RE:July 27 newsletter

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack_roscoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jack_roscoe

Guest
It saddens me that Karl lists basic Catholic doctine that we must accept such as the condemnation of abortion and without qualification lists artificial contraception in the list. There is no comparison between abortion and artificial birth control. Abortion is always wrong unless the choice is between death of mother or death of child. Artificial contraception is an unsettled issue with many, many bishops around the world advising their priests that each couple must decide on its use AFTER determining the church’s teachings and the application of those teachings to their own situation.
 
I’ll be blunt: You are entirely wrong. The morality or contraception is not up for grabs. The Church has spoken definitively on the matter, and it has done so for centuries. Contraception is always seriously immoral–even if some wayward priests and bishops indicate otherwise.
 
Jack, I must admit that I find the newsletter often irritating and annoying. Its sort of like the “hairshirt” effect that I have been reading about. It seems that the things that adgitate us often are intentionally done such that we won’t slump into complacent comfortable Christianity. The kind that is neither hot nor cold. Perhaps it is on purpose that the newsletter places folks sometimes in the situation of addressing uncomfortable matters.

On the surface, one might overlook the Abortion - Contraception connection, but history bears this out as a simple statstical sampling of those whom have had or are planning to have an abortion. The results would show that those who consider abortion as a viable option do so because to them (and sadly to much of society) it is just another form of “Birth Control”. It prevents the birth, even thought as far as the conception, well I guess thats a little ex post facto…I think I said that correctly.

Rarely do those whom consider abortion a viable option, seriously reflect on its murderous qualities or societal implications. One of the things that the Church has always respected is that one cannot be forced to follow the straight and narrow. Sure there has been gross violations by various clergy in the past that might make one say “see there, they FORCED them” to do such and such, but the teaching of the Church has never been to institute a mandatory religous premise as did Henry VIII and any number of tyrannical dictators. This is a cause which brings me great difficulty, for it would surely seem more reasonable that the Church insist that, for the sake of salvation, that laws are created to prevent any number of circumstances from taking place that could or would draw people into eternal peril.

The Church however doesn’t take this kind of forceful approach, nor did Christ. Me on the otherhand, I relate to the means that Simon Peter employed when he cut off the servant’s ear. The rest of the story is how he was admonished by Jesus for doing it, thus I too find myself admonished when I try to weild a overwhelming dose of moral authority in my home or work. We are taught that the greatest tools one can employ when doing moral combat is prayer and fasting. Good grief! Wouldn’t just passing a few laws and putting the matter in the hands of the legal system be better? It may seem that such would be better, by human standards, but often what appears solid in the eyes of men is only temporal and transparent in the light of eternity.

Sure Jack, regardless of what the Church teaches, folks will always have the choice to accept or to reject it. Lets just hope that they are guided by the Holy Spirit when they consider their decisions.

He said “Not everyone who calls me “Lord!, Lord”…”
 
Another important connection between birth control and abortion is that the most popular form of contraception is also an abortificant! The birth control pill aborts as one of its functions!

Let alone the fact that a birth control culture also gives rise to abortions!
 
jack roscoe:
…Artificial contraception is an unsettled issue with many, many bishops around the world advising their priests that each couple must decide on its use AFTER determining the church’s teachings and the application of those teachings to their own situation.
Are you reading a different Catechism than I am?
**2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
**
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil…
It doesn’t sound like it should be all too difficult to, “determine the church’s teachings.” It sounds like the application of those determinable teachings is where people have problems…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top