with a capital T), and you may not like that. But that’s what most of what we believe in stands on - the Scripture and Traditions of God. God loves children, and they love Him. Even if they die young, if they die knowing Christ, they are easy victories for Heaven.
 
Warrior1979 said:
Our current food production system uses a massive amount of nonrenewable resources, and our current population levels can only exist because of it.
Click to expand...
True – as soon as cheap and plentiful oil was discovered in 1859, our population – which had been relatively stable at one billion – skyrocketed to seven billion today. That level is only sustainable as long as we have cheap, plentiful petroleum, or a scalable alternative, which so far is lacking. Eventually the population will crash back the solar sustainable level.
 
StAnastasia said:
True – as soon as cheap and plentiful oil was discovered in 1859, our population – which had been relatively stable at one billion – skyrocketed to seven billion today. That level is only sustainable as long as we have cheap, plentiful petroleum, or a scalable alternative, which so far is lacking. Eventually the population will crash back the solar sustainable level.
Click to expand...
The only places having more than 2-3 children on average as of 2005 are most of the countries in Africa and a couple Middle Eastern countries. The amount of resources 1 person in Africa consumes compared to the amount of resources 1 person in America consumes is not even a close comparison though. All of the problems you are talking about are not population problems, they are consumption problems. If we had a population of 1 billion people in the world instead of the current population everyone would just be consuming more resources and at best it might just take a little longer to run out of oil. Individuals can make their own decisions about the number of children they want to have based on what they consider being able to live a quality lifestyle. When oil runs out and the price goes up we will either find a new alternative or we will all have a decrease in our quality of life until another solution is found. I believe its stupid to blame population as the problem though when the problem is really a consumption issue if anything.

I personally don’t have a huge problem with our consumption of oil up to this point. Its use has allowed humanity to progress incredibly quickly and make record advances to get to a point where we have the ability to find lasting solutions for the solution. I believe that is how this era will be considered in the distant future. Like a nitrous shot during a cross galaxy race 😉
 
Nate13 said:
All of the problems you are talking about are not population problems, they are consumption problems.

They are both. Overconsumption and overpopulation are twin pillars of our ecological crises.
If we had a population of 1 billion people in the world instead of the current population everyone would just be consuming more resources and at best it might just take a little longer to run out of oil.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Relax guys. When we use everything up & have no more energy. People will revert to living until they are 30-40 years of age as people have always done up until the last two hundred years or so of our 3.5 million year existence. Short life spans were always the norm according to archaeologists.
 
You said:
Relax guys. When we use everything up & have no more energy. People will revert to living until they are 30-40 years of age as people have always done up until the last two hundred years or so of our 3.5 million year existence. Short life spans were always the norm according to archaeologists.
Click to expand...
We will also revert to a much smaller, solar-sustainable population. The earth cannot sustain an infinitely growing population of elephants, sharks, squirrels, humans, fire ants, or eagles. All species reach equilibrium with the ecology that sustains them, and humans will at some point reach zero population growth.
 
StAnastasia said:
We will also revert to a much smaller, solar-sustainable population. The earth cannot sustain an infinitely growing population of elephants, sharks, squirrels, humans, fire ants, or eagles. All species reach equilibrium with the ecology that sustains them, and humans will at some point reach zero population growth.
Click to expand...
In the developed world we already have reached a zero population growth. The only places where the population is still growing is in Africa and parts of the Middle East. This only furthers my point though that consumption is the problem not population. There really is some irony to the fact that in the middle of our energy crisis we have millions of people everyday climbing on a treadmill. I’d be curious to know how much energy we could tap into through people exercising.
 
Of course the demographic winter is here, but how can we forget the monumental errors and deliberate inhumanity of those in many countries steeped in graft and corruption, and often warring tribes and revolution, and which have profited little from the massive aid provided, and the great advances of great men like Norman Borlaug who actually lived among them and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution.

He is one of just six people to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And yet Dr. Borlaug, who died September, 2009, is scarcely known in his own country (U.S.A.). Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor.

Mankind’s ability to solve problems has been proved relentlessly, and the ability to grow and provide food for everyone needs only the training in agricultural know-how, the building and proper use of dams where needed, and the sensible stewardship which benevolent governments understanding subsidiarity and solidarity can provide.
 
Abu said:
Mankind’s ability to solve problems has been proved relentlessly, and the ability to grow and provide food for everyone needs only the training in agricultural know-how, the building and proper use of dams where needed, and the sensible stewardship which benevolent governments understanding subsidiarity and solidarity can provide.
Click to expand...
Food production to support seven billion people is premised upon cheap, abundant petroleum. That era is rapidly drawing to a close. At present there is no replacement for petroleum sufficient to supply the energy needs. The next decade will be interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top