Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Natural Law says life is good and it’s natural to stay healthy, to protect life.
Natural Law says more than that…unfortunately the sinfulness of the current surrounding culture as made peoples vision rather cloudy…even of those seeking to do good and reason about things. Tis the culture we swim in.

Compendium from Pope Benedict XVI

416. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.
**
417. Is such a law perceived by everyone?**

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Tis the nature of marriage and the marital act - as seen quite readily by the ordinary person prior to the advent of the popularization of the evil of contraception - and the current corruption of the surrounding culture - people knew what marriage and sex were for.
 
Life is full of risks.

So you agree it is ok to observe one’s fertility (with a view to regulating sexual activity) if it can be done with zero risk to self? Your objection to NFP is about personal risks?
Yes, it’s OK to observe one’s fertility but I am not pretending the measurement is natural.
Do you have an opinion? Is it natural or not?
 
I read many documents…
I still don’t see the logic there, I guess nothing new.
Humm…you must have read rather distractedly for if you had read so many documents you would not be asking:
How did the Church reason?
… or it’s just the Church says…?
For those documents get into all manner of aspects of why the Church Teaches what she does about this…
 
Yes, it’s OK to observe one’s fertility but I am not pretending the measurement is natural.
Do you have an opinion? Is it natural or not?
It is not about it being “natural”

It is about being in conformity to the meaning of marriage and the marital act and the moral truths involved.

It is about moral means.

Natural is just a word the got used.

One simply call it as the Church does: periodic continence.

Take the natural right out of it.

This is not about natural vs artificial or something.
 
Yes, it’s OK to observe one’s fertility but I am not pretending the measurement is natural.
Do you have an opinion? Is it natural or not?
What is “natural” as applied to the daily activities of man?

I asked you previously if tapping on an iPhone is unnatural, and whether there is a standing prohibition against such things. Or are we pretending something?
 
Humm…you must have read rather distractedly for if you had read so many documents you would not be asking:

For those documents get into all manner of aspects of why the Church Teaches what she does about this…
Please, answer the question. Is measuring temperature natural or not?
 
What is “natural” as applied to the daily activities of man?

I asked you previously if tapping on an iPhone is unnatural, and whether there is a standing prohibition against such things. Or are we pretending something?
How do you compare the health risk of tapping the phone and measuring the temperature between the legs?
Any ratio?
… and you are not answering the simple question. Natural or not?
 
Please, answer the question. Is measuring temperature natural or not?
Who cares?

Has nothing to do with the anything.

It is NOT about a means being natural or artificial.

Nothing to do with it.

One can engage in all sorts of “natural” forms of contraception. They too are gravely sinful. Immoral means.
 
Who cares?

Has nothing to do with the anything.

It is NOT about a means being natural or artificial.

Nothing to do with it.

One can engage in all sorts of “natural” forms of contraception. They too are gravely sinful. Immoral means.
Well, there you go.
Afraid to answer? Why?
 
Lets see…where is that word “natural” there in terms of the method???

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
*
No where.*

NFP is just one name that was coined for one way of Period Continence.

*Immoral *means can be “natural” and moral means can use “science” of knowledge via a man-made device of measurement.

“Natural” or Not is not the focus or the point.
 
It is not about it being “natural”

…This is not about natural vs artificial or something.
Agreed. Words like “natural” (and normal) often seem - taken in general - to be a bit relative, influenced by context both in the present and over time. What activities were natural in ancient times? Surely much of what is considered “natural” now (education in abstract things, tinned food…) was not then. Natural thus seems not highly useful as a guide to much of anything.
 
Well, there you go.
Afraid to answer? Why?
No.

Why? because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

But the road to a strawman.

The morality is not about if it is natural or not.

Lets see…where is that word “natural” In terms of the method?

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
**
498. What are immoral means of birth control?**

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compen…um-ccc_en.html

No where.

NFP is just one name that was coined for one way of Period Continence.

*Immoral *means can be “natural” and moral means can use “science” of knowledge via a man-made device of measurement.

Being “Natural” or not - is not the focus or the point.
 
How do you compare the health risk of tapping the phone and measuring the temperature between the legs?
I’ve no idea! BTW - I don’t think basel temperature needs to be measured between the legs!
… and you are not answering the simple question. Natural or not?
I’ve no idea how to apply the word “natural” in such a context. If you ask me, is it “natural” to fall asleep after a hard day of work and a nice dinner while watching TV lounging on the couch, I think I’d conclude yes, even if there is a glass of wine in my hand at the time.

If you ask me is it natural to tap on an iPhone communicating anonymously with strangers at a great distance all looking at luminescent screens - - I don’t know how to apply the word “natural” to that. And I’m sure I can’t see a reason to do so. It does not seem to bear on anything.
 
Lets see…where is that word “natural” there in terms of the method???

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
*
No where.*

NFP is just one name that was coined for one way of Period Continence.

*Immoral *means can be “natural” and moral means can use “science” of knowledge via a man-made device of measurement.

“Natural” or Not is not the focus or the point.
It’s a simple question.
Is the temperature measurement natural or not?
It appears you clearly see that it is not but you are afraid to admit it.
I wonder why…
 
I’ve no idea! BTW - I don’t think basel temperature needs to be measured between the legs!

I’ve no idea how to apply the word “natural” in such a context. If you ask me, is it “natural” to fall asleep after a hard day of work and a nice dinner while watching TV lounging on the couch, I think I’d conclude yes, even if there is a glass of wine in my hand at the time.

If you ask me is it natural to tap on an iPhone communicating anonymously with strangers at a great distance all looking at luminescent screens - - I don’t know how to apply the word “natural” to that. And I’m sure I can’t see a reason to do so. It does not seem to bear on anything.
I’ll repeat.
The Natural Law says life is good and it’s good to protect it, to stay healthy to support and to sustain life.
Do you agree?
It follows that to increase risk of infection is against the health, the life.
Do you agree?
To put one’s health at risk is a moral act. What is the moral object of this act?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top