Struggle accepting Church’s teaching on Contraception, Homosexuality, and Priest Chastity

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrsK0224
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrsK0224

Guest
I’m a cradle Catholic, and I love my Catholic family. I’ve been growing deeper in my faith, and have run into stumbling blocks trying to reconcile the Church’s teaching on various issues. It is breaking my heart, and I don’t know how to work past it.
  1. I don’t agree that there is a theological basis for accepting NFP but rejecting other forms of contraception.
  2. I struggle to accept the practicality of calling all homosexual persons to a life of chastity (EDIT: I meant celibacy, sorry.).
  3. I don’t agree that Priests should be required to live a life of chastity (EDIT: I meant celibacy, sorry). Not only was this not always a requirement of the Church (Peter himself was married), but I also feel it creates Priests that cannot actually put themselves in their parishioners’ shoes. I feel the Church’s stance is more rooted in financial objections (how can we pay for Priests’ family expenses?) rather than in a moral objection.
  4. I struggle with the claim that the Church leaders are always infallible. They’ve changed their position on various topics throughout the centuries, which means that previous leaders were necessarily wrong on certain issues, correct? Is it really impossible for the Pope to make a mistake? We know that infallibility does not apply to their personal lives obviously (as seen in sex abuse cases), but is it realistic to believe that Church doctrine is ALWAYS infallible?
I feel like I’ve done so much research into these topics, and I can’t get past these. My husband (also a cradle Catholic) is practically one foot out the door from the Church because of these issues. I don’t know what to do. I feel like a fraud going to Church and not being in complete agreement with Church teaching, but it breaks my heart to think of not being able to receive the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist.

Help!
 
Last edited:
MrsK0224 said:
I struggle with the claim that the Church leaders are always infallible.
Click to expand...
Don’t know how much it helps, but the actual claim is that the Pope only speaks infallibly about very specific teachings on faith and that these are rare occasions, to date, only the Doctrine of Mary’s Assumption has been proclaimed as an infallible doctrine.


As for 1, 2, and 3 - yeah, I feel your pain…
 
MrsK0224 said:
I don’t agree that there is a theological basis for accepting NFP but rejecting other forms of contraception.
Click to expand...
NFP is simply information. That is it. God designed the female body to give specific signals when she ovulates. He gave us rational minds to interpret these signs. What we do with that information is a decision made by the couple. Married couples decide every day to have or not have relations based on a number of factors (have to get up early for work, have a cold, pulled my quad at the gym) one other factor (I am fertile, and this is not the best time to welcome a child) is simply using the information.
MrsK0224 said:
  • I struggle to accept the practicality of calling all homosexual persons to a life of chastity.
  • I don’t agree that Priests should be required to live a life of chastity.
Click to expand...
ALL people are called to chastity according to their state in life. Married people are called to marital chastity, single people to single chastity.

Maybe you mean celibacy?

God made sex for valid marriage. It is simply misuse of the gift of sexual pleasure when done outside of a valid marriage.
MrsK0224 said:
I struggle with the claim that the Church leaders are always infallible.
Click to expand...
This is not the teaching of the Church.
 
Yes, I meant celibacy. I’m sorry, I mistyped.

You’re right - Perhaps it would be more accurate then to say that my struggle is that I do not agree that Priests should not be allowed to marry.

I also struggle to agree that homosexual people should not be allowed to marry since they were born that way. If God created them to be homosexual, then how can it be disordered? By virtue of it being created by God who can do no wrong, how can the way someone was created be intrinsically disordered? And if it is not intrinsically disordered, then I don’t see the justification for why they should not be allowed to marry.

If Catholic Church does not teach that it is infallible, then it leads me to believe that it can’t require all of its members to treat it as infallible. Therefore, even if my beliefs on certain issues are in conflict with the teachings of the Church, then I can still be considered fully Catholic. Thoughts on this welcome.
 
Last edited:
MrsK0224 said:
If God created them to be homosexual, then how can it be disordered? By virtue of it being created by God who can do no wrong, how can the way someone was created be intrinsically disordered?
Click to expand...
I was born with dwarfism. It is incurable, a life of constant pain and social rejection.

Because of original sin, disorders and diseases and genetic malformations entered the world.

Society tells us that marriage is about love, romance and a public commitment of that love.

The Church tells us that marriage is something different. The ends of marriage are specific. Romantic love is not one of the ends of marriage (it is nice icing on the cake!!)

The Church does not teach that everything said/written by a Pope is infallible. Pope Francis may say tomorrow that Brussels sprouts are vile. This does not make the big bag of Brussels sprouts in my freezer somehow sinful.

Infallibility is a very narrow, specific thing. Few dogmas have been declared infallible, the most recent being Pope John Paul II’s statement on the ordination of women.

Things can be binding and not be declared infallible, this is also clearly defined.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/892.htm

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
 
I appreciate your points, and I will reflect more on the relationship between original sin and resulting disorders/diseases in the world today.

In the meantime, assuming that what you say is true, that homosexuality (along with other disorders/diseases) is not God’s doing but is the result of our sin, then why is there not a longer list of disorders/diseases that would prevent a valid marriage in the church? Why is homosexuality singled out as the only disorder/disease that prohibits a valid marriage?

The Church tells us that the primary purpose of marriage is offspring, BUT according to Canon Law: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (#1084.3). Even if you have a known disorder/disease BEFORE marriage that renders you sterile, you are still permitted to marry in the Catholic Church. Why is that?

It would be easier for me to accept that homosexual persons are not permitted to marry if they weren’t the only ones. It seems as though they are being unfairly singled out as a result of cultural prejudices.
 
MrsK0224 said:
Why is homosexuality singled out as the only disorder/disease that prohibits a valid marriage?
Click to expand...
Well, to be nit-picking (a grand hobby of mine) male impotency also is a disorder that invalidates a potential marriage.

But, as you mentioned, sterility does not, so - yeah - it is a bit confusing.
 
Thank you, I’d forgotten about that one.

Yes, it is confusing. Supposedly the primary purpose of marriage is offspring… but, it’s ok to be sterile (unable to have kids) so long as you can at least have sex (aren’t impotent). Huh?
 
MrsK0224 said:
then why is there not a longer list of disorders/diseases that would prevent a valid marriage in the church? Why is homosexuality singled out as the only disorder/disease that prohibits a valid marriage?
Click to expand...
It is not. Marriage is not permitted if either spouse has a valid, living spouse.

Impotence, lack of genital organs,

§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

 
Last edited:
Having a valid, living spouse is not a disorder/disease.

Yes, someone else just pointed out that impotency prohibits a valid marriage, which I grant that I’d forgotten, but still doesn’t really help me reconcile the situation. Sterile couples can still get married even though it is impossible for them to fulfill the “primary purpose” of marriage.

I wish I could just schedule an appointment with the Pope to have a face-to-face chat about all this.

The ultimate point is that IF the Catholic Church is perfectly in line with what Jesus wants, then I’m all for it and will accept all the teachings even if they’re hard for me to accept. I want to be a follower of Christ, and I don’t want the Church to be a democracy.

I believe that God created me with a conscience that aligns with Him and draws me closer to Him. It is because of this that I am having a hard time believing the aforementioned teachings of the Church - I don’t feel like I recognize Jesus in some of the Church’s teachings.
 
MrsK0224 said:
Having a valid, living spouse is not a disorder/disease.
Click to expand...
No, but it does prohibit one from entering into a valid marriage.

Marriage is not a “right”, it has qualifiers.
MrsK0224 said:
Sterile couples can still get married even though it is impossible for them to fulfill the “primary purpose” of marriage.
Click to expand...
Sterile couples can still become one flesh.
 
I envy your unwavering faith. I hope that one day God will grant me the same grace.
 
Oh, there are things I struggle with every. single. day.

Thing is, either I am right and the Church is wrong or VV. I have come to the stage in life where I realize that I am far more likely to be wrong, so, I assent with my will and let God take care of the rest,
 
Most couples can’t survive without being able to otherwise abstinence wouldn’t be such a problem
 
Last edited:
NFP can certainly be used for the purposes of contraception if the couple believes it best to avoid pregnancy. This is not in opposition to Church teaching.
 
Contraception is an act, device, etc that renders the marital act sterile.

NFP, is information. The marital act either occurs or the couple decides to wait a couple of days. Nothing renders the act sterile.

Make sense?
 
Contraception is defined as: The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

It is called Natural Family Planning because it provides the information needed to plan your family. This information could be for achieving a pregnancy OR avoiding a pregnancy while still remaining sexually active (contraception) depending on your circumstances.

You are arguing semantics, and I’m not sure what your purpose for doing so is. Are you trying to claim that the Church does not teach that NFP can be used for avoiding a pregnancy? If so, you are wrong.
 
NFP (which is a broad, generic term) is not Contraception.

The information that comes from observing your body’s signals is not a method or a technique. It is simple information.
 
This is the definition of NFP according to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the general title for the scientific, natural and moral methods of family planning that can help married couples either achieve or postpone pregnancies .

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/index.cfm

Now, you tell me what it is called when you use a method (notice USCCB’s word here) to avoid/postpone a pregnancy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top