T
TruthSkr
Guest
Thanks for the suggestion. The nearest one is about an hour away.
- Status
T
TruthSkr
Guest
What I don’t understand is how an honorable man like my pastor could tell me what he did with as much certainty as he expressed. So I am now inclined to believe a group of anonymous people over my parish pastor. That is just messed up.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Sadly, there was a rather lengthy period of time where it seems that seminaries didn’t actually teach priests what the Church teaches. Other priests ignore what the Church teaches in favor of the cultural norms.
It’s a sad reality, and it’s one faithful Catholics must be careful navigating. I suggests speaking with your priest in private and showing him the Catechism sections dealing with marital intercourse.
J
jrgmercado
Guest
Without knowing you situation, but assuming your pastor does, it’s possible that we don’t have all the information required to have an opinion. At the end of the day, you had a 45 mins conversation with you pastor and a 10 (ish) confession with 3 other priests who probably didn’t have all the facts just an abridged version of the events.
In my opinion, based on the fact that you mentioned “certain physical disabilities”, 3 of those priests felt you weren’t committing a sin.
As far as the “old/new church”, he probably meant it more like in a only missionary is the only “allowed” position…just my two cents.
In my opinion, based on the fact that you mentioned “certain physical disabilities”, 3 of those priests felt you weren’t committing a sin.
As far as the “old/new church”, he probably meant it more like in a only missionary is the only “allowed” position…just my two cents.
Last edited:
T
TruthSkr
Guest
So are you saying that if you have a physical disability you do not have the same requirements as someone who does not? This has been my wife’s argument all along. She would say that if we are unable to have intercourse then we must accommodate.
T
TruthSkr
Guest
Thanks everyone for your comments. I must go now. Will check back in a few hours.
E
edwest211
Guest
No rules have changed.
J
Jimbo
Guest
A) I’m so sorry. This has to be an immense cross to bear. And It’s very courageous of you to be seeking to do the right thing.
B) I’m so sorry, again, that you’ve been given so much confusion about this.
I honestly don’t know what the sin situation would be here. my read on it is that you need to be open to life, but there is question as to what that would mean. I’m guessing some sort of intercourse would be needed… but if that’s not possible or moot what does that mean (do you absolutely have to have intercourse if someone has a hysterectomy, for example, so that you can be ‘open to life’). I just don’t know.
To the point of the clergy you ran into: The Church absolutely does have the take that a married couple cannot willfully contracept. The Church absolutely does not take the stance that 'whatever you do in your bedroom is your own business.There is no ‘New’ Catholic Church like New Coke. There is no ‘spirit of Vatican II’. I just don’t know what distinctions might apply to your particular case.
Unfortunately, while the Church is good, and true, and beautiful, it has some misguided members.
You need to find good, orthodox sources. You might try the national catholic center for bioethics:
https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/information-topic/birth-controlcontraception/
they also have a form with which you can answer a question.
For now its the best I can do. Good Luck, You’re in my prayers.
B) I’m so sorry, again, that you’ve been given so much confusion about this.
I honestly don’t know what the sin situation would be here. my read on it is that you need to be open to life, but there is question as to what that would mean. I’m guessing some sort of intercourse would be needed… but if that’s not possible or moot what does that mean (do you absolutely have to have intercourse if someone has a hysterectomy, for example, so that you can be ‘open to life’). I just don’t know.
To the point of the clergy you ran into: The Church absolutely does have the take that a married couple cannot willfully contracept. The Church absolutely does not take the stance that 'whatever you do in your bedroom is your own business.There is no ‘New’ Catholic Church like New Coke. There is no ‘spirit of Vatican II’. I just don’t know what distinctions might apply to your particular case.
Unfortunately, while the Church is good, and true, and beautiful, it has some misguided members.
You need to find good, orthodox sources. You might try the national catholic center for bioethics:
https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/information-topic/birth-controlcontraception/
they also have a form with which you can answer a question.
For now its the best I can do. Good Luck, You’re in my prayers.
J
jrgmercado
Guest
To quote the priest:
“This priest said that my wife absolutely had to right to have sex with her husband and that to deny her would be very harmful to our marriage.”
I believe that is what the priests have been saying…it’s not to say that in a different situation those acts wouldn’t be a sin but based on your specific situation, you are not sinning. Or more importantly, the harm to your marriage would be a greater evil then the act of physical affection.
“This priest said that my wife absolutely had to right to have sex with her husband and that to deny her would be very harmful to our marriage.”
I believe that is what the priests have been saying…it’s not to say that in a different situation those acts wouldn’t be a sin but based on your specific situation, you are not sinning. Or more importantly, the harm to your marriage would be a greater evil then the act of physical affection.
M
maryjk
Guest
It could very well be that you didn’t explain enough. Regardless of how much time you spent with him.
Face it, even when you posted here, people had to ask you to explain.
Also, since he said he was “putting his soul on the line,” wouldn’t you wonder if he was actually telling you the truth.
The truth shouldn’t put his soul on the line. Lies, on the other hand will certainly do that.
Face it, even when you posted here, people had to ask you to explain.
Also, since he said he was “putting his soul on the line,” wouldn’t you wonder if he was actually telling you the truth.
The truth shouldn’t put his soul on the line. Lies, on the other hand will certainly do that.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Some priests are lazy and don’t keep up with their studies and let their minds get stale.
Some are purposely trying to change the culture of the church. I don’t think their intent is evil but in their own mind, they think some things need to change to attact more people to the church.
This is of course the wrong way to go about attracting people to the church. We must teach truth.
Recently, a priest I trust greatly told me the reason there is this divide in moral theology in the church is because after Vatican two, the seminaries were told to stop teaching moral theology based off the old rubrics. The Church would be coming out with new material to teach off of. The problem was that this new material didn’t come out for years. May 15 years if I remember him right. So seminaries went for a long time without proper moral theology…or they would come up with their own rubrics to teach. It got so bad at the seminary that this priest was at that he moved to a different seminary and the new seminary made him retake all his moral theology b/c of the hogwash he had been taught. This was around the same time as Humane Vitae as well and he said that many bishops and priests would tell their parishoners not to pay attention to it b/c it would change soon and they would be allowed to use birth control.
The last half century has been a mess in the US atleast
T
thistle
Guest
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If a priest tells you something that contradicts the teachings of the Church which are contained in the CCC then the priest is wrong.
E
edwest211
Guest
This is a perfect example of the corruption caused by dissidents inside and outside the Church. They made it a point to distort actual Church teaching. They made it a point to blame it on Vatican II. Making it a fake scapegoat. Organized groups of radicals and dissidents were formed right after Vatican II. Catholic institutions of higher learning were ‘convinced’ to break their ties with the Church. The mess was carefully planned and carried out.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
There certainly is, and He’s the Holy Spirit. If you mean a certain conjunction or confusion between the Zeitgeist and the Spirit of Vatican II, that can and certainly did lead many folks to sometimes radically misinterpret Vatican II, then I’d agree. This is where the bishops and Holy See become so important, as being the spiritual masters of Christianity. But I am pretty certain there are at least a few even Magisterial documents referencing the Spirit of Vatican II and the (positive) fruits of it, though perhaps I might be mistaken: when the shepherds of the Church gather, Christ is assuredly in their midst; and where the Son is, then there too will be the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is fake terminology. What actually happened at Vatican II was distorted by the media at the time. Instead of telling the public about what actually happened at Vatican II, people got the media version. Pope Benedict addressed this shortly before stepping down as Pope. Radicals operating among the public supported the distortion.
E
edwest211
Guest
Your attempt to indict the Church has been reported.
P
Padres1969
Guest
I mean if lately means the last 35-40 years…
I went through almost 2 decades of Catholic schooling and formation and didn’t run into Catholic orthodoxy until I started searching myself in my last years in college (which is also when I ran into the most liberal priests). The dichotomy was jarring to say the least.
I went through almost 2 decades of Catholic schooling and formation and didn’t run into Catholic orthodoxy until I started searching myself in my last years in college (which is also when I ran into the most liberal priests). The dichotomy was jarring to say the least.
Last edited:
J
Jimbo
Guest
I’m very much referring to the confusion; which sometimes lead to liturgical abuses being done “in the spirit of Vatican II” (vs The Spirit) even though VII’s own documents did not support such things.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
A married couple remembers each act is ordered toward procreation.
The US Bishops have put together a website that is a blessing. You can trust that what is on this website is approved by our Bishops.
I would suggest @truthskr visit:
www.foryourmarriage.org
This is a book recommended:
Adding one more handy link:
Another thing is for our OP to contact his Diocese office of Family Life and speak to someone there.
The US Bishops have put together a website that is a blessing. You can trust that what is on this website is approved by our Bishops.
I would suggest @truthskr visit:
Marital Sexuality
The Catholic Church, in its official teaching, has always taken a positive view of sexuality in marriage. Marital intercourse, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is “noble and honorable,” established by God so that “spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.”...
www.foryourmarriage.org
This is a book recommended:
Adding one more handy link:
Another thing is for our OP to contact his Diocese office of Family Life and speak to someone there.
Last edited:
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Personally, I think the link in the minds of many between “the spirit of Vatican II” and things like liturgical abuses, false teaching, etc., is itself the work of Satan.
I don’t think anyone can deny there was a tremendously powerful Zeitgeist also occurring at the same time as the Council. I can understand if a lot of conservatives want to dismiss that Zeitgeist outright as being pure evil, but I don’t think that is necessarily the case: in the 1960’s there was a great draw towards natural goods like peace, unity, love, respect, mutual appreciation, solidarity, etc. That this was in many cases radically misapplied and perverted - as in “sexual liberation” movements - is also obvious. But I think that in itself was a reactionary application, or misapplication, to and of the underlying Zeitgeist of the '60’s.
I remember, for example, one historian pointing out that most of the movements that ended up being almost completely misbegotten and degenerating into the hippies and feminist movements originally began as being very conservative: these original movements tended indeed toward peaceful change and mutual understanding; but in time, it seems, they almost disintegrated and were powerfully weakened by radical elements that divided them and naturally tended to draw the concern and suspicion of authorities. Indeed, all one has to do is even look at photos of change movements in the early to mid '60’s then compare those same movements in the later '60’s: there was obviously a radical alteration in their tone and a definite, at best, watering down of their message to generic feel-good nonsense that was basically meaningless, coupled, unfortunately, with outright and obviously revolutionary Marxism.
I believe this Zeitgeist of the 1960’s might be argued to have been a kind of preparation for the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council that would facilitate people re-considering the message of the Church and considering the Church in a new light, so to speak: there was after all also an attitude of open-mindedness in the '60’s, and rank anti-Catholicism, for example, was by the general public increasingly being seen as a rather ugly and hateful thing when it was really just exposed to be largely based in prejudice.
Today we are seeing, imho, another major alteration to the general spirit of the post-WWII establishment and philosophy and - as in the past - I think you see contrary interpretations of this shift in spirit that can be radically opposed to each other. This is causing great distress and anxiety among many and pushing international relations to breaking-points as well as the unity of nations, most unfortunately. If anything, as a layman, I would like to seem some discernment by the Church’s leadership here as what might be the most helpful approach to what appears to be either a new ruling philosophy, spirit or dynamic: is this push an expression for the need for a new dynamic legitimate or merely something destructive trying to push out both baby and bathwater of the preceding geopolitical establishment or post-WWII settlement?
I don’t think anyone can deny there was a tremendously powerful Zeitgeist also occurring at the same time as the Council. I can understand if a lot of conservatives want to dismiss that Zeitgeist outright as being pure evil, but I don’t think that is necessarily the case: in the 1960’s there was a great draw towards natural goods like peace, unity, love, respect, mutual appreciation, solidarity, etc. That this was in many cases radically misapplied and perverted - as in “sexual liberation” movements - is also obvious. But I think that in itself was a reactionary application, or misapplication, to and of the underlying Zeitgeist of the '60’s.
I remember, for example, one historian pointing out that most of the movements that ended up being almost completely misbegotten and degenerating into the hippies and feminist movements originally began as being very conservative: these original movements tended indeed toward peaceful change and mutual understanding; but in time, it seems, they almost disintegrated and were powerfully weakened by radical elements that divided them and naturally tended to draw the concern and suspicion of authorities. Indeed, all one has to do is even look at photos of change movements in the early to mid '60’s then compare those same movements in the later '60’s: there was obviously a radical alteration in their tone and a definite, at best, watering down of their message to generic feel-good nonsense that was basically meaningless, coupled, unfortunately, with outright and obviously revolutionary Marxism.
I believe this Zeitgeist of the 1960’s might be argued to have been a kind of preparation for the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council that would facilitate people re-considering the message of the Church and considering the Church in a new light, so to speak: there was after all also an attitude of open-mindedness in the '60’s, and rank anti-Catholicism, for example, was by the general public increasingly being seen as a rather ugly and hateful thing when it was really just exposed to be largely based in prejudice.
Today we are seeing, imho, another major alteration to the general spirit of the post-WWII establishment and philosophy and - as in the past - I think you see contrary interpretations of this shift in spirit that can be radically opposed to each other. This is causing great distress and anxiety among many and pushing international relations to breaking-points as well as the unity of nations, most unfortunately. If anything, as a layman, I would like to seem some discernment by the Church’s leadership here as what might be the most helpful approach to what appears to be either a new ruling philosophy, spirit or dynamic: is this push an expression for the need for a new dynamic legitimate or merely something destructive trying to push out both baby and bathwater of the preceding geopolitical establishment or post-WWII settlement?
- Status