"Paul VI to be declared venerable next week" [Rome Reports]

[Melchior_1]

What does that even mean, “conscience in deciding the size of families?” Example?

My wife has a medical condition/disability which makes raising children difficult, she has already had two breakdowns (both of which almost leading to her death) in two years. There are times I need to work full-time, take care of her, and take care of my two year old son. All while having the body of a 65 year old man (according to our family doctor) and having my own mental illness issues. I already can’t keep up with the boy sometimes. Plus there’s the money issue.

We do want more children, we’d like three or four or however many God would give us. But based on what I said above, it would not be in good conscience for us to have another child right now. It would cause my wife to slide further, and simply put I have a hard enough time keeping things together sometimes.

What Pope Paul VI is saying is that my wife and I can use our conscience and if the situation does not improve we can continue with our family of three. One can do this naturally and inline with Church teaching.

What happened, as what was mentioned before, people took what he first said and twisted it around. Paul VI perhaps didn’t think people would need further instruction on the matter. But, like so many other times (otherwise we wouldn’t need numerous councils to explain and re-explain things, we’d only have one creed), it turns out people did need more instruction. That’s where HV comes in.

 

[ProVobis]

But, like so many other times (otherwise we wouldn’t need numerous councils to explain and re-explain things, we’d only have one creed), it turns out people did need more instruction. That’s where HV comes in.

But even here HV didn’t clarify, partly because it took so long in the making. Much of the world was already familiar with the birth control pill as it was approved by the FDA back in 1960. As BrJR pointed out to me in another forum, the pill is neutral. It is neither good or evil in itself. Its use in treating menstual disorders had been earlier approved by Pius XII. So one can take the pill but she can’t take it for ABC. Sometimes there is a fine line with the actual intent. However, if you don’t take the pill, then there seems to be no problem. That part isn’t in dispute, unless your conscience tells you that your wife must conceive at every opportunity.

 

[The_Reginator]

Now that I think about it, it seems that maybe it should be automatic to consider each pope for canonization. They are the successors of Peter and carry a great burden as the Vicars of Christ.

I’m not suggesting that every pope is a saint, but considering their calling it seems that there is a good chance that they are indeed in heaven and praying for us. Maybe the Church will investigate each one some day. (Or not.)

Thoughts?

 

[ProVobis]

Although I can see how liberal/progressive thinkers would indeed highjack that paragraph,

I see some truth to that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Friday meat abstinence, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Communion and all other fasting requirements, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted an all-vernacular Mass and cut off all Latin, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted to simplify the Mass, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted communion in the hand, and he gave them that.

Not to undermine the beatification of the Pope but does one not see a pattern here? Is it possible that other things beside the conscience clause were being misinterpreted?

 

[The_Reginator]

I see some truth to that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Friday meat abstinence, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Communion and all other fasting requirements, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted an all-vernacular Mass and cut off all Latin, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted to simplify the Mass, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted communion in the hand, and he gave them that.

Not to undermine the beatification of the Pope but does one not see a pattern here? Is it possible that other things beside the conscience clause were being misinterpreted?

When I first heard of his beatification I had similar thoughts. After a while I began to see another possible side, which is my post above.

 

[The_Scott]

I see some truth to that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Friday meat abstinence, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted the Pope to relax Communion and all other fasting requirements, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted an all-vernacular Mass and cut off all Latin, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted to simplify the Mass, and he gave them that.

The “liberal/progressives” wanted communion in the hand, and he gave them that.

Not to undermine the beatification of the Pope but does one not see a pattern here? Is it possible that other things beside the conscience clause were being misinterpreted?

At the same time: all those things you listed above are disciplines, and the Pope has the right to change them. The use of artificial contraceptives, however, is not a matter of discipline, but an unchangeable doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

The use of artificial contraceptives, however, is not a matter of discipline, but an unchangeable doctrine.

I did not challenge that. I challenged your use of the term “liberal/progressive” in interpreting the “conscience” clause. I’m sure that there are many so-called “conservatives” (not necessarily Catholics) today who are quite open with artificial contraceptions.

 

[ProVobis]

Thoughts?

The church counts less than a third of all 264 dead popes as saints, and most were canonized by popular acclaim in the first centuries of Christianity, often because they were martyrs. Only five were canonized in the entire second millennium, and when Pius X, who died in 1914, was made a saint in 1954 — by Pius XII — he was the first pope so honored in nearly 400 years.

Now nearly every recent pope is on the canonization track. John Paul II beatified Pius IX, the 19th-century pope who is a polarizing figure because of his belief in the power of the papacy and his views on Judaism. But like Benedict, John Paul did a little ticket-balancing. He simultaneously beatified the popular John XXIII, who convened the liberalizing Second Vatican Council in 1962. The canonization process for Paul VI, who followed John XXIII, is underway, and there is a campaign to beatify John Paul I, who reigned a mere 33 days before his death in 1978.

This trend, by some accounts, is creating several problems.

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/01/heres-a-pope-quiz-how-many-are-saints.html#ixzz2GBHOtAD1

(too much to copy and paste here, but the line that sums it up is the last line: “[Is he} a leader of the church or a model of sanctity?” )

blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/01/heres-a-pope-quiz-how-many-are-saints.html
[/quote]

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I did not challenge that. I challenged your use of the term “liberal/progressive” in interpreting the “conscience” clause. I’m sure that there are many so-called “conservatives” (not necessarily Catholics) today who are quite open with artificial contraceptions.

There are. In fact many Christians consider marital contraception to be a responsible thing, a good.

Scott Hahn speaks about this in the beginning of his biography - Rome Sweet Home. Many protestants don’t necessarily see contraception as being against openess to life. A couple who has children but also ontracepts would be considered to be open to life in that understanding.

Going back to the disciplines changed by the Pope. They are all things that he has the authority to change. And also things that have been warped by certain people’s interpretations or implemenations, but we can’t blame that on the Pope - he was not a mind-reader or fortune-teller!

We also need to remember that the world was already changing. Marital contraception was already common place among protestants (since the 1930s) and adherance to Church teaching and practices were already on a downswing world wide.

Implementation of any council takes time, and with what was going on in the world, crazy things were bound to happen anyway. Praise God for the Church which, despite turmoil, is sure to lead us to heaven in the end!

God bless our recent Popes. Whatever is decided about the eventual cannonization of any pope will be an infalliable statement of that person’s sanctity. I am very sure that all our modern popes are/will be in heaven, whether a declaration is made or not.

 

[The_Scott]

I did not challenge that. I challenged your use of the term “liberal/progressive” in interpreting the “conscience” clause. I’m sure that there are many so-called “conservatives” (not necessarily Catholics) today who are quite open with artificial contraceptions.

Alright. I see your point. I believe my original point (post #13) still stands, though, even if “liberal/progressive” is not the most apt term.