Where do we get the idea that contraception is bad?

[Ignatius]

But that writng is not Jesus

Jesus handed down His Teachings through His Church, not in writing.

 

[SonOfMan]

As noted earlier, you place great store that Jesus did not in his words rule out a number of acts, and thus you conclude they are fine. Yet when Jesus did use his own words to establish a Church and give it a teaching role, you either:

• deny that’s the case; or
• assert Jesus established a wayward Church!

Which is it?

Jesus established “a church” (we dont reasonably know that its The Catholic Church) to pass along his teachings. He didnt give them authority to create new ones.

 

[SonOfMan]

Jesus handed down His Teachings through His Church, not in writing.

See the post right before this one.

 

[Rau]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Jesus established “a church” (we dont reasonably know that its The Catholic Church) to pass along his teachings. He didnt give them authority to create new ones.

I assume you take the view the granting of teaching authority as set out in the Bible is wrong and Jesus said no such thing.

Do you see the Church like a library? A custodian of the Bible? Although that would also be problematic if you are rejecting at least the part of the bible wherein the Church is established, with teaching authority.

 

[zz912]

Where is it infallibly stated with the “ex cathedra” statement being specified before the declaration?

Most infallible teachings of the Church are not ex-cathedra teachings. They fall under the normal and universal teaching of the Magistereum.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
That you responded with this answer shows you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t know what really happened with Galileo. Why was the Church, including the Pope, funding his research into heliocentricity if the Church had already declared that the earth was flat? Why had the Church been discussing the possibility of heliocentricity for over a century before Galileo was born?

You would do well to educate yourself about this issue.

I think you are reading up on history revisionism rather than the real historical facts.

No, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Real historical facts support what I said. Galileo wasn’t given house arrest because of his views and beliefs on heliocentricity. Those were fine. It was when he started insulting the Pope and then decided he would interpret the Bible instead of the Church that he got in trouble. The Church funded his work.

Quote:
Is Dum Diversas a declaration on faith and morals, that applies to all the faithful to believe it?

I understand that it is.

Your understanding is wrong.

Quote:
So if you can find any amount of people or leaders in any group who have committed sinful and/or stupid actions, that invalidates everything they believe and claim? You sure you want to set that as the standard?

Sure lets set that standard, only if that group claims to be the ultimate moral authority on earth and is infallible in its discernment of morality. And only if that group does nothing to distance itself from those who have committed the sinful and/or stupid actions.

Ok fine. Have you distanced yourself from the egregious behavior of many atheists at the atheist conventions? Have you distanced yourself from the atrocities committed by atheists in the 20th century?

 

[SonOfMan]

Most infallible teachings of the Church are not ex-cathedra teachings. They fall under the normal and universal teaching of the Magistereum.

And where does normal and universal teaching of the Magisterium come from?

 

[SonOfMan]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I assume you take the view the granting of teaching authority as set out in the Bible is wrong and Jesus said no such thing.

Do you see the Church like a library? A custodian of the Bible? Although that would also be problematic if you are rejecting at least the part of the bible wherein the Church is established, with teaching authority.

No, according to the Bible, Jesus wished to establish a church, he never specified it would be the Roman Catholic Church.

But even if it were the RCC, they cant just bind and loose whatever they want, they still must uphold the teachings of Jesus. The rule on contraception as it currently stands probably has ideal, well-meaning intentions, but is it absolute divine truth? I dont see that it is and no one can show that it is.

 

[SonOfMan]

Ok fine. Have you distanced yourself from the egregious behavior of many atheists at the atheist conventions? Have you distanced yourself from the atrocities committed by atheists in the 20th century?

Well I dont consider myself an atheist, but I’ll still play.

Atheists dont consider themselves to be the ultimate moral authoriy on earth with infallible discernment on morality. So its game over for this example.

I’ll help you out with another example. Some police officers do evil things, but when those matters are brought to light they are fired, arrested, and tried like any other criminal. They are distanced from the legitimate officers out there and the agency. They werent supported by being hidden by their bosses and it wasnt covered up, nor do they spend millions in lawsuits paying off victims so they they keep quiet. Nor do they keep denying it to this day and attempt to shift the blame by making countless excuses. Big difference.

 

[davidv]

No, according to the Bible, Jesus wished to establish a church, he never specified it would be the Roman Catholic Church.

If it is not the Catholic Church, which church was established by Jesus?

But even if it were the RCC, they cant just bind and loose whatever they want, they still must uphold the teachings of Jesus. The rule on contraception as it currently stands probably has ideal, well-meaning intentions, but is it absolute divine truth? I dont see that it is and no one can show that it is.

 

[SonOfMan]

If it is not the Catholic Church, which church was established by Jesus?

Beats me, just “a church.”

Its so vague anybody can claim that its them, and in fact, they do just that.

 

[davidv]

Beats me, just “a church.”

Its so vague anybody can claim that its them, and in fact, they do just that.

Meaning you have no evidence that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Jesus established. Not only that, all of the historical evidence demonstrating that the Catholic Church being that church, is summarily dismissed. Can you justify this bias?

 

[zz912]

Well I dont consider myself an atheist, but I’ll still play.

Atheists dont consider themselves to be the ultimate moral authoriy on earth with infallible discernment on morality. So its game over for this example.

On the contrary, there are very few atheists I’ve met who didn’t consider themselves the ultimate arbiter of morality. In fact, they have to be. Without an objective standard against which to measure our behaviors, the arbiter of moral standards becomes the individual. Atheists actively reject the concept of an objective standard.

I’ll help you out with another example. Some police officers do evil things, but when those matters are brought to light they are fired, arrested, and tried like any other criminal. They are distanced from the legitimate officers out there and the agency. They werent supported by being hidden by their bosses and it wasnt covered up, nor do they spend millions in lawsuits paying off victims so they they keep quiet. Nor do they keep denying it to this day and attempt to shift the blame by making countless excuses. Big difference.

Nonsense. There are countless examples of police departments covering up crimes and misdeeds by officers. It is one of the inherent problems because of the nature of the job. You have to build rock solid relationships with your fellow officers because you face danger and death regularly. These natural bonds can easily overwhelm judgment and cause officers to hide or coverup crimes and misdeeds by officers.

This is also true of virtually any organization. Even a profession such as teachers, where many schools districts/principals/administration have been caught hiding and covering up crimes and misdeeds by teachers. There’s really no organization you can list that doesn’t face this issue. So based on the standard you have set, anyone can reject the declarations/teachings/pronouncements/statements of absolutely anyone anywhere because there is misdeeds or crimes committed in an organization they belong to.

 

[zz912]

No, according to the Bible, Jesus wished to establish a church, he never specified it would be the Roman Catholic Church.

But even if it were the RCC, they cant just bind and loose whatever they want, they still must uphold the teachings of Jesus. The rule on contraception as it currently stands probably has ideal, well-meaning intentions, but is it absolute divine truth? I dont see that it is and no one can show that it is.

There was only one church for the first 1000 years, the Catholic Church. The Orthodox then split away from the Catholic Church. It was just these two for another 500 years, until there were more factions that split away.

Absolutely no other organization nor church can claim they are the Church Jesus said He would build.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Jesus Christ never condemned it, so where do we get the idea that its sinful?

There is no simple, singular answer. The Catholic understanding of sexuality evolved. Early Christianity developed out of Judaism, with its particular notions of sexuality. Early Christianity rejected the promiscuity found among the secular world around it at the time. Abortion and contraception were condemned early on. But the reasoning for contraception being intrinsically wrong developed. The natural law explanation developed for example; the explanation that every sexual act must be ordered towards procreation and unity was never explicitly taught from the beginning.

 

[SonOfMan]

On the contrary, there are very few atheists I’ve met who didn’t consider themselves the ultimate arbiter of morality. In fact, they have to be. Without an objective standard against which to measure our behaviors, the arbiter of moral standards becomes the individual. Atheists actively reject the concept of an objective standard.

Many atheists hold that time and place dictate morality.

Nonsense. There are countless examples of police departments covering up crimes and misdeeds by officers. It is one of the inherent problems because of the nature of the job. You have to build rock solid relationships with your fellow officers because you face danger and death regularly. These natural bonds can easily overwhelm judgment and cause officers to hide or coverup crimes and misdeeds by officers.

This is also true of virtually any organization. Even a profession such as teachers, where many schools districts/principals/administration have been caught hiding and covering up crimes and misdeeds by teachers. There’s really no organization you can list that doesn’t face this issue. So based on the standard you have set, anyone can reject the declarations/teachings/pronouncements/statements of absolutely anyone anywhere because there is misdeeds or crimes committed in an organization they belong to.

What you continually fail to realize is that police agencies and schools do not claim to be the ultimate moral authority. If they legitimately screw up, its not as big a deal as someone who claims to have infallible discernment on morals. Thats the difference.

To illustrate my point on the handling of child abuse further, even hardcore convicts and murderers, the lowest of the low, know how to deal with child abusers. They know its very serious. In that light, those convicts are much more enlightened than the Church on this matter. That really says a lot about the credbiliy and discernment of the Church.

So if even the lowest of the low can get understand something so obvious, how can you trust people who cant understand that with more obscure and complex situations, like contraception?

 

[SonOfMan]

Meaning you have no evidence that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Jesus established. Not only that, all of the historical evidence demonstrating that the Catholic Church being that church, is summarily dismissed. Can you justify this bias?

Just as you have no evidence that the Orthodox are not the Church Jesus established. The Orthodox claim the RCC broke away, and the RCC claim that the Orthodox broke away.

Anyway, this discussion is for another thread.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Actually, over 1/2 of the people who get abortions were using some type of contraception. People want the sexual pleasure, but not the consequences of that sexual behavior.

And there are ways that are moral to attain goals, and immoral. You can work hard and earn a paycheck or you can rob a bank. Both attain the same goal, getting money. But one is evil and the other good.

There are ways of avoiding pregnancy (NFP) that are licit, and ways that are evil (contraception).

They were using contraception because they didn’t want to be pregnant, and they got an abortion for the same reason; there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancy without contraception. People want sexual pleasure (and/or intimacy, ect) without pregnancy (and/or infection, ect), and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

NFP would make me and a lot of other people very uncomfortable for various reasons. Contraception isn’t hurting anyone in the way that a robbery would, it’s helping people to choose how they want to live their lives.

 

[Rau]

No, according to the Bible, Jesus wished to establish a church, he never specified it would be the Roman Catholic Church.

But even if it were the RCC, they cant just bind and loose whatever they want, they still must uphold the teachings of Jesus. The rule on contraception as it currently stands probably has ideal, well-meaning intentions, but is it absolute divine truth? I dont see that it is and no one can show that it is.

Did he establish one, or did he fail to do so? I would say in 2000 years the Church has done a pretty good job of upholding the teachings of Jesus. Jesus would not establish a wayward Church, for that would be counter to his mission and counter to the teaching authority he gave it.

How can anything be shown to be “absolute divine truth”? By what means do you understand God reveals Himself? By your benchmark, many (all?) aspects of faith and of morals must suffer this “lack of proof” problem. And you would have the Church be seen as nothing more than a group with some opinions? How does that serve Jesus’ mission?

 

[SonOfMan]

Did he establish one, or did he fail to do so? I would say in 2000 years the Church has done a pretty good job of upholding the teachings of Jesus. Jesus would not establish a wayward Church, for that would be counter to his mission and counter to the teaching authority he gave it.

How can anything be shown to be “absolute divine truth”? By what means do you understand God reveals Himself? By your benchmark, many (all?) aspects of faith and of morals must suffer this “lack of proof” problem. And you would have the Church be seen as nothing more than a group with some opinions? How does that serve Jesus’ mission?

The point that all boils down to is why the Church doesnt approve contraception. The fact is, the prohibition on it is not from God; its from fallible, fallen, imperfect human beings who study theology. What is the big deal in changing this Discipline for the laity?