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.
zach_dunn said:
It’s not against the natural law, therefore the Apostles would be OK with it. Do you think they were OK with the use of ABC back then? No! The idea is forbidden by the Bible.
Click to expand...
The Bible doesn’t condemn birth control explicitly. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it really mention the topic. We only know that contraception is a sin from Sacred Tradition/patristics, and even more extrabiblically, from the points of view held by several Catholic philosophers (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas). The Bible - at the very most - says that all children are blessings from God, and that to be barren was generally looked upon as a curse.

The sin of Onan is open up to interpretation. Some believe Onan was punished because he tried to avoid his duty of impregnating his brother’s widow (a rule during the era he lived in). Others believe he was punished out of sheer disobedience. Again, others believe Onan was punished because of the actual act he committed itself. In all honesty, it’s one of those parts in the Bible that is not very clear-cut. Let’s not try and make it seem as if it is clear-cut, because it isn’t.
 
Hypothetically and unrealistically speaking? if it could be changed and they did? you better effing believe I’d be all over it. I’d be so stocking up on condoms. i only use nfp because i have to
 
Catechism

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:
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.
 
Do you ALWAYS type in that obnoxious way, with the “…” everywhere? It’s annoying as all hell.
 
joclucsylv said:
Please edxplain to me in layman’s terms then. Don’t cite documents. Explain. I am not as well learned as you all.
Click to expand...
the use of a condom by a prostitute male or female is not OK by the Church’s moral standards but it is an outward sign of a person trying to do the right thing (be more moral) by preventing the spread of disease. The use of the condom in and of itself is not a moral act.
 
At those on this thread, how would you respond to the following lines from the Catechism (first time I’ve ever quoted from the catechism here on CAF :D), concerning the issue of the primacy of conscience:

"**Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed… **Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. " [CCC 1778]

There are two ways I interpret “aboriginal Vicar of Christ”. Firstly, that conscience has more importance that what the Pope says.

Secondly, that conscience was held as the yardstick of judgment before the first Pope.

Which is it?

How about?:

“It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection: Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.” [CCC 1779], which in turn reflects that the Church is encouraging the faithful to think carefully about the decisions that are being made.
 
vsedriver said:
the use of a condom by a prostitute male or female is not OK by the Church’s moral standards but it is an outward sign of a person trying to do the right thing (be more moral) by preventing the spread of disease. The use of the condom in and of itself is not a moral act.
Click to expand...
I underststand. Thanks for being patient.
 
Catechism, no. 2039: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”
 
LaSainte said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is understood that the church teaching on contraception is infallible throught the teaching of the magesterium. It is up to you to prove that it is not. Humanae Vitae reminded of this fact.There is no reason for an ex- cathedra statement. There is not enormous disagreement at all. I can’t understand why you think that there is.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

**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:

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.
There is no wiggle room. No controversy.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
At those on this thread, how would you respond to the following lines from the Catechism (first time I’ve ever quoted from the catechism here on CAF :D), concerning the issue of the primacy of conscience:

"**Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed… **Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. " [CCC 1778]
Click to expand...
That quote is by John Henry Cardinal Neuman writing about problems the Anglicans had in endorsing the teachings of the Church.
There are two ways I interpret “aboriginal Vicar of Christ”. Firstly, that conscience has more importance that what the Pope says.
Click to expand...
Secondly, that conscience was held as the yardstick of judgment before the first Pope.
Click to expand...
Which is it?
Click to expand...
Given the context, it would seem your second choice is closer to the actual meaning. For the discussion with Anglicans, it wasn’t a matter of what’s more important than what the Pope says but that some truths are so true they precede any formal Church declaration.
How about?:
Click to expand...
“It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection: Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.” [CCC 1779], which in turn reflects that the Church is encouraging the faithful to think carefully about the decisions that are being made
Click to expand...
but don’t stop there 😃

ccc 1783 (bolding mine)
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
Click to expand...
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Click to expand...
and ccc 1801
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
Click to expand...
The entire Catechism section on conscience 1776 - 1802 really must be read as a compete passage.
 
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

This is very important. Just because one follows their conscience it does not mean that they are not guilty of whatever action they took which is in disagreement with the church teaching on the matter.
 
crazzeto said:
Perhaps better would be
“I understand God and church teach contraception is immoral. But this is an issue I find I struggle greatly with, and until I can reconcile I have made my choice”.
Click to expand...
No, that is not better. That tells people that it is OK to do what they want if they struggle with understanding a teaching. What a person should do in the case where they don’t understand a difficult to accept Church teaching is to submit and be obedient. Would this not be far more pleasing to God than just telling God you’ll do what you want and worry about the consequences later?
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
The Bible doesn’t condemn birth control explicitly. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it really mention the topic. We only know that contraception is a sin from Sacred Tradition/patristics, and even more extrabiblically, from the points of view held by several Catholic philosophers (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas). The Bible - at the very most - says that all children are blessings from God, and that to be barren was generally looked upon as a curse.

The sin of Onan is open up to interpretation. Some believe Onan was punished because he tried to avoid his duty of impregnating his brother’s widow (a rule during the era he lived in). Others believe he was punished out of sheer disobedience. Again, others believe Onan was punished because of the actual act he committed itself. In all honesty, it’s one of those parts in the Bible that is not very clear-cut. Let’s not try and make it seem as if it is clear-cut, because it isn’t.
Click to expand...
Genisis, 38 it both mentions it and condems it.
 
There is no disagreement, enormous or otherwise, on the Church’s teachings on contraception.

There are many people who reject that teaching because it is inconvenient to their chosen lifestyle.

But even those who choose not to obey must admit that it is Church teaching.

ICXC NIKA.
 
GEddie said:
There is no disagreement, enormous or otherwise, on the Church’s teachings on contraception.

There are many people who reject that teaching because it is inconvenient to their chosen lifestyle.

But even those who choose not to obey must admit that it is Church teaching.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Here here. I think this sums up the matter. It’s like debating whether or not there should be women priests - the Church’s decision on the matter is clear and unchangeable - so why debate it?
 
joclucsylv said:
Corki…I have to ask you. How did you learn all this information. I could only wish to know half of what you know someday. Was it Catholic School? Just learning on your own??
Click to expand...
First of all, I am a world champion Googler. 😃

When my kids hit school age, I was asked to be a catechist for our parish. The more I read, even in the Kindergarten text, the more I realized how many holes there were in my Catholic education. I was an army brat so went to some Catholic schools and some public schools - a real mix of good and bad Catholic formation. So, I set out to systematically learn all I could to be confident standing in front of a class of kids and trying to teach them about the faith. It was just pride - I had to know more than the kids.

In our diocese, catechists are supposed to go through formal certification training. I say “supposed to” because it is technically required but they make it very hard for people to attend. However, after getting laid off from my job and having some time to spare, I put the 18 months in and got certified. One of the classes was moral theology and another was Church Doctrine. Not only the content of the classes but also the bibliographies of the material have been my main sources.

I may sin but I can almost guarantee I won’t be invincibly ignorant as long as I have my PC. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top