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.
Just to break into this merry-go-round “discussion” for a moment, the first thing i`d think would be: “Beware of Low-Flying Pigs!” 😃
 
n 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.
 
Bookcat said:
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*.
Click to expand...
OK get it. But in a way he is saying that condom use is ok because those infected are thinking of others and that is a good thing that people are thinking of others.
 
joclucsylv said:
OK get it. But in a way he is saying that condom use is ok because those infected are thinking of others and that is a good thing that people are thinking of others.
Click to expand...
He said it’s a good thing that people are thinking of others and that maybe this will eventually bring them around to acting morally. It is not saying that condom use is ok.
 
Corki said:
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.
Click to expand...
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??
 
joclucsylv said:
OK get it. But in a way he is saying that condom use is ok because those infected are thinking of others and that is a good thing that people are thinking of others.
Click to expand...
Good. But no he is not…he is saying that the intention…the beginning to think of others is a first step…in the right direction…he is not saying it is ok…

The Church clearified all this after the media twisted it into various pretzels…(no offense to pretzels intended)
 
Debora123 said:
I don’t know why they say those things. Their harshness and name calling won’t help convert me to using NFP. Maybe they don’t know that, and their intentions are good. Or maybe they DO know that, but they don’t care because their goal isn’t to convert me, but to bring themselves up by putting others down. Maybe lecturing others gives them a certain sense of power or pride.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is calling you names. And lecturing has no benefits to the lecturer who is giving good counsel based on Church teaching. This isn’t about being better than someone else. It is about teaching Truth.
Whatever the case may be, that’s all ok. They don’t know me, and people who do know me would never say those things about me and know that I’m not that type of person.
Click to expand...
God knows me and my heart. And that’s all that matters. 👍
Click to expand...
You have made a choice for your life and yes, that is between you and God but what you have failed to do is admit your choice is sinful which makes you a scandal in the eyes of God and the Church. You are leading others into sin. You say, “I believe God will understand because I’m basically a good person.” The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Far better for you to say, “Contraception is morally wrong and the Church is right to teach that it is a grave sin, but I have chosen this method to achieve my goals in life because I do not trust God enough to handle what he may give me instead.” That would be an honest statement.

It is not about being a good or bad person. It is about how sinful a person are we going to be?
 
vsedriver said:
Far better for you to say, “Contraception is morally wrong and the Church is right to teach that it is a grave sin, but I have chosen this method to achieve my goals in life because I do not trust God enough to handle what he may give me instead.” That would be an honest statement.

It is not about being a good or bad person. It is about how sinful a person are we going to be?
Click to expand...
A little provocitive a statement though is it not? I do agree with you about the objective morality, and that even those currently not living it needing to acknowlege and teach that objective reality. But, I think those of us who promote or like NFP need to make some acknowlegements of our own.
  1. It is in fact difficult on many levels. Abstiance is an aboration in this culture for one, additionally many people still have a hard time beleive it is at all effective.
  2. There do exist a number of (biological) factors that make NFP far more difficult to manage, people facing this should have their fears and concerns acknowleged and they should find support and help from the Catholic community in particular
  3. Satan and the world make contraception look so darn easy (and in fact, it is actually easy) as well as effective and good. Just because we hate the source, that doesn’t mean we should hate or make feel less human those who believe the lie.
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”.
 
I don’t often comment on these topics, but I have a question for those who seem well versed in Church teaching.

Clearly Debora123 seems very sincere. I personally believe she has thought about this issue for quite a while and has determined that she is doing what is the best for her marriage.

Now the question I want to ask is, what about a Catholic teaching known as the “primacy of conscience”. The primacy of conscience - if I’m not mistaken - is a doctrine that essentially teaches that all humans are subject to their conscience, and that conscience is itself inscribed by God. If someone’s conscience tells them that what they are doing is right (assuming that their conscience has been well informed) even when it is “outwardly wrong”, are they still committing mortal sin? As an example, Abraham followed his conscience by almost sacrificing his son, Isaac, to God. That may have appeared outwardly evil to others, but in light of the primacy of conscience, Abraham was not committing sin and was in fact justified.

Just a thought.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
I don’t often comment on these topics, but I have a question for those who seem well versed in Church teaching.

Clearly Debora123 seems very sincere. I personally believe she has thought about this issue for quite a while and has determined that she is doing what is the best for her marriage.

Now the question I want to ask is, what about a Catholic teaching known as the “primacy of conscience”. The primacy of conscience - if I’m not mistaken - is a doctrine that essentially teaches that all humans are subject to their conscience, and that conscience is itself inscribed by God. If someone’s conscience tells them that what they are doing is right (assuming that their conscience has been well informed) even when it is “outwardly wrong”, are they still committing mortal sin? As an example, Abraham followed his conscience by almost sacrificing his son, Isaac, to God. That may have appeared outwardly evil to others, but in light of the primacy of conscience, Abraham was not committing sin and was in fact justified.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Yes it very well is still mortal sin, because you have a responcibility to inform your contience. So it is not much of an excuse to say “well I decided it’s not a sin so it’s not”. When you find out God and Church differe from what you beleive, then you must find out why, and you must strive to reconcile your beliefs with God and Church.

To do otherwise, is to sin.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Now the question I want to ask is, what about a Catholic teaching known as the “primacy of conscience”. The primacy of conscience - if I’m not mistaken - is a doctrine that essentially teaches that all humans are subject to their conscience, and that conscience is itself inscribed by God. If someone’s conscience tells them that what they are doing is right (assuming that their conscience has been well informed) even when it is “outwardly wrong”, are they still committing mortal sin? As an example, Abraham followed his conscience by almost sacrificing his son, Isaac, to God. That may have appeared outwardly evil to others, but in light of the primacy of conscience, Abraham was not committing sin and was in fact justified.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Catechism:

IV. Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
A Catholic is to form their conscience according to the teachings of the Church…they are to follow those teachings…

More detail:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=109
 
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...
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.

Also, the concept of NFP wasn’t known back then and just because it wasn’t known doesn’t mean that it was immoral, that’s a complete non sequitur.

Please read those quotations again, they are very informative regarding your last remarks. Why you think the current Catholic Church which comes from the Apostles and is protected by the Holy Spirit is beyond me.
 
crazzeto said:
Yes it very well is still mortal sin, because you have a responcibility to inform your contience. So it is not much of an excuse to say “well I decided it’s not a sin so it’s not”. When you find out God and Church differe from what you beleive, then you must find out why, and you must strive to reconcile your beliefs with God and Church.

To do otherwise, is to sin.
Click to expand...
But now we’re going to the standard strawman argument. Debora123 seems to have informed her conscience, prayed, discerned, even asked a priest about it, and has made a decision. She didn’t think about it flippantly. She didn’t think about it for 1 day and say, “Oh, I don’t think it’s a sin so I can live my life anyhow I want to”. No. Clearly this must have been an internal struggle she’s had for quite a while and she’s (unfortunately, I guess) taken the view that is a deviation from the norm here on CAF.

Is Debora123 really in sin, or could we say that Debora123 is in a state of invincible ignorance?
 
And a very good words for sober reflection.

" In Psalm 19:12-13, we find the ever worth pondering passage: “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from my unknown faults.” That is not Old Testament objectivism, but profoundest human wisdom. No longer seeing one’s guilt, the falling silent of conscience in so many areas, is an even more dangerous sickness of the soul than the guilt which one still recognizes as such. He who no longer notices that killing is a sin has fallen farther than the one who still recognizes the shamefulness of his actions, because the former is further removed form the truth and conversion. Not without reason does the self-righteous man in the encounter with Jesus appear as the one who is really lost. If the tax collector with all his undisputed sins stands more justified before God than the Pharisee with all his undeniably good works (Lk 18:9-14), this is not because the sins of the tax collector were not sins or the good deeds of the Pharisee not good deeds. Nor does it mean that the good that man does is not good before God, or the evil not evil or at least not particularly important. The reason for this paradoxical judgment of God is shown precisely from our question. The Pharisee no longer knows that he too has guilt. He has a completely clear conscience. But this silence of conscience makes him impenetrable to God and men, while the cry of conscience which plagues the tax collector makes him capable of truth and love. Jesus can move sinners. Not hiding behind the screen of their erroneous consciences, they have not become unreachable for the change which God expects of them, and of us. He is ineffective with the “righteous,” because they are not aware of any need for forgiveness and conversion. Their consciences no longer accuse them but justify them."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he was Pope… in “Conscience and Truth” 1991
 
And

“Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth. When the psalmist in anticipation of Jesus’ view of sin and justice pleads for liberation from unconscious guilt, he points to the following relation. Certainly, one must follow an erroneous conscience. But the departure from truth which took place beforehand and now takes its revenge is the actual guilt which first lulls man into false security and then abandons him in the trackless waste.”

Cardinal Ratzinger “Conscience and Truth”
 
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...
You wholly misunderstand the infallibility of the Church. Making an error in conduct is not the same as making an error in faith and morals. Not even close. You really don’t believe Jesus do you? Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and the idea that the Church is formally teaching error in faith or morals certainly falls under the category of being defeated by Satan.

Popes can make poor choices in conduct and have erroneous personal beliefs, that is not the same thing as the Church formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals. You definitely need to see your priest about this. The Church cannot be in error in faith or morals. Period.
 
lol, I was expecting long articles and whatnot to be thrown at me without any sort of condensation of what precisely is relevant, but I’ll read it anyway. 🙂 :compcoff:
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
But now we’re going to the standard strawman argument. Debora123 seems to have informed her conscience, prayed, discerned, even asked a priest about it, and has made a decision. She didn’t think about it flippantly. She didn’t think about it for 1 day and say, “Oh, I don’t think it’s a sin so I can live my life anyhow I want to”. No. Clearly this must have been an internal struggle she’s had for quite a while and she’s (unfortunately, I guess) taken the view that is a deviation from the norm here on CAF.

Is Debora123 really in sin, or could we say that Debora123 is in a state of invincible ignorance?
Click to expand...
One can never say that another is in sin. But, using the information you provide above, she would not be invincibly ignorant. Invincible ignorance requires that someone not know the teaching that something is sinful **and **that that ignorance of the teaching be through no fault of her own. Neither apply to the set of circumstances you list above.

BTW, the Church’s teaching on conscience is that Christians have a duty to **properly form **their conscience. Informed conscience can still be malformed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top