What should you do if you think your RCIA instructor is espousing incorrect teachings?

[Newbie2]

A comment and a question:

First, I agree that the OP has an obligation to talk with the instructor first. There are a couple really good reasons for this, but at a minimum it’s just polite.

Second: Why is everyone referring to him as a Deacon? Did I miss something in the initial post?
Pax,
OA

I think JM3 got instructor/Deacon exchanged and I followed suit. Oops.

 

[jmcrae]

The teaching of Pope Paul VI on contraception is quite well known. Yes. Definitely.

Whether it’s the teaching of the Church depends on what one means by “the Church.”

The Church has always and everywhere condemned the use of “pharmakia” (drugs) for the purpose of abortion and/or deliberate sterilization of either the man or the woman. We see this as early as 50 AD in the Didache.

According to the teachings of Pope John Paul II in Theology of the Body condoms, diaphrams, and other physical devices interfere with both the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital union, and are thus contrary to both of its purposes.

So, Pope Paul VI was not alone in thinking there is something sinful about artificial means of birth control. Which, as he points out in Humanae Vitae, does not mean that we cannot exercise restraint in our marriages, so as to have the number of children that we can raise within the means available to us.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Here at CAF, I always assume the definition of The Church is The Catholic Church. Each and everytime I see it. Am I to understand there is yet another Capital C Church meaning?
I see lower case church and always assume that means all of christianity.

 

[Seatuck]

Sounds like a difference of opinion…yours and the person you’re referring to. Do one (and only one) of you have to be right? Is there room for sincere and faithful disagreement?

There is no room for faitful disagreement when the magesterium holds that contraception is intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil is a far cry from an act being called " less good".

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), **which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. **

As far as there being no condemnation - it is on every examination of conscience I have ever seen under mortal sins.

 

[1ke]

Here at CAF, I always assume the definition of The Church is The Catholic Church. Each and everytime I see it. Am I to understand there is yet another Capital C Church meaning?
I see lower case church and always assume that means all of christianity.

No. The other poster is trying to insinuate that this is not a teaching of the Supreme Magisterium, and therefore not infallible.

 

[anp1215]

A comment and a question:

First, I agree that the OP has an obligation to talk with the instructor first. There are a couple really good reasons for this, but at a minimum it’s just polite.

Second: Why is everyone referring to him as a Deacon? Did I miss something in the initial post?

Pax,
OA

No, I said he was a deacon in the original post.

 

[anp1215]

Sounds like a difference of opinion…yours and the person you’re referring to. Do one (and only one) of you have to be right? Is there room for sincere and faithful disagreement?

Whoever has the Church’s teachings correct is right. It’s not a matter of opinion. I believe he (the deacon) has them very wrong.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is no room for faitful disagreement when the magesterium holds that contraception is intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil is a far cry from an act being called " less good".

There is room for disagreement unless such has been taught infallibly.

 

[diggerdomer]

Whoever has the Church’s teachings correct is right. It’s not a matter of opinion. I believe he (the deacon) has them very wrong.

So an ordained minister of the Church is wrong. Good to note. Thanks.

 

[anp1215]

So an ordained minister of the Church is wrong. Good to note. Thanks.

No problem.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church has always and everywhere condemned the use of “pharmakia” (drugs) for the purpose of abortion and/or deliberate sterilization of either the man or the woman. We see this as early as 50 AD in the Didache.

The Didache may have been written that early, but could have been as late as ca. 150 A.D. We simply don’t know.

Anyway, the topic of this thread was not restricted to “phamakia (drugs)” or deliberate sterilization.

 

[jmcrae]

The Didache may have been written that early, but could have been as late as ca. 150 A.D. We simply don’t know.

Anyway, the topic of this thread was not restricted to “phamakia (drugs)” or deliberate sterilization.

Welcome back. Try to stay a little longer, this time.

It’s clear that Humanae Vitae was not a “one off” or a personal opinion piece - it is based firmly on the unchanging teaching of the Church throughout time and space that artificial means of birth control are not acceptable for Christians.

To suggest that this might change some day, or to think that someone could freely go ahead and contracept today while claiming “conscience,” is to misunderstand the nature of the Church.

 

[adrift]

To clarify your statement, can you please:

1. Define what you understand by “artificial contraception” and
2. show where the Church teaches that such is objectively evil?

Thank you.

Catholic Catechism

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

 

[diggerdomer]

Welcome back. Try to stay a little longer, this time.

Thank you. I will. Still trying to learn how to be politically correct

It’s clear that Humanae Vitae was not a “one off” or a personal opinion piece - it is based firmly on the unchanging teaching of the Church throughout time and space that artificial means of birth control are not acceptable for Christians.

Yes…but at the same time, in the context of the times, it was clearly an issue that many Catholics felt was open to development and yet the final teaching was understood by many to disregard any possible development (and seemed to disregard the majority of the Papal commission established to specifically address this issue). Again, we’re dealing with (I think) two distinct but related issues on this topic: (1) constant church teaching and (2) the actual lives and times of contemporary Catholics.

Yes, Humanae Vitae was not a “one off” or personal opinion. It’s authoritative Church teaching (though not infallibly taught).

Still…the recommendation of the Papal Commission led many to believe… understandably … that the end result would be different.

Yes, of course, on one hand it’s based on the unchanging teaching of the Church. But on the other hand, it’s based on the Church teaching with respect to realities that have never existed before in tradition (e.g. the Pill). So, as always, the Church has to respond to contemporary realities in light of Her unchanging tradition.

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholic Catechism

Thank you.

So…let me ask…a couple who intentionally engages in intercourse during a supposed infertile period (as you refer to in the CCC), with the intent of not conceiving…sin or no?

Or…how about a couple who uses some means of artificial contraception, while accepting the fact that such means are not 100% reliable, i.e. the possibility of conception of exists…they accept this…sinful or not?

 

[adrift]

Thank you.

So…let me ask…a couple who intentionally engages in intercourse during a supposed infertile period (as you refer to in the CCC), with the intent of not conceiving…sin or no?

Or…how about a couple who uses some means of artificial contraception, while accepting the fact that such means are not 100% reliable, i.e. the possibility of conception of exists…they accept this…sinful or not?

The Catechism answereded question.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Catechism answereded question.

Which paragraphs? Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you.

So…let me ask…a couple who intentionally engages in intercourse during a supposed infertile period (as you refer to in the CCC), with the intent of not conceiving…sin or no?

It is not a sin for married people to have sex, any time they want to.

Or…how about a couple who uses some means of artificial contraception, while accepting the fact that such means are not 100% reliable, i.e. the possibility of conception of exists…they accept this…sinful or not?

It is a sin to deliberately frustrate God, even if you know ahead of time that He’s going to win at least some of the time.

 

[adrift]

Thank you.

So…let me ask…a couple who intentionally engages in intercourse during a supposed infertile period (as you refer to in the CCC), with the intent of not conceiving…sin or no?

From Catechism
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.

Or…how about a couple who uses some means of artificial contraception, while accepting the fact that such means are not 100% reliable, i.e. the possibility of conception of exists…they accept this…sinful or not?

Again from the Catechism. 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

Which paragraphs? Thanks!

Paragraph and I linked it previously.
2370

 

[diggerdomer]

It is not a sin for married people to have sex, any time they want to.

Even if their intent is to take advantage of “infertile periods,” following NFP teaching, to avoid conception?