Vatican urged to reopen debate on birth control

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

We as Catholics should stand up and defend the Church’s teaching on Birth Control against the media’s ‘sex with anyone anywhere’ philosophy which is part of the Culture of Death.

 

[fix]

Andreas Hofer:

This sort of confusion approaches the level of a ‘Catholic’ friend of mine who said, “I don’t believe human beings can ever be infallible,” after which a (smarter) Protestant friend asked me for clarification, “But isn’t that basic to Catholic belief?”

Not only that, but is his statement about non infallibility intending he is infallible? So, the Pope can err, but he cannot?

 

[Riley259]

frommi:

Your statement helps my point…its compelling to YOU, but I think we know its not compelling to many others.

And I think when we have to be careful about calling anyone a ‘cafeteria’ catholic, when that label could probably apply to about 99% of us.

If 99% of us are cafeteria catholics then the church really is in deep trouble. I’m a little more hopeful than that, however.

 

[buffalo]

Riley259:

I disagree. I think the logic in Humane Vitae is very compelling if you actually examine what it is saying. Once you understand the arguments, it all makes so much sense - it is truth. Too many so called “cafeteria” Catholics have no idea why the Church says that birth contro is wrong - if they would only sincerely examine the document itself but sadly for many it’s not even on their radar screen.

or they could simply read the Bible:

Gn 38:9-10 God killed Onan for spilling seed [see next]
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death
Gn 1:27-28 (Gn 9:1, 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver
1Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons & 3 daughters to exalt him
1Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obededom with 8 sons
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish
Dt 23:1 - no one castrated shall enter the assembly
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women = childbearing
1Tim 2:11-15 - women saved through the bearing of children
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias/Saphira slain - withholding part of gift
Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit
Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions
1Cor 6:19-20 - body temple of the Holy Spirit, glorify God with body

 

[frommi]

T.A.Stobie:

We as Catholics should stand up and defend the Church’s teaching on Birth Control against the media’s ‘sex with anyone anywhere’ philosophy which is part of the Culture of Death.

Doesn’t that confuse a couple of issues…sexual promiscuity outside of marriage is one thing…I assumed people in the story were advocating for a discussion of the use of birth control in married couples.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

frommi:

Doesn’t that confuse a couple of issues…sexual promiscuity outside of marriage is one thing…I assumed people in the story were advocating for a discussion of the use of birth control in married couples.

No, because the media wants sex even within marriage to be misused by negating the creative and total self-giving aspect of it.

 

[fix]

From the OP:

Sociologist Catherine Gremion noted the encyclical – the highest form of papal writing – did not condemn Catholic couples “who do not manage to live out their love in strict respect for Church teachings”.

“That’s an important sign,” said Gremion, one of the co-authors of a book by Christian intellectuals entitled “The Church and Contraception – the Urgent Need to Change”.

Same ole same ole. It never changes in this debate.

 

[frommi]

T.A.Stobie:

No, because the media wants sex even within marriage to be misused by negating the creative and total self-giving aspect of it.

This isn’t about the media’s perception of things…I don’t care what the media wants…but I am curious about the way loving committed couples struggle and grapple with this teaching on birth control.

We try to make this issue to wide in scope, and that’s where the wheels fall off the discussion.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

frommi:

This isn’t about the media’s perception of things…I don’t care what the media wants…but I am curious about the way loving committed couples struggle and grapple with this teaching on birth control.

We try to make this issue to wide in scope, and that’s where the wheels fall off the discussion.

Unfortunately many people are mislead by the media and their views into confusion about the truth and what it right and wrong. Many let the media influence their formation of conscience and thus are lead into sin. We need strong voices from the local church to counteract this and unfortunately in many places we got silence instead.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

I am curious about the way loving committed couples struggle and grapple with this teaching on birth control.

What is there with which to struggle and grapple? The teaching is morally sound and pretty straight-forward. The only things that get in the way are pride and selfishness.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

What is there with which to struggle and grapple? The teaching is morally sound and pretty straight-forward. The only things that get in the way are pride and selfishness.

Really? That’s just not my experience with this type of stuff.

Pride and selfishness are folks who find out they are pregnant with triplets and undergo selective reduction because 3 kids would end a career…and I think that kind of attitude is not prevalent in most of these folks.

By the way, I’m not questioning the moral soundness or the straight-forwardness of the teaching.

I am afraid to say, that any kind of discussion is tough to have when you presume selfishness and bad intentions on the part of the other party.

 

[bones_IV]

frommi:

This isn’t about the media’s perception of things…I don’t care what the media wants…but I am curious about the way loving committed couples struggle and grapple with this teaching on birth control.

We try to make this issue to wide in scope, and that’s where the wheels fall off the discussion.

Frommi, have you ever heard of the expression “we repeat what we read”? Evidently this doesn’t seem to matter to you.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Really? That’s just not my experience with this type of stuff.

Hmm. Then we have far less in common than I thought. (My experiences differ greatly.)

Pride and selfishness are folks who find out they are pregnant with triplets and undergo selective reduction because 3 kids would end a career…

You are correct…that is selfish and prideful, too…not to mention heinous.

By the way, I’m not questioning the moral soundness or the straight-forwardness of the teaching.

I’m sorry; I was not accusing you of this. I was speaking about those “committed couples” who do.

I am afraid to say, that any kind of discussion is tough to have when you presume selfishness and bad intentions on the part of the other party.

What, other than ignorance, could be at the root of willful dissent to authoritative Church teaching?

 

[frommi]

msproule:

What, other than ignorance, could be at the root of willful dissent to authoritative Church teaching?

Perhaps a worry in good conscience about the abilty to provide for a child? Maybe an issue with the way the teaching was formulated…

There could be a lot of things at the root of this…not necessairly just a way to stick it to the magisterium.

 

[bones_IV]

Hmm. Then we have far less in common than I thought. (My experiences differ greatly.)
You are correct…that is selfish and prideful, too…not to mention heinous.
I’m sorry; I was not accusing you of this. I was speaking about those “committed couples” who do.
What, other than ignorance, could be at the root of willful dissent to authoritative Church teaching?

Many a times msproule I try to imagine Jesus walking the earth and being tolerant of modern day Pharisees. I cannot see it.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Perhaps a worry in good conscience about the abilty to provide for a child?

A grave concern, for sure. Nevertheless, this argument falls short of supporting ABC. The Church provides for a more logical and moral, not to mention effective, means of regulating births in the rare circumstances that truly necessitate it.

Maybe an issue with the way the teaching was formulated…

That is irrelevant. Alleged gaps in the reasoning behind a teaching do not release one from the obligation to adhere to it. There is no such thing as “legitimate dissent”.

Even if there were such a beast, please do not attempt to convince me that most contracepting couples are so well-schooled in theology, philosophy, and Holy Scripture, that they can individually recognize “faulty” reasoning in an Encyclical Letter. Instead, it comes down to Satan, operating through a few self-appointed illuminati, who capitalizes on our latent pride, selfishness, and ignorance and leads the herd down the wrong path.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

A grave concern, for sure. Nevertheless, this argument falls short of supporting ABC. The Church provides for a more logical and moral, not to mention effective, means of regulating births in the rare circumstances that truly necessitate it.
That is irrelevant. Alleged gaps in the reasoning behind a teaching do not release one from the obligation to adhere to it. There is no such thing as “legitimate dissent”.

Even if there were such a beast, please do not attempt to convince me that most contracepting couples are so well-schooled in theology, philosophy, and Holy Scripture, that they can individually recognize “faulty” reasoning in an Encyclical Letter. Instead, it comes down to Satan, operating through a few self-appointed illuminati, who capitalizes on our latent pride, selfishness, and ignorance and leads the herd down the wrong path.

So what about the fact that a lot of priests and many bishops find this teaching less than compelling?

 

[msproule]

frommi:

So what about the fact that a lot of priests and many bishops find this teaching less than compelling?

This does not change a thing in light of the teaching, actually. Those priests and bishops can doubt all they want but they cannot rightfully teach the contrary. I pray for them every day.

For that matter, one can find priests (perhaps even Bishops) that do not believe in Papal Infallibility, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary…even the Real Presence!
:crying:

 

[frommi]

msproule:

This does not change a thing in light of the teaching, actually. Those priests and bishops can doubt all they want but they cannot rightfully teach the contrary. I pray for them every day.

For that matter, one can find priests (perhaps even Bishops) that do not believe in Papal Infallibility, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary…even the Real Presence!
:crying:

Well, if there was such a thing as ‘papal infalliabilty’ then perhaps we could have a debate…or you are referring to the infallible teaching authority of the roman magesterium? Two very different things, one exists and one does not.

I’m just surprised that you could color with one brush every Catholic couple who has grappled with this birth control issue as though you can know what is going on inside their hearts and minds. It seems like a dangerous thing to do.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

frommi:

Well, if there was such a thing as ‘papal infalliabilty’ then perhaps we could have a debate…or you are referring to the infallible teaching authority of the roman magesterium? Two very different things, one exists and one does not.

I’m just surprised that you could color with one brush every Catholic couple who has grappled with this birth control issue as though you can know what is going on inside their hearts and minds. It seems like a dangerous thing to do.

Well if you want to get really picky, the charism of infallibility belongs to the Church, which exercises it in different ways. One of these is the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium. This is the bishops in communion, so it is not necessarily Roman. Another way is through the extraordinary magisterium of an ecumenical council. While dependent upon approval by Rome, this is once again more universal than simply Roman. The last exercise of infallibility (according to Vat II and the catechism) is the pope speaking ex cathedra defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole Church. This is commonly referred to as papal infallibility (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia being one source that uses the terminology) and was infallibly declared at Vat I. What’s so spurious about that?