Website arguing that the teaching on birth control can be changed

[bear06]

Provide evidence that the Church recognized the unitive aspect of marriage and equated it with the procreative. The Old Testament was written by Jews, not the Catholic Church. Paul was pretty negative on marriage, saying that if you can remain a virgin it’s preferrable to do it, but if you can’t hold back sexual desire go ahead and marry (and I will quote this if you want me to, I am not quoting it because it’s pretty well known passage).

Here are some great pre-Vatican II documents that teach the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cmr.htm
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

I already provided you the argument as to Onan but you don’t buy it. Re-read the 20 threads you’re on right now and you’ll see more than I answered this one. Yikes. Here’s yet another article that explains why the story of Onan is not what you think it is. In fact, it uses your very same arguments. Do you think you might try reading it?
soma.npa.uiuc.edu/~dbranch/script_cath/BC.HTM

 

[bear06]

Again, that one has intercourse when there is little or no change of conception occuring is not a suppression of fertility. In such a case no one is suppressing fertilty. Both parties are still giving their fertility in full to each other. It is not simply all about conception.

Now this is a great way to say it. ABC, always, surpresses fertiliy. NFP never does. In fact, it can be used to get pregnant. How many people use ABC to get pregnant?

 

[bear06]

The Church, who speaks as Christ, is not negative on this.

Yeah, I never really get this argument. If you look at the Church’s documents on marriage, you’ll constantly see Ephesians quoted.

 

[fix]

bear06:

Now this is a great way to say it. ABC, always, surpresses fertiliy. NFP never does. In fact, it can be used to get pregnant. How many people use ABC to get pregnant?

These past few days in reading all these challenges to the teaching have really helped me understand the Church’s position even better. Posts by you, and others, have helped me grow in understanding. I accepted it before, and now I have even more appreciation for the truth. Thanks to all you folks.

 

[bellesjoy]

svoboda:

Encyclicals can be wrong. I doubt that any pope now would agree with that. Another thing is that it is necessary for the salvation of every person to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. That was in a a papal bull, so what? Again, now we don’t believe this.

This is taking this thread off course, but since you brought it up; CCC: “Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation”

**"846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

CCC 847: goes on to say that this does not apply to those who through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church."

Most of us on this forum would fall under the category of those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. Catholics are called to believe this.

 

[mikew262]

bellesjoy:

This is taking this thread off course, but since you brought it up; CCC: “Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation”

**"846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

CCC 847: goes on to say that this does not apply to those who through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church."

Most of us on this forum would fall under the category of those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. Catholics are called to believe this.

Again, off thread, but one could interpret this as saying if you’re not Catholic, you’re not going to heaven. Is this how you see it?

 

[bellesjoy]

mikew262:

Again, off thread, but one could interpret this as saying if you’re not Catholic, you’re not going to heaven. Is this how you see it?

The quotes I gave are directly from the CCC and have been by Papal Authority stated to be Catholic doctrine. In that regard I do accept and attest to my faith in all that is printed there. It does not state that if you are not Catholic you will not go to heaven, as in 847 and beyond. The CCC is a valuable resource and was the topic our Bishop’s weekly class here for over a year and a half.

If you have a CCC, read the section I mentioned and it will give you a good view of what it is that Catholics are called to believe. Each statement is annotated with sources, both Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Majesterium. I, like you, don’t want to hijack this thread.

 

[John_Higgins]

While I’m more inlcined to side with Svoboda on this, here is a pre-Vatican II refernce on the unitive aspect of marriage:

24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. --Pius XI, 1930

This, of course, roughly coincided with the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican church.

John

 

[ReformedCatholic]

You’re on the right track, Svogoda. Stick to your guns.

Many of your opponents are demonstrating a “cult” mentality.

They want you to take what they say at face value but want you to “prove” what you are saying.

 

[bellesjoy]

ReformedCatholic:

You’re on the right track, Svogoda. Stick to your guns.
Many of your opponents are demonstrating a “cult” mentality.

They want you to take what they say at face value but want you to “prove” what you are saying.

Your remarks on this forum are encouraged to remain charitable. I don’t know by your name what your faith is, but since this is a Catholic forum this rule should be kept in mind:

1. 
   *]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[bellesjoy]

ReformedCatholic:

You’re on the right track, Svogoda. Stick to your guns.
Many of your opponents are demonstrating a “cult” mentality.

They want you to take what they say at face value but want you to “prove” what you are saying.

Remarks on this forum are to remain charitable. I don’t know by your name what your faith is, but since this is a Catholic forum this rule should be kept in mind:

1. 
   *]on-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

I am a Reformed Catholic, not Roman Rite, but Catholic nonetheless.

I apologize.

Let me rephrase my message. It seems that a number of individuals posting do not appear to be genuinely open to debate and seem somewhat hostie toward a person with a dissenting opinion.

 

[bear06]

ReformedCatholic:

I am a Reformed Catholic, not Roman Rite, but Catholic nonetheless.

I apologize.

Let me rephrase my message. It seems that a number of individuals posting do not appear to be genuinely open to debate and seem somewhat hostie toward a person with a dissenting opinion.

Pretty much because this is the 1,000th thread on this topicstarted in the past 3 days. Hopefully the moderator will at least join them and help us in our misery!

 

[bear06]

ReformedCatholic:

You’re on the right track, Svogoda. Stick to your guns.

Many of your opponents are demonstrating a “cult” mentality.

They want you to take what they say at face value but want you to “prove” what you are saying.

Cult mentality? Yikes! You’re faithful to the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and you’re now in a cult! I suppose you’re one of those who would like to let the UN prosecute the Church for hate crimes for speaking out against sin?

 

[ReformedCatholic]

bear06:

Pretty much because this is the 1,000th thread on this topicstarted in the past 3 days. Hopefully the moderator will at least join them and help us in our misery!

LOL… fair enough.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

bear06:

Cult mentality? Yikes! You’re faithful to the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and you’re now in a cult! I suppose you’re one of those who would like to let the UN prosecute the Church for hate crimes for speaking out against sin?

Please allow me to clarify- I do not believe the Christian Church to be a cult by any means, although it may have been viewed as such by some (obviously non-Christians) in the early years of Christianity.

My idea of a “cult mentality” refers to the refuting of legitimate and valid points without evidence of sufficient counter-reasoning, and a closed-mindedness to legitimate discourse that aims to better the individuals, the group, and the institutions involved.

Maybe I should have just said that in the first place. LOL

As far as the U.N. goes, I believe that THEY should be prosecuted for the Oil-for-Food debacle.

 

[bear06]

My idea of a “cult mentality” refers to the refuting of legitimate and valid points without evidence of sufficient counter-reasoning, and a closed-mindedness to legitimate discourse that aims to better the individuals, the group, and the institutions involved.

For some the Church teachings will never be sufficient counter-reasoning. We’ve discourse to death with svoboda this week.

I believe that THEY should be prosecuted for the Oil-for-Food debacle

Ah, let’s just castrate them all and get it over with!

 

[ReformedCatholic]

bear06:

For some the Church teachings will never be sufficient counter-reasoning. We’ve discourse to death with svoboda this week.

Ah, let’s just castrate them all and get it over with!

You may be right. The challenge is suspending the idea that it is a “Church teaching” and that it comes from an “infallable source” and see if the reasoning is solid or even makes sense.

If it doesn’t, you must go back to the sources and the Church and examine why rather than jump on the guy who points it out!

I understand that it is scarey to doubt one’s religious teachings, but if they are the Truth, they will endure any amount of doubt or scrutiny, and remain Truth. If the teachings turn out to have some “errors” in them, then the scrutiny will lead you through this and ultimately to the Truth, and you will be the better for it.

I’m all for the castration. It will certainly solve the contraception question!

 

[svoboda]

setter:

svoboda:

setter:

This is not the logical conclusion as you erroneously conclude.

If a couple’s marital embrace by no artifical and intended action of their own is naturally infertile (i.e., conception cannot occur), then this does not at all mean (or imply) that the couple is now closed to life when enjoying the marital embrace. It simply means that nature has so deemed conception is not possible. The couple is in no way during these naturally infertile periods withholding their *procreative potential *

(i.e., fertility) from the marital embrace. Their intent may or may not be to limit the chance of pregnancy, but there is nothing that they are doing or introducing to violate or frustrate the exchange of their *procreative potential * and unitive embrace, as is exactly the case with ABC.

If you cannot see the blatant function and symbolism of a condom (or other forms of ABC) erecting/introducing a barrier between the procreative and unitive exchange of a couple during the marital embrace, I am not sure what could convince you (perhaps put hubby in a body wrap of blue tarp bounded by duck tape ).

I started a new thread on the unitive vs. procreative thread to keep this thread focused on the original issue of whether the teaching can be changed.

 

[svoboda]

fix:

Wrong. They have not supprssed their fertility.

.

You are right, there is no fertility to suppress. But I refined my position in the post about sex for unitive purposes alone. Better to keep this focused on whether teaching on ABC can be changed.