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.
Rascalking said:
It’s not absurd, ignore anyone who tells you differently. As long as your asking an honest question and not doing it just to be pest, virtually any question is okay.
Click to expand...
in this case the use of ‘absurd’ doesn’t mean the question is silly. It means the question makes no sense.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Why not come up with an argument on something the Church COULD change --like celibacy for priests, or requiring priests to have beards, or bringing back year-round Friday abstinence --and not a hypothetical on a topic which will NOT change?
Click to expand...
Exactly. These things, which the Church CAN change, are trivial matters at best, and not necessarily matters of faith and morals. The teaching against ABC goes back to the early Church (pagan Romans would use animal skins as barrier methods, fumigate uteri, and drink contraceptive potions). It’s one of the mayn reasons Christians were hated.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
IF ABC is understood to mean that which either chemically or otherwise is abortifacient, and/or that which ‘removes’ the element of openness to procreation in the marital act itself, both of which are grossly wrong, then the only ‘way’ the Church would change is for there to be put forth a proof that ABC does NOT in any way cause the chance of abortion and/or that it does NOT remove the element of openness to procreation n the marital act itself. And frankly I don’t see that happening.
Click to expand...
Condoms aren’t abortifacient, and neither is their use any less open to life as NFP is (when used to avoid pregnancy.)
 
BingoBoy said:
I think it’s only a matter of time before it happens, quite honestly.
Click to expand...
it will never happen. It can’t happen by definition. You might as well ask at what point will the Church ordain women and marry gays. It can’t happen by definition.
 
Debora123 said:
Condoms aren’t abortifacient, and neither is their use any less open to life as NFP used to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...
condoms put an unnatural barrier between the spouses’ fertility. NFP puts no barrier between spouses.
 
joclucsylv said:
Is it safe to say that at some point in the future, the Church could change the teaching on ABC? What would you all do/think at that point???
Click to expand...
What would I say or think if someone told me the Church would change the teaching on contraception?

Same thing if someone told me that the Church would change the moon into cheese…

As one Vatican Document noted:

“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)

I profess fully and assent fully to the teachings of the Church…and will not change my full assent or profession. That being said the it is also true that Church will not change teachings on contraception.

It is not something that will change…any more than the material of the moon.
 
Debora123 said:
that barrier does not make the openness to life any less than NFP
Click to expand...
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? I don’t quite follow your line of reasoning. NFP helps the couple complete the marital act and uses the way God created the reproductive systems of both the man and the woman to either avoid pregnancy and in some cases, even help infertility. Condoms are a barrier between the husband and the wife within the actual marital act. The sperm is, bottom line, wasted. Its one of the reasons why the Church is against masturbation.
 
Debora123 said:
that barrier does not make the openness to life any less than NFP
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

If one wants to argue otherwise --one is arguing in ones own head and with oneself…with ones own definitions.

For such is according to the definitions of the Catholic Church not the definitions of a person in Florida.

(where the heat will effect the thinking anyhow…I know I was just there…;))

Such is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church. NFP (periodic continence rightly practiced) is open to life. It is right there in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church et al…
 
BingoBoy said:
I think it’s only a matter of time before it happens, quite honestly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I’ve got a gorgeous beach condo in El Paso, TX, to sell you…

The Catholic Church does not bow to grassroots pressure. And that is the only thing driving the acceptance of ABC by the general society and the other church bodies.

What has been taught as truth in the Church will always be true, and the use of ABC is just plain wrong.

ICXC NIKA.
 
joclucsylv said:
Is it safe to say that at some point in the future, the Church could change the teaching on ABC? What would you all do/think at that point???
Click to expand...
It’s not safe to say, particularly since Humane Vite permenently put an end to a very real movement to make such a change. Indeed, there was even a vote among the Bishops that very very very nearly did just this, and Pope Paul VI over ruled and wrote Humane Vite.

Safe to say? I’d say it’s safer to say that the church teaching is, if not actual doctrine, about as close as you can get to it with out it being actual doctrine.
 
joclucsylv said:
Is it safe to say that at some point in the future, the Church could change the teaching on ABC?
Click to expand...
No, I’m pretty sure this is an infallible teaching of the Church, it cannot be reversed. The Holy Spirit does not lie.

Isn’t this the third thread you’ve started on ABC/NFP today? It might be better if you limit the discussion to one thread. This way, users can concentrate on a single thread and provide (name removed by moderator)ut. It gets confusing if everyone has to jump in between several threads on the same topic.
 
smichhertz said:
No, this is an infallible teaching of the Church, it cannot be reversed. The Holy Spirit does not lie.

Isn’t this the third thread you’ve started on ABC/NFP today? It might be better if you limit the discussion to one thread. This way, users can concentrate on a single thread and provide (name removed by moderator)ut. It gets confusing if everyone has to jump in between several threads on the same topic.
Click to expand...
No…I haven’t started a thread in days. I wanted a specific question answered and that is what I am getting. 🙂
 
joclucsylv said:
No…I haven’t started a thread in days. I wanted a specific question answered and that is what I am getting. 🙂
Click to expand...
I see, you have multiple threads running, but all started on substantially different days, my mistake, next time I’ll look more closely before posting.
 
crazzeto said:
It’s not safe to say, particularly since Humane Vite permenently put an end to a very real movement to make such a change. Indeed, there was even a vote among the Bishops that very very very nearly did just this, and Pope Paul VI over ruled and wrote Humane Vite.

Safe to say? I’d say it’s safer to say that the church teaching is, if not actual doctrine, about as close as you can get to it with out it being actual doctrine.
Click to expand...
Actually not exactly the case…one is referring to the “advisory” -only commission who were looking for example at if the as I recall “pill” was contraceptive…there was no “vote” among bishops etc…

and it is very clearly been the long held doctrine of the Church …in fact as noted above the words “definitive” and “irreformable” are used to describe it.
 
Bookcat said:
Actually not exactly the case…one is referring to the “advisory” -only commission who were looking for example at if the as I recall “pill” was contraceptive…there was no “vote” among bishops etc…

and it is very clearly been the long held doctrine of the Church …in fact as noted above the words “definitive” and “irreformable” are used to describe it.
Click to expand...
Bookcat, can doctrine be changed? Is so…are there any examples?
 
PatriceA said:
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
How I came to the conclusion that condoms are as equal or if not, more equal to being open to life as NFP?

Simple.

Condoms have a higher failure rate than NFP. Meaning a higher chance of pregnancy. Meaning more wiggle room for God’s will. 😛
 
Debora123 said:
that barrier does not make the openness to life any less than NFP
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. The entire point of that barrier is to prevent pregnancy. NFP, on the other hand, simply follows the calendar of when a person is more or less fertile. With NFP, it still has the possibility of pregnancy, and it is an example that a couple is open to God’s gifts of children. With condoms, it only makes it open to life if the condom breaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top