US Bishops Conference on Homosexuality, Communion, Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Corki said:
No. That would only apply if the Church was (improbably) telling you to actively DO something and your conscience was telling you not to.

An example would be if the Church said that all Catholic couples MUST practice NFP. You could decide, based on your conscience to use no method of family planning, leaving it “up to God” instead. You could *not *decide, based on your conscience, to use artificial BC instead of NFP.

Another case that is often cited is slavery. At one point in time the Church did not actively oppose slavery as it does now. Had you lived then and chose not to own slaves because you disagreed with the Church, you would be exercising your “conscience” exception.
Click to expand...
I can’t see how your point applies. Does one not form their conscience by accepting what the church teaches on matters that bind us?
 
Nohome said:
One document says that married couples can’t use ABC and the other says one must obey all Catholic rules to receive communion. I think the the sum of the documents is that ABC would exclude you from communion. The document does give a list of examples but it is most certainly not intended to be an all inclusive list. Let’s face it, there isn’t enought paper to print such a document.

Nohome
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I think contraception and sterilization are so widespread that they deserve mention in the example.
 
fix said:
Fair enough, but I think contraception and sterilization are so widespread that they deserve mention in the example.
Click to expand...
Right. ABC is so prevalent that the bishops addressed it in a stand alone document.
 
CRW said:
The document does not require the Bishop or priest to enforce the policy.
Click to expand...
Unless I misread the document, it wasn’t intended to provide guidance to the clergy about enforcement, it calls upon the faithful to impose the restriction on themselves. Now it is up to the clergy to share this document with their congregation.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Right. ABC is so prevalent that the bishops addressed it in a stand alone document.
Click to expand...
The document on reception of communion grew out of disputes in 2004 about whether politicians who support abortion rights should be refused communion.
Click to expand...
  • Some bishops thought both topics should have been included, and also wanted to add contraceptive use to a list of reasons that Catholics should refrain from communion. *An earlier report indicated that only 4 percent of Catholic married couples of child-bearing age practice the church-recommended natural family planing.
Click to expand...
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., said that the drafters did not include contraception because it was not intended to be a comprehensive list of sins and there was a concern that this “particularly difficult pastoral problem” would distract from everything else in the document. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary of San Diego, argued that not mentioning it would draw even more attention.
Click to expand...
  • “If we are silent on this issue, perhaps people won’t go so far as to say we are winking at it, but at least we would easily create the misperception that this is not an issue involving grave matter.”* “Grave matter,” along with informed reflection and willful intent, constitutes mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Nohome said:
Our church is filled with families that have two children neatly spaced in age. It is either a “public” example of perfect NFP or the use of ABC.

Nohome
Click to expand...
It is not public example of anything… Why would you think of was?
 
the drafters did not include contraception because it was not intended to be a comprehensive list of sins
Click to expand...
So ABC does exclude you.
there was a concern that this “particularly difficult pastoral problem” would distract from everything else in the document.
Click to expand...
So ABC doesn’t exclude you.

So, if enough Catholics reject the Pope’s authority on a particular subject it is nolonger a sin? It becomes a “pastoral problem”?

Nohome
 
estesbob said:
It is not public example of anything… Why would you think of was?
Click to expand...
The fact that the average number of children in catholic families is the same as the rest of the population speaks volumes about the prevalence of ABC.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
For the record, I myself understood, with respect to contraception and communion, that those who engage in contraception which is barrier or abortifacent (or who engage in NFP not to ‘plan’ but effectively to keep from having children because they do not wish to be open to procreation), are committing grave sin. Unfortunately, I don’t think that many people will believe the same. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
You are somewhat correct. The Catechism doesn’t word it quite the same way. If you are using NFP, you are still open to procreation by the nature of NFP. So for example, if my wife were to prefer not to have any more than the four we have because of medical issues, I think we are okay…just for example…🙂
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
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.158 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:159
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.160
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
I can’t see how your point applies. Does one not form their conscience by accepting what the church teaches on matters that bind us?
Click to expand...
Almost, one properly forms their conscience by studying what the Church has taught over the centuries and trying to understand the current Church disciplines and doctrines in light of that teaching. If a new teaching contradicts a long-standing teaching, a Cathlic must still assent to the teaching but not necessarily accept it. That is, you can’t actively disobey it but you don’t have to agree with it. This, of course, assumes that the new teaching isn’t infallible. One of the definitions of infallible teaching, however, is that it not reverse teaching previously taught as definitive.

A current example might be clergy celibacy. You can disagree with the discipline, even publically, as long as you don’t dispute the authority of the Church to impose the discipline.

In my example, a mandate that one MUST use NFP would fly in the face of constant Church teaching through the centuries. To chose not to use NFP would be disobedient but, in my opinion, not sinfully so as long as one did not chose a sinful alternative such as ABC.

At least this is how I understand the teaching on conscience.
 
Originally Posted by Nohome forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Our church is filled with families that have two children neatly spaced in age. It is either a “public” example of perfect NFP or the use of ABC.
Click to expand...
Nohome*
Click to expand...
There are other reasons for “perfectly” spaced children. Sometimes a woman has had miscarriages or other problems. Please don’t judge on the spacing of the living children. There are many of us that will meet those that are with God when we join them.
 
KathleenElsie said:
There are other reasons for “perfectly” spaced children. Sometimes a woman has had miscarriages or other problems. Please don’t judge on the spacing of the living children. There are many of us that will meet those that are with God when we join them.
Click to expand...
Surely your example would be the exception and not the rule. I am judging nobody, rather stating the obvious. Don’t try to kid yourself, ABC is the norm and NFP is the exception.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Surely your example would be the exception and not the rule. I am judging nobody, rather stating the obvious. Don’t try to kid yourself, ABC is the norm and NFP is the exception.

Nohome
Click to expand...
You say you are not judging anyone but just above accused the vast majority of catholics of commiting the sin of using ABC.

Does the fact you believe most Catholics use ABC mean the Church mush ignore all other sins? Should a politican who publicy defies Church teaching on abortion be given a free pass becauce Nohome beleives most Catholics pracitce ABC? I really dont know where you are going with this
 
estesbob said:
You say you are not judging anyone but just above accused the vast majority of catholics of commiting the sin of using ABC.
Click to expand...
Simply stated a fact. You may choose to ignore it, but it is well documented.
estesbob said:
Does the fact you believe most Catholics use ABC mean the Church mush ignore all other sins?
Click to expand...
Never said that.
estesbob said:
Should a politican who publicy defies Church teaching on abortion be given a free pass becauce Nohome beleives most Catholics pracitce ABC? I really dont know where you are going with this
Click to expand...
Wow! You sure read into my comments. I have made absolutely no comments on abortion, none. Your original comment questioned if the Bishops would deny communion to pro-choice politicians. I added users of ABC to the list. That’s all.

Later, I pointed out that the document was written with the intent that the faithful would impose the restriction from Eucharist upon themselves. It was not the intended to be guidlines that Bishops use to select who does and who does not receive communion. Are you suggesting some sort of worthiness turnstyle be installed in front of the alter?

Why is abortion a horrible sin while ABC is merely a “pastoral problem”? While impossible to measure, I have no doubt that ABC has ended more human life that abortion ever could.

Nohome
 
Corki said:
Almost, one properly forms their conscience by studying what the Church has taught over the centuries and trying to understand the current Church disciplines and doctrines in light of that teaching. If a new teaching contradicts a long-standing teaching, a Cathlic must still assent to the teaching but not necessarily accept it.
Click to expand...
I think you need to define this thought more. What teaching can contradict a forming teaching? Do you mean a dogma, doctrine, or discipline?
first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”. In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM
Click to expand...
That is, you can’t actively disobey it but you don’t have to agree with it. This, of course, assumes that the new teaching isn’t infallible. One of the definitions of infallible teaching, however, is that it not reverse teaching previously taught as definitive.
Click to expand...
Please see above.
A current example might be clergy celibacy. You can disagree with the discipline, even publically, as long as you don’t dispute the authority of the Church to impose the discipline.
Click to expand...
Disciplines are based in infallibility meaning they can’t contradict the faith. I do agree one may hold, to a certain degree, and opposing view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top