The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church cannot do that. The Church cannot change its constant moral teaching. Contraception has been wrong ever since the beginning of the Church. Indeed, it has been wrong ever since the beginning of time. Even the Old Testament condemns contraception. Therefore, the Church would never and could never do this so this isn’t even a question.
 
Holly3278 said:
The Church cannot do that. The Church cannot change its constant moral teaching. Contraception has been wrong ever since the beginning of the Church. Indeed, it has been wrong ever since the beginning of time. Even the Old Testament condemns contraception. Therefore, the Church would never and could never do this so this isn’t even a question.
Click to expand...
I wonder…

How come Jesus never once brought up the topic of contraception?? :confused:
 
joclucsylv said:
LOL!! That’s what happens when DH is sleeping next to me. Oh well…
Click to expand...
It was a news thing about the issue, but not the actual interview itself. I WISH they had it on youtube or something lol. I am very curious as to what was actually said.
 
sw85 said:
It is precisely because it is her soul that I’m encouraging her to make the right decision.

Pope Benedict’s statement was not that condom use by homosexual prostitutes was morally permissible but that the act of love inherent in it (springing from a desire to avoid infecting the client) constituted a first step toward a fuller and more human understanding of sexuality. Edward Feser provided a good analysis of that speech here.
Click to expand...
If that works for homosexual prostitutes why not for married couples? Especially given that many more people have STDs than think they have; herpes is actually pretty common among other ones.

This is what the Pope actually said -
[Interviewer’s question:] Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Click to expand...
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
Click to expand...
 
silentstar said:
If that works for homosexual prostitutes why not for married couples? Especially given that many more people have STDs than think they have; herpes is actually pretty common among other ones.
Click to expand...
Again…very very bad reporting. Some of these reporters would report that the New York Yankees scored 7 touch downs!

It does NOT work for homosexual prostitutes! It is not OK for them to use them or to engage in their activity…

Here… this is the official statement from the Vatican… from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Please read it …and do not continue to pass on such poor reporting.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
 
Debora123 said:
I find it very hard to believe that any devout Catholic who prayed, followed the faith, talked to a priest, and spent an ample amount of time discerning could ever think murder is not wrong.
Click to expand...
I guess I would say that I find it very hard to believe that any devout Catholic who prayed, followed the faith, talked to a priest, and spent an ample amount of time discerning could ever thing that ABC is not immoral . . . not to mention that the Church is actually in error. 🤷
I understand that.
Click to expand...
I would say that it doesn’t matter to you that much though, considering you are not willing to follow the Church in this matter. You may think you are not being selfish but I think disagreeing with the Church on issues of morals *is *being selfish.
 
**Deborah123 **and joclucsylv (I’m not actually sure if joclucsylv agreed with Debora123 on this, but I’ll direct it toward both of you), the Church teaching that ABC is immoral and that NFP is okay makes perfect sense. ABC is completely about preventing pregnancy at the expense of human sexuality, NFP, on the other hand, does not. Please read these quotations as they are very informative:

Catechism of the Catholic Church | scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370
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.[sup]158[/sup] 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:[sup]159[/sup]
Click to expand...
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[sup]160[/sup]
Click to expand...
2371 “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”[sup]161[/sup]
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
158 HV 16.
159 HV 14.
160 FC 32.
161 GS 51 § 4.
Click to expand...
Humanae Vitae | papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm
  1. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.
Click to expand...
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.[sup]20[/sup]
Click to expand...
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
  1. Cf. Pius XII, AAS XLIII (1951), p. 846.
Click to expand...
I cannot grasp why you two seem to believe the 2,000 year old Church that was established by Christ (as I assume you believe) against which the gates of hell shall not prevail (cf. Mt 16:18), is wrong in this matter and that you are right . . .

P.S. I mean no malice, I say these words with charity and love for my two sisters in Christ. I only wish for the teachings of Holy Mother Church - and thus of the Holy Spirit - to be known.
 
Debora123 said:
I wonder…

How come Jesus never once brought up the topic of contraception?? :confused:
Click to expand...
He did, on July 25th, 1968 through His servant Pope Paul VI. Do you deny that the Holy Father can speak infallibly for Christ regarding faith and morals?
 
Catholic41506 said:
He did, on July 25th, 1968 through His servant Pope Paul VI. Do you deny that the Holy Father can speak infallibly for Christ regarding faith and morals?
Click to expand...
So then, Christ spoke to John Paul about homosexuat and heterosexual prostitutes that it is ok to wear condoms as the first act of love so as to not infect their clients??
 
zach_dunn said:
**Deborah123 **and joclucsylv (I’m not actually sure if joclucsylv agreed with Debora123 on this, but I’ll direct it toward both of you), the Church teaching that ABC is immoral and that NFP is okay makes perfect sense. ABC is completely about preventing pregnancy at the expense of human sexuality, NFP, on the other hand, does not. Please read these quotations as they are very informative:

Catechism of the Catholic Church | scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370

Humanae Vitae | papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

I cannot grasp why you two seem to believe the 2,000 year old Church that was established by Christ (as I assume you believe) against which the gates of hell shall not prevail (cf. Mt 16:18), is wrong in this matter and that you are right . . .

P.S. I mean no malice, I say these words with charity and love for my two sisters in Christ. I only wish for the teachings of Holy Mother Church - and thus of the Holy Spirit - to be known.
Click to expand...
2000 years ago, NFP wasn’t known. It only became ok…what year?? That’s why I have a hard time believing it. Again, I have to think what the apostles would have thought of this practice… Do you think they would have approved of couples using NFP to make 100 percent sure they didn’t have sex during fertile time in order to DELIBERATELY not have a baby. I think not.
 
zach_dunn said:
I guess I would say that I find it very hard to believe that any devout Catholic who prayed, followed the faith, talked to a priest, and spent an ample amount of time discerning could ever thing that ABC is not immoral . . . not to mention that the Church is actually in error. 🤷

I would say that it doesn’t matter to you that much though, considering you are not willing to follow the Church in this matter. You may think you are not being selfish but I think disagreeing with the Church on issues of morals *is *being selfish.
Click to expand...
Zach, the church can err. My priest told my old testament class that because of the mistake of ONE pope, China isn’t Catholic today. If this pope would have handled it differently, China would be Catholic. Now tell me, how come Christ didn’t speak to this pope?? They do make mistakes, and there were bad popes. People say it can’t err in faith in morals. Well it certainly lacked in faith this time, for the Chinese people would be in quite a different boat today if that pope would have lead the right way.
 
joclucsylv said:
So then, Christ spoke to John Paul about homosexuat and heterosexual prostitutes that it is ok to wear condoms as the first act of love so as to not infect their clients??
Click to expand...
The Church has never taught that it is okay for prostitutes to wear condoms. I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up as it isn’t true and several posters have tried to provide you with documentation.
 
joclucsylv said:
2000 years ago, NFP wasn’t known. It only became ok…what year?? That’s why I have a hard time believing it. Again, I have to think what the apostles would have thought of this practice… Do you think they would have approved of couples using NFP to make 100 percent sure they didn’t have sex during fertile time in order to DELIBERATELY not have a baby. I think not.
Click to expand...
Our Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Holy Father the successor of Peter. The Apostles believe in this practice and we are bound to follow it.
Your aforementioned statements show a lack of understanding regarding NFP and its purpose.
 
joclucsylv said:
Zach, the church can err. My priest told my old testament class that because of the mistake of ONE pope, China isn’t Catholic today. If this pope would have handled it differently, China would be Catholic. Now tell me, how come Christ didn’t speak to this pope?? They do make mistakes, and there were bad popes. People say it can’t err in faith in morals. Well it certainly lacked in faith this time, for the Chinese people would be in quite a different boat today if that pope would have lead the right way.
Click to expand...
No, the Church cannot teach error. Please provide documentation that a successor of Peter caused apostasy in China.
If your priest is teaching that the Church can teach error, you need to report your priest to your local bishop.
 
Catholic41506 said:
Our Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Holy Father the successor of Peter. The Apostles believe in this practice and we are bound to follow it.
Your aforementioned statements show a lack of understanding regarding NFP and its purpose.
Click to expand...
It is what I is. I understand how I understand. It’s ok.
 
Catholic41506 said:
The Church has never taught that it is okay for prostitutes to wear condoms. I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up as it isn’t true and several posters have tried to provide you with documentation.
Click to expand...
Please edxplain to me in layman’s terms then. Don’t cite documents. Explain. I am not as well learned as you all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top