What does disagreeing with a Church teaching mean

[guanophore]

What I don't get is the rationalization on the part of the Church and women who are against abortion but approve of ending ectopic pregnancies with a surgery that is abortion.

No, kalt. Abortion is the deliberate taking of an unborn human life. There are many procedures that have another intention, that may result in the death of the child, as well as the mother. The goal is not to end the life of the persons involved.

They say that they don't approve of ending the pregnancy if the mother has cancer and wants to get treatment. And they don't approve of abortion when they baby has some problem that will kill it, like anencephaly (sp?).

This is true. The Church teaches that God creates life, and that we are to have respect for the sanctity of that life from the moment of conception until natural death.

But they do approve of abortion when it's an ectopic pregnancy.

No, kalt. The Church never approves of abortion, any time, anywhere.

It’s like they say that they approve of abortion, so long as the death of the mother and baby are inevitable.

No, kalt. The baby and/or the mother may die as a result of a medical intervention, but the purpose is not to take innocent life.

If you disapprove of abortion because it’s murder, what right do you have to murder and innocent person at all?

Exactly!

Killing a child in the womb who has microcephaly is no different than killing it after it is born.

difference, and I pointed this out in an earlier post, is that it's the baby that's causing the problem.

You did make this statement, but it is an erroneous statement. The baby is never the cause of the problem.

The mother with cancer will die without treatment. The baby with anencephally will die anyway.

True. That does not give us the authority to euthanize them.

So you don’t save the mother’s life over the baby’s. And you don’t abort a baby just because it will die anyway. So why abort a baby in an ectopic pregnancy.

The Church does not approve of the taking of innocent life, including abortion. IT is always and everywhere wrong to commit abortion.

Isn’t that baby just as innocent at the baby of the mother with cancer, and as innocent as the baby with anencephally.

Yes!

Why does the mother’s life only come into play when the baby will die anyway.

It does not. The life of the mother is equally important. However, it is not morally right to take the life of an innocent to save oneself.

Mother has cancer - the mother will die without treatment
Anencephally - the baby will die anyway
Ectopic pregnancy - the mother will die without treatment, the baby will die anyway

Do you see the problem here? An ectopic pregnancy is not different from the other situations, except that the growing baby is what’s endangering the mother’s life.

Yes. The problem is your reasoning. The growing baby is NOT what is endangering the mother’s life. What endangers her is where the pregnancy is located. IF the baby were in the womb, where babies are meant to grow, then the growing baby would not be a problem. Do you see why blaming the baby is wrong?

The tube isn’t diseased. The baby is not diseased.

Often, an ectopic pregnancy is, in fact, the result of a problem with the tube. However, even if it is not,the problem is that the pregancy is ectopic, not because there is a baby.

So, only in the case when the baby is normal and the mother's life is at risk because of the baby can the mother have an abortion.

No, abortion is always and everywhere wrong. IT is a grave moral evil.

I don’t disagree with this position. I just wish the Church were honest about it.

The fact that your perceptions have been bent by the culture of death in which we live is actually a common occurance today. On the contrary, it would be well for you to conform your mind to the teachings of the Church, so that you can be delivered from this culture of death.

And what will the Church say, do you think, when an abortion can be performed in an ectopic pregnancy that removes the baby but leaves the tube intact?

The Church has been teaching the same thing about abortion since she was born. Her teachigng will not change. This is a doctrine of the Church, and we do not have the authority to change what God has revealed.

Will the mother be forced to choose between ignoring the Church on abortion and dying when there is an ectopic pregnancy. (It seems that the loophole is removal of maternal tissue. So long as they remove the tissue along with the baby, the Church calls it something other than abortion.)

I agree that the situation, along with many others in this day and age, is a difficult bioethical dilemma. It is also true that many women ignore the Church teaching on abortion, to the peril of their souls.

This makes me wonder. If a woman finds out that she has uterine cancer when she is 6 months pregnant, and the doc. says that a removing it immediately is the only hope for survival, would the church approve of the surgery?

Another good example of a bioethical moral dilemma. Some women in this situation have chosen to lay their lives down for the sake of the child. However, technology being what it is, babies can now be saved at 6 months. Another reason that abortion at this stage is so heinous a crime.

 

[cascherman]

Kalt,

It seems to me you are just trying to argue simply because you don’t understand.

In order for you to better understand this, you should definitely seek out further information that will help you to get a good grasp on why the Church teaches the way it does in this matter. Contact your parish priest or seek out the information from a Catholic crisis center. If and when you find an answer that consoles you, problem solved. If you never do find an answer that consoles you then you might consider finding a faith that fits your ideas better for your own sake and for the sake of Catholic unity, since you cannot reconcile yourself morally with what the Church teaches.

For example, if I insisted that stealing is okay and everywhere I go my fellow Catholics are telling me its not okay and that the Church teaches it is not okay, then I have a decision to make. I either need to fall in line with the group that I want to be a part of or I need to find a group that agrees with me about stealing.

But, in this case, you have some serious studying to do, and you will not be getting the answer you need from this forum. It is too serious a matter and in your case you need a very detailed answer because obviously you don’t buy what people have told you this far.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Another poster on another thread said that he/she disagrees with the Church’s teaching on the pill. So what does that mean?

I disagree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, in that when a woman’s life is in danger** from the fetus**, she retains every right that a human being has when confronted by an enemy. IMO, she no more has to lay there an let the fetus cause her death than a mother whose adult son is in a murderous rage against her has to sit there and let him beat her to death. Both have the right to defend themselves, and to fight to the death if that’s what it takes.

Though the Church says it disagrees with me, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be aborted. I say it’s the same principle, yet the Church talks in circles around it, claiming that the main goal is to remove the “diseased” tube, not the growing baby. But if they could remove the growing baby and leave the tube in tact, they would. Why remove tissue when you don’t have to? I’m sure that this will be possible some day. I wonder what the Church would say in that situation. It’s obviously a case of life or death, but would the Church insist on removing the tube also, to protect herself from endorsing abortion in any case?

Anyway, back to the question. What does disagreeing with the Church mean? If someone disagrees with a teaching but follows the rules anyway, what does it mean?

I disagree with ridiculously slow speed limits on main roads by colleges (40 MPH through residential areas to 20 MPH in front of the college), but I obey the law. What does that mean?

I suspect I may be the bloke who disagrees with the church’s teaching on the pill, and I’ll go on disagreeing with it.

Now, if you agree with it, tell me what the Chinese and Indians should do about their burgeoning population, with the following statistics from Wikipedia -

1 China, People’s Republic of[5] 1,331,650,000 July 6, 2009 19.67% of world population.
2 India 1,165,970,000 July 6, 2009 17.22 % of world population.

Leading Population densities - admittedly these are small nations -

1 Macau (PRC) density per square mile - 48,450 people
2 Monaco - density per square mile - 43,780 people
3 Singapore - density per square mile - 17,650 people
4 Hong Kong (PRC) density per square mile - 16,380 people
5 Gibraltar (UK) - density per square mile - 13,260 people

So, what would you traditionalists (ie. the church never makes mistakes) regard as suitable populations and population densities?

I’ll go a step further and make an outrageous suggestion, which my old Protestant pastor also though.

We suspect Christ told Pope John Paul I he wanted the ruling on the pill rescinded, and PJ1 didn’t do it. He died in 30 days. Our arguments?

First of all if the church is so accurate in all it’s dealings, and the magisterium is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its choice of the Pope, then we have 4 conclusions -

1. The magisterium picked the wrong man, which casts the church’s claim to infallibility in complete doubt.
2. God didn’t know he was sick, which doesn’t say much for God’s omnipotence.
3. He was murdered, but there was no evidence.
4. God told him to do something, and he didn’t do it.

Now which one do you think it might have been?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Though the Church says it disagrees with me, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be aborted. I say it’s the same principle, yet the Church talks in circles around it, claiming that the main goal is to remove the “diseased” tube, not the growing baby. But if they could remove the growing baby and leave the tube in tact, they would. Why remove tissue when you don’t have to? I’m sure that this will be possible some day.

IT IS POSSIBLE! Many ectopic pregnancies are discovered when the pregnancy is very early in gestation. A drug called MXT (Methotrexate) can successfully abort the pregnancy (which is doomed anyway) without causing any damage to the fallopian tube and without forcing the need of an invasive surgery. HOWEVER, the Church does not allow the use of MXT precisely because it is an abortifacient. The sole object of the drug is the embryo, and so the Church views this as a direct abortion. The Church essentially forces women to undergo unneeded surgery just so that something else other than the embryo becomes the object and their consciences assuaged. The Church further justifies indirect abortions, such as the removal of the fallopian tube which “just so happens to have an embryo in it” via the “Doctrine of Double Effect”, which in my personal opinion is ethical hogwash. I find it incredibly disingenuous to say that the abortion of the embryo/fetus during the removal of a fallopian tube is merely an “unintended consequence” when such a consequence is obviously forseeable. Either direct abortion is always, all the time, in all situations 100% evil, in which case a woman should die in order to avoid an abortion; OR the Church has blocked herself into an ethical corner without actually critically studying everything involved.

As a good Catholic friend of mine pointed out to me: “Using the Doctrine of Double Effect, I could legitimately set up a factory which caused detrimental amounts of pollution. I would justify my doing so by saying ‘Oh well, the pollution was simply an ‘unintended consequence’ while my original goal was to make money for myself, my employees, and to expand the job market, all of which are virtuous endeavors.’” This hypothetical shows where the Doctrine of Double Effect is severely lacking: It forces us to hone in on only one consequence of our actions when we should be mindful of all consequences, and subsequently make a balanced decision.

I completely agree with you on this. The Church’s position is illogical and I cannot fathom how a woman dissenting from this teaching would be in a state of mortal sin, unless her own conscience informed her that doing so was wrong.

 

[kalt]

No, kalt. Abortion is the deliberate taking of an unborn human life. There are many procedures that have another intention, that may result in the death of the child, as well as the mother. The goal is not to end the life of the persons involved.

This is true. The Church teaches that God creates life, and that we are to have respect for the sanctity of that life from the moment of conception until natural death.

No, kalt. The Church never approves of abortion, any time, anywhere.

No, kalt. The baby and/or the mother may die as a result of a medical intervention, but the purpose is not to take innocent life.

Exactly!

Killing a child in the womb who has microcephaly is no different than killing it after it is born.

You did make this statement, but it is an erroneous statement. The baby is never the cause of the problem.

True. That does not give us the authority to euthanize them.

The Church does not approve of the taking of innocent life, including abortion. IT is always and everywhere wrong to commit abortion.

Yes!

It does not. The life of the mother is equally important. However, it is not morally right to take the life of an innocent to save oneself.

Yes. The problem is your reasoning. The growing baby is NOT what is endangering the mother’s life. What endangers her is where the pregnancy is located. IF the baby were in the womb, where babies are meant to grow, then the growing baby would not be a problem. Do you see why blaming the baby is wrong?

Often, an ectopic pregnancy is, in fact, the result of a problem with the tube. However, even if it is not,the problem is that the pregancy is ectopic, not because there is a baby.

No, abortion is always and everywhere wrong. IT is a grave moral evil.

The fact that your perceptions have been bent by the culture of death in which we live is actually a common occurance today. On the contrary, it would be well for you to conform your mind to the teachings of the Church, so that you can be delivered from this culture of death.

The Church has been teaching the same thing about abortion since she was born. Her teachigng will not change. This is a doctrine of the Church, and we do not have the authority to change what God has revealed.

I agree that the situation, along with many others in this day and age, is a difficult bioethical dilemma. It is also true that many women ignore the Church teaching on abortion, to the peril of their souls.

Another good example of a bioethical moral dilemma. Some women in this situation have chosen to lay their lives down for the sake of the child. However, technology being what it is, babies can now be saved at 6 months. Another reason that abortion at this stage is so heinous a crime.

I would like to understand the reasoning, but so far no one has been able to explain it so that ending an ectopic pregnancy appears to be anything but an abortion.

You say that it’s not the baby, it’s the tube. But there is nothing wrong with the tube. There is nothing wrong with the baby. As you said, it’s where the baby is implanted. It’s the growing baby that’s the problem. You say that it’s not the baby, it’s the pregnancy. What is a pregnancy, if not a growing baby?

I just don’t understand how the Church justifies killing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy.
It seems that if you’re against abortion, you should be against all abortion.

For those who don’t understand this teaching, it looks an awful lot like an exception to the rule. Can you explain it in a way that shows how it obeys the rule?

And what of when they’re able to save the tube but not the baby? What then? It’s the same kind of pregnancy. The problem is the same, but they’re able to save the tube. Would that be called an abortion? And what of the cancer situation? Would a hysterectomy during a pregnancy, especially in a later term pregnancy, be OK?
I hope someone actually knows the answer to that question.

I’m not trying to sound argumentative on this issue. I really am trying to understand this. It just seems that no one is able to get this through my thick head. I still see this as an exception to the rule.

I think it boils down to–if you can’t take an innocent human life to save your own, what difference does it make that both of you would die if you did nothing? Why is it OK to save your life (knowing that you are aborting the baby when removing the tube) in this one case?

 

[kalt]

Kalt,

It seems to me you are just trying to argue simply because you don’t understand.

In order for you to better understand this, you should definitely seek out further information that will help you to get a good grasp on why the Church teaches the way it does in this matter. Contact your parish priest or seek out the information from a Catholic crisis center. If and when you find an answer that consoles you, problem solved. If you never do find an answer that consoles you then you might consider finding a faith that fits your ideas better for your own sake and for the sake of Catholic unity, since you cannot reconcile yourself morally with what the Church teaches.

For example, if I insisted that stealing is okay and everywhere I go my fellow Catholics are telling me its not okay and that the Church teaches it is not okay, then I have a decision to make. I either need to fall in line with the group that I want to be a part of or I need to find a group that agrees with me about stealing.

But, in this case, you have some serious studying to do, and you will not be getting the answer you need from this forum. It is too serious a matter and in your case you need a very detailed answer because obviously you don’t buy what people have told you this far.

Why can’t I get the answer here. If you know the teaching and understand it, why can’t you present that information here? And isn’t it our job to conform ourselves to God, not find a religion that conforms to us? I’m not certain that your advise is in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[kalt]

Ask most any parent if they’d willingly take a bullet to save their child’s life - in fact ask most adults if they’d give up their life for that of a child, most of them would say ‘yes’. An adult has had a chance to live productively, and contribute to the world. A child (born or unborn) deserves that chance too, in my books.

I’m not pretending it’s easy by any means. Of course it isn’t. Of course in LOTS of situations doing the right thing is incredibly difficult. But if you think it’s just men who are anti-abortion, then by no means is that the case. A lot of women, including women who have children, medical staff who have performed abortions, and women who have had abortions themselves - in other words people who know what they’re talking about - feel exactly the same!

Do you think you could end an ectopic pregnancy?

 

[kalt]

I suspect I may be the bloke who disagrees with the church’s teaching on the pill, and I’ll go on disagreeing with it.

Now, if you agree with it, tell me what the Chinese and Indians should do about their burgeoning population, with the following statistics from Wikipedia -

1 China, People’s Republic of[5] 1,331,650,000 July 6, 2009 19.67% of world population.
2 India 1,165,970,000 July 6, 2009 17.22 % of world population.

Leading Population densities - admittedly these are small nations -

1 Macau (PRC) density per square mile - 48,450 people
2 Monaco - density per square mile - 43,780 people
3 Singapore - density per square mile - 17,650 people
4 Hong Kong (PRC) density per square mile - 16,380 people
5 Gibraltar (UK) - density per square mile - 13,260 people

So, what would you traditionalists (ie. the church never makes mistakes) regard as suitable populations and population densities?

I’ll go a step further and make an outrageous suggestion, which my old Protestant pastor also though.

We suspect Christ told Pope John Paul I he wanted the ruling on the pill rescinded, and PJ1 didn’t do it. He died in 30 days. Our arguments?

First of all if the church is so accurate in all it’s dealings, and the magisterium is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its choice of the Pope, then we have 4 conclusions -

1. The magisterium picked the wrong man, which casts the church’s claim to infallibility in complete doubt.
2. God didn’t know he was sick, which doesn’t say much for God’s omnipotence.
3. He was murdered, but there was no evidence.
4. God told him to do something, and he didn’t do it.

Now which one do you think it might have been?

What makes you think that the pope died of anything but illness?

 

[kalt]

IT IS POSSIBLE! Many ectopic pregnancies are discovered when the pregnancy is very early in gestation. A drug called MXT (Methotrexate) can successfully abort the pregnancy (which is doomed anyway) without causing any damage to the fallopian tube and without forcing the need of an invasive surgery. HOWEVER, the Church does not allow the use of MXT precisely because it is an abortifacient. The sole object of the drug is the embryo, and so the Church views this as a direct abortion. The Church essentially forces women to undergo unneeded surgery just so that something else other than the embryo becomes the object and their consciences assuaged. The Church further justifies indirect abortions, such as the removal of the fallopian tube which “just so happens to have an embryo in it” via the “Doctrine of Double Effect”, which in my personal opinion is ethical hogwash. I find it incredibly disingenuous to say that the abortion of the embryo/fetus during the removal of a fallopian tube is merely an “unintended consequence” when such a consequence is obviously forseeable. Either direct abortion is always, all the time, in all situations 100% evil, in which case a woman should die in order to avoid an abortion; OR the Church has blocked herself into an ethical corner without actually critically studying everything involved.

As a good Catholic friend of mine pointed out to me: “Using the Doctrine of Double Effect, I could legitimately set up a factory which caused detrimental amounts of pollution. I would justify my doing so by saying ‘Oh well, the pollution was simply an ‘unintended consequence’ while my original goal was to make money for myself, my employees, and to expand the job market, all of which are virtuous endeavors.’” This hypothetical shows where the Doctrine of Double Effect is severely lacking: It forces us to hone in on only one consequence of our actions when we should be mindful of all consequences, and subsequently make a balanced decision.

I completely agree with you on this. The Church’s position is illogical and I cannot fathom how a woman dissenting from this teaching would be in a state of mortal sin, unless her own conscience informed her that doing so was wrong.

You get it! And you expressed it so much better than I?

Everyone, how about it? How do you justify not being able to remove the fetus unless you also remove part of the woman’s body with it? This doesn’t appear to be completely honest, does it?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

What makes you think that the pope died of anything but illness?

The magisterium is heavily involved in choosing the pope, and it assumes that the Holy Spirit guides its decision. For God then to guide them to choose a Pope who is going to kick the bucket a mere 30 days later doesn’t say much either for God’s guidance, or otherwise the Magisterium’s discernment.

I’ll put it this way - my arguments are twofold - the business of “infallibility” and the contraceptive pill. As far as I’m concerned the Pope’s / Church’s rulings are “BINDING” as stated by Christ. It was the Church itself which declared the Infallibility doctrine.

But let’s look at the first Pope, Peter. Infallible? Denied Christ 3 times. Had to be rebuked by Christ Himself hard on the heels of his declaration of Christ as Messiah. Took his eyes off Christ and sank in the water. Was reverting to Jewish customs until reprimanded by Paul. Didn’t want his feet washed by Christ. Blurted out that they should build 3 tents for Christ, Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration.

The first pope didn’t show much “infallibility”. But was his authority “BINDING”? You bet it was. The very same man who blundered on so many occasions merely said the word, and Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead.

As far as I’m concerned the Church has got it wrong about the pill, and God has already killed one Pope over it. At the same time the church’s teaching is “binding”.

But it can also be “loosed”. And the sooner the better.

When those Ultramontanists insisted on the Infallibility business at Vatican 1, they didn’t anybody a favour. They should have left enough alone. The Pope’s ruling was “binding” as defined by Christ Himself, and that should have been completely sufficient.

 

[insideitall]

"Up to an estimated 20 in every 1,000 pregnancies are ectopic. Various factors are associated with ectopic pregnancy, including:

• Previous ectopic pregnancy. If you’ve had one ectopic pregnancy, you’re more likely to have another.
• Inflammation or infection. Up to 50 percent of women with ectopic pregnancies have had inflammation of the fallopian tube (salpingitis) or an infection of the uterus, fallopian tubes or ovaries (pelvic inflammatory disease). Gonorrhea or chlamydia can cause tubal problems that increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. A condition that causes the tissue that normally lines the uterus to develop outside the uterus (endometriosis) also may increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Fertility problems. Taking medication to stimulate ovulation increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Structural problems. An ectopic pregnancy is more likely if you have an unusually shaped fallopian tube or the fallopian tube was damaged, possibly during surgery. Even surgery to reconstruct the fallopian tube can increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Contraceptive choice. With proper use, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD). If pregnancy occurs, however, it’s more likely to be ectopic. The same goes for pregnancy after tubal ligation, a permanent method of birth control commonly known as “having your tubes tied.” Although pregnancy is rare after tubal ligation, if it happens it’s more likely to be ectopic." (Mayo Clinic, “Risk Factors”)

I would say this shows that a majority of the time (50% from a history of inflammation, plus whatever percent from a malformation or damage) the problem is, in fact, the tube.

It does seem like there are ways to identify damaged tubes (merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch254/ch254d.html) but have a feeling this would not be done unless there are infertility issues or a woman has already had an ectopic pregnancy.

Just my :twocents: for y’all.

 

[1ke]

But ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. The Church just chooses not to acknowledge that fact. If it were wrong to kill a fetus under any circumstance, then ectopic pregnancies should be carried until their natural end.

When one has an ectopic pregnancy, it is not the fetus that harms the woman. What harms the woman is the rupture of the tube. The rupturing tube must be prevented by removing it before it ruptures. The intent is never to kill the child. The intent is to prevent the tube from rupturing. If the child could also be saved, the doctor would be obligated to do so. The child’s death is the foreseen, but unintended consequence of removing the tube.

If you can’t abort a fetus to save your life when you have cancer, why can you do it when it’s an ectopic pregnancy’s baby you’re aborting?

You can treat the cancer, even if it means the child will die. The Church has no teaching that would prevent a woman with uterine cancer from having her uterus removed, even if a baby were inside. If the baby could be saved, the doctor should make every effort to do so.

The Church is entirely consistent. We may take actions that result in the unintended, but foreseeable, death of the baby IF we are treating a legitimate medical situation.

Abortion-- killing the child on purpose-- can never be the TREATMENT. The death of the child can be an outcome, but not the willed event.

And, while we’re at it, NFP is birth control by another name and method.

Of course it is. The Church doesn’t teach that it is wrong to space/avoid pregnancy for a time or indefinitely.

The Church teaches there are moral and immoral **ways **of doing so. Abstaining (periodically or completely) is a moral means of birth control. Contraception is an immoral means.

 

[insideitall]

Bob, take a look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Or, here’s the concise version.

“Papal infallabillity” refers to when a pope is speaking from his position as head of the Church (ex cathedra) that a doctrine of faith or morals must be held by all Catholics. Yes, you’re right that it was officially made part of doctrine in Vatican I, but this in NO WAY has anything to do with the pope as a man. He will make mistakes and sin; he’s human like the rest of us. Since then (late 1800’s for those who don’t know) it has been used exactly ONE TIME. The pope says a lot of stuff, and has opinions like the rest of us do. This doctrine has nothing to do with Peter or any other pope screwing up back then, nor does it have to do with the fact that future popes will also screw up.

Please don’t continue to spread misinformation

 

[1ke]

I suspect I may be the bloke who disagrees with the church’s teaching on the pill, and I’ll go on disagreeing with it.

Now, if you agree with it, tell me what the Chinese and Indians should do about their burgeoning population, with the following statistics from Wikipedia -

1 China, People’s Republic of[5] 1,331,650,000 July 6, 2009 19.67% of world population.
2 India 1,165,970,000 July 6, 2009 17.22 % of world population.

Leading Population densities - admittedly these are small nations -

1 Macau (PRC) density per square mile - 48,450 people
2 Monaco - density per square mile - 43,780 people
3 Singapore - density per square mile - 17,650 people
4 Hong Kong (PRC) density per square mile - 16,380 people
5 Gibraltar (UK) - density per square mile - 13,260 people

So, what would you traditionalists (ie. the church never makes mistakes) regard as suitable populations and population densities?

It’s not up to **anyone **to decide population and population densities, especially not governments. Each couple has the God-give right to have children and to make their **own **family decisions. If they have just reasons to limit their family size they may certainly do so via natural family planning.

In fact, in China, NFP is widely practiced and in India as well. Your argument for the Pill is misplaced. The Pill is expensive and not well suited to third world countries. It is not widely used in these places at all. Your argument is really for contraception and sterilization-- neither of which is needed to space/limit the number of children a family has.

I’ll go a step further and make an outrageous suggestion, which my old Protestant pastor also though.

We suspect Christ told Pope John Paul I he wanted the ruling on the pill rescinded, and PJ1 didn’t do it. He died in 30 days.

Your old Protestant pastor was an ignorant man.

Our arguments?

First of all if the church is so accurate in all it’s dealings, and the magisterium is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its choice of the Pope, then we have 4 conclusions -

1. The magisterium picked the wrong man, which casts the church’s claim to infallibility in complete doubt.
2. God didn’t know he was sick, which doesn’t say much for God’s omnipotence.
3. He was murdered, but there was no evidence.
4. God told him to do something, and he didn’t do it.

Now which one do you think it might have been?

None of the above.

 

[SedesDomi]

This was posted on this board, because I was hoping non-Catholics would answer, too. What does disagreeing with a teaching of your church mean? What if you disagree but obey the rule?

It’s like disagreeing with your parents. You respect your parents, but respectfully disagree.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please keep the discussion on topic.

Thanks and God bless-

Rachel

 

[kalt]

"Up to an estimated 20 in every 1,000 pregnancies are ectopic. Various factors are associated with ectopic pregnancy, including:

• Previous ectopic pregnancy. If you’ve had one ectopic pregnancy, you’re more likely to have another.
• Inflammation or infection. Up to 50 percent of women with ectopic pregnancies have had inflammation of the fallopian tube (salpingitis) or an infection of the uterus, fallopian tubes or ovaries (pelvic inflammatory disease). Gonorrhea or chlamydia can cause tubal problems that increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. A condition that causes the tissue that normally lines the uterus to develop outside the uterus (endometriosis) also may increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Fertility problems. Taking medication to stimulate ovulation increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Structural problems. An ectopic pregnancy is more likely if you have an unusually shaped fallopian tube or the fallopian tube was damaged, possibly during surgery. Even surgery to reconstruct the fallopian tube can increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
• Contraceptive choice. With proper use, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD). If pregnancy occurs, however, it’s more likely to be ectopic. The same goes for pregnancy after tubal ligation, a permanent method of birth control commonly known as “having your tubes tied.” Although pregnancy is rare after tubal ligation, if it happens it’s more likely to be ectopic." (Mayo Clinic, “Risk Factors”)

I would say this shows that a majority of the time (50% from a history of inflammation, plus whatever percent from a malformation or damage) the problem is, in fact, the tube.

It does seem like there are ways to identify damaged tubes (merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch254/ch254d.html) but have a feeling this would not be done unless there are infertility issues or a woman has already had an ectopic pregnancy.

Just my :twocents: for y’all.

Interesting info. But is the problem tube life-threatening if there is no baby?

 

[kalt]

Back to the original topic. What does disagreeingn with a Church teaching mean?

This question is for all, not just Catholics.

What does it mean if you disagree with a church teaching? What does it mean if you disagree but obey the teaching? Are we required to agree with the teaching or to accept the teaching and obey?

For Catholics, if you know the answer to this question, can you post a source for me?

 

[1ke]

Back to the original topic. What does disagreeingn with a Church teaching mean?

This question is for all, not just Catholics.

What does it mean if you disagree with a church teaching? What does it mean if you disagree but obey the teaching? Are we required to agree with the teaching or to accept the teaching and obey?

For Catholics, if you know the answer to this question, can you post a source for me?

Assent
of faith to the Magisterium’s definitions, CCC 891
religious assent of the mind to the Magisterium’s ordinary teaching, CCC 892

Click here to read the section.

And see also this section of the Catechism dealing with sins against the First Commandment, particularly CCC paragraphs 2087-2089

 

[cascherman]

Why can’t I get the answer here. If you know the teaching and understand it, why can’t you present that information here?

I already gave you an answer for this, I said: “It is too serious a matter and in your case you need a very detailed answer because obviously you don’t buy what people have told you this far.”

If you insist upon only seeking out information here, you evidently are just looking for people to argue with and not actually interested in THE answer. There are people who are experts in this subject. Seek them out!

And isn’t it our job to conform ourselves to God, not find a religion that conforms to us?

You are precisely right… and this is why, as a Catholic, you should believe that the Church has the authority of God to rule on matters concerning faith and MORALS. So, an interesting question that I feel is necessary is, do you actually believe that your Church has the authority to rule on matters of faith and morals? Because your question here shows that apparently you do not think it has the authority to rule on morals.

I’m not certain that your advise is in line with Catholic teaching.

An ironic statement considering what this thread is titled and concentrated on. But, by all means, I have been wrong before, please show where I am out of line.