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

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

This is the official Vatican clarification.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

Please be careful about trying to read something in to statements that isn’t there to support what you wish it to.

Also good article from Dr. Janet Smith

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39277&page=1

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39277&page=2

there are 2 pages…

It came out though prior to the CDC doc…so that is the most authoritative

 

[Bookcat]

In the Vademecum for Confessors issued by the Vatican it states:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” -Vademecum for Confessors 2:4…emp added.

 

[Debora123]

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?

Is that really what the Pope said?? Wow, interesting.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Well then you better believe it, because here I am!

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.

Obviously you don’t know what I’ve been through, otherwise you wouldn’t be making these false claims. Especially the first one about me not caring.

 

[joclucsylv]

Is that really what the Pope said?? Wow, interesting.

Debora, you are more well read than me cause you went to Catholic school. Are you reading that statement how I am reading it. That they should use condoms?? Tell me how you read it because I can relate to you.

 

[Debora123]

**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.

There are a lot of things I don’t understand either. Either way though, we must treat each other with respect and kindness, even though we may not understand where they are coming from.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Actually, NFP (which at that time was more like an old version of the rhythm method) DID exist. But then again, this only adds to the question of why the Church didn’t OK it until a few dozen years ago.

 

[Bookcat]

Is that really what the Pope said?? Wow, interesting.

No wow needed.

He is not approving the use of condoms etc…he is simply saying it is a good sign…that the person is starting to realize there are consequences to his actions and that his “intention” to try to lessen the risk of aids is a good sign…a step…you know a small step to conversion…to change of life etc…he is starting to realize that there is more to the world then what one wants or wills or ones self…that his actions effect other too…

like if I was a serial killer who liked to carve his initials into his victims for fun as they die…if I decided that this was too painful and so I decided to kill them first intending to lessen their suffering…that too would said to be a step in the right direction … …a first step…cause I am starting to think in terms of others … but my actions are * still very evil*.

 

[GEddie]

The Roman Empire at the time of our LORD was famous for its lavish banquets, where guests would gorge themselves,then go outside and vomit so as to resume the process. Among the Roman elites, this was the “thing to do.”

Today, we consider such behavior to be revolting and reprehensible. The few people who use vomiting as a means to void weight gain are seen as having an “eating disorder.”

Why? Because behavior of this type seeks pleasure through misusing the natural functioning of the human body.

The day will come when contraceptive sexuality is seen in the same way. It, too, is a gross misuse of the functioning of the human body, purely for pleasure. If we do not see this now, it is because we have become scientific about the body’s nutritive functions, while remaining hedonic about sexuality.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bookcat]

Debora, you are more well read than me cause you went to Catholic school. Are you reading that statement how I am reading it. That they should use condoms?? Tell me how you read it because I can relate to you.

No is does NOT say they should use condoms.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Some interesting reading for those in doubt of the infallibility of the Church’s stance on contraception:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MODTEACH.HTM

catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

 

[Bookcat]

Debora, you are more well read than me cause you went to Catholic school. Are you reading that statement how I am reading it. That they should use condoms?? Tell me how you read it because I can relate to you.

“In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does **not **constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus”

From the statement…

 

[Bookcat]

The Pope is saying that the fact that the person used condoms intending to lessen the risk…that the “intention” was a step in the right direction…cause the person is basically starting to think of others…though is actions are quite evil…it is a step in the right direction…towards conversion…

Just like if I am a bank robber and I take a loaded gun to rob the bank with me usually…

but then later I decide to unload it…and take an empty gun to rob the bank with to reduce the risk of people dying …

such is a step in the right direction.

But my saying that is not an endorsement of bank robing or using empty guns to rob banks…

it is just a good sign that the person is starting to become more aware of others…which is a “first step”!!

 

[Bookcat]

Are you reading that statement how I am reading it. That they should use condoms?? Tell me how you read it because I can relate to you.

\

The Pope is saying that the fact that the person used condoms intending to lessen the risk…that the “intention” was a step in the right direction…cause the person is basically starting to think of others…though is actions are quite evil…it is a step in the right direction…towards conversion…

Just like if I am a bank robber and I take a loaded gun to rob the bank with me usually…

but then later I decide to unload it…and take an empty gun to rob the bank with to reduce the risk of people dying …

such is a step in the right direction.

But my saying that is not an endorsement of bank robing or using empty guns to rob banks…

My dawning intention to lessen the risk does not make things good or ok…

it is just a good sign that the person is starting to become more aware of others…which is a “first step”!!

 

[joclucsylv]

Actually, NFP (which at that time was more like an old version of the rhythm method) DID exist. But then again, this only adds to the question of why the Church didn’t OK it until a few dozen years ago.

Ahha Deb. You see it as I. What year did the church ok NFP??

 

[Corki]

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??

That’s not what the Pope (it was Benedict the XVI, by the way) said. Here is his actual quote:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Love is not in there at al. It is a first step in the realization that sex must include responsibiity and that it has a moral component.

It can never be an act of love to engage in prostitution, with or without a condom…

 

[Bookcat]

Great quote from A MUST READ..from Pope Pius XI…remember this is the time when some Protestants in England started allowing some use of contraception…contrary to Protestant belief up to that time:

"In response to the Church of England’s approval of artificial birth control, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical “Casti Connubii” on December 31, 1930, stating, “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 away 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.”

(from ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM)

 

[vsedriver]

My husband and I have just recently gotten married this past August, both fresh outta college. It is for financial reasons that we want to wait.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Actually, NFP (which at that time was more like an old version of the rhythm method) DID exist. But then again, this only adds to the question of why the Church didn’t OK it until a few dozen years ago.

No, there is a statement made by Pope Pius IX in 1853 about the use of “rhythm”. I would imagine that means we understood such things long before then.

The quotes are within this article. I’m having trouble coming up with just the Pope Pius link:
cmri.org/03-nfp.html

 

[Corki]

Please stop saying that the teaching on ABC is infallible. This has never been agreed upon by theologians, bishops, priests or cardinals, and has never been officially declared by any pope. Methinks that given the ENORMOUS disagreement over the issue and he fact that it is supposedly so important to our souls and the fact that more than 90% of Catholics ignore and disagree with this teaching, that the Pope would simply come out and make an ex-cathedra statement or simply say in nonuncertain terms “this has been infallibly taught by the magisterium” to clarify it and save some souls, but no pope ever has. I wonder why?

It has been taught infallibly by the magesterium, that’s true. It has not been proclaimed ex cathedra. Infallible doesn’t mean consensus. It has been officially declared by the Pope, several of them, in fact. That’s what Humanae Vitae was all about and Casti Conubii before that. Those are seriously official declarations. If it helps to keep you from getting confused on the types of infallible declarations, you can call the teaching on contraception “authoritative”, “binding” and “irreformable”. The end result is the same.