You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
It is not wrong at all. Abusing and corrupting it is wrong.Why is sex in and of itself so wrong to the RCC?
R
Rau
Guest
And you “know” this how?If it doesnt specificy “Ex Cathedra” explicitly before the statement, then it is not infallible, accorsing to what I have learned in these forums.
I wonder if it says “ex cathedra” in the encyclical or any other writings that people quote about contraception to claim that it is evil.
R
Rau
Guest
If there were, would it change you view or behaviour?No commandment says thou shalt not contracept
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Is eating cheesecake abusing and corrupting the faculty of eating?It is not wrong at all. Abusing and corrupting it is wrong.
R
Rau
Guest
I love cheesecake!Is eating cheesecake abusing and corrupting the faculty of eating?
S
SonOfMan
Guest
If eating cheesecake doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of eating then having contraceptive sex (within marriage) doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of sex. Theyre both done out of sheer enjoyment.I love cheesecake!
R
Rau
Guest
There is no logic there I am afraid. For one thing, all sexual acts in marriage are not the same.If eating cheesecake doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of eating then having contraceptive sex (within marriage) doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of sex. Theyre both done out of sheer enjoyment.
B
Burdock
Guest
There’s no logic in saying contraception is evil.There is no logic there I am afraid. For one thing, all sexual acts in marriage are not the same.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I am not contesting the idea that truth is not determined by a majority vote.Already explained myself.
And again the main point is the rest of the post and that last part!
And even if it should ever happen in the future?
What then?
Even if the majority of persons on this earth thought the earth was flat?
Does that make it so?
Even if the majority of persons on this earth thought infanticide is good?
Does that make it so?
Even if the majority of persons on this earth thought contraception was good?
Does that make it so?
Even if the majority of person on this earth thought theft was good?
Does that make it so?
“Truth is not determined by a majority vote”
~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes I recall you noting that.I am not contesting the idea that truth is not determined by a majority vote.
I was simply pointing to the main point of that post.
S
SolomonGrundy
Guest
Oh, if only that were what sexual faculties and marriage were really about…If eating cheesecake doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of eating then having contraceptive sex (within marriage) doesnt corrupt, abuse, or frustrate the faculty of sex. Theyre both done out of sheer enjoyment.
But it is not.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Compendium:
2397-2398
The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
- What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?
2397-2398
The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
- What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why did the Vatican appoint a commission to look into the question? If nothing can change, wouldn’t it have been a waste of time to appoint this commission.Yes the Truth there will not change.
It is to be held as definitive.
Anyway, truth does change. For example,in the USA, in 1929, the truth was that error about the quality of a person was not allowed as a reason for granting the annulment, whereas today the truth is that if you made an error about the social status of the person you marry, it can be grounds for a marriage annulment. (Canon 1097, sec. 2).
A
Abu
Guest
Totally false.SonOfMan #464
If it doesnt specificy “Ex Cathedra” explicitly before the statement, then it is not infallible, accorsing to what I have learned in these forums.
No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
The three levels of teaching from *Ad Tuendam Fidem *are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
False, because you have rejected the Christ when He commanded “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19) at the moment that he founded His one and only Catholic Church.Burdock #468
No commandment says thou shalt not contracept
B
Burdock
Guest
I have not rejected christ, i have rejected the catholic churches interpretationTotally false.
No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
The three levels of teaching from *Ad Tuendam Fidem *are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
False, because you have rejected the Christ when He commanded “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19) at the moment that he founded His one and only Catholic Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But if the Catholic Church interprets Christ correctly, then you HAVE rejected Him, have you not? What makes you sure that your personal interpretation of Christ where it ‘differs’ from that of the Church is the correct interpretation? (and let’s face it, you ACCEPT a lot of the Church’s teaching on Christ. . . .I refer you to the Nicene Creed. You believe that, right? Yet that is the "Catholic Church’s of Christ. Why do you believe that and not other things?)I have not rejected christ, i have rejected the catholic churches interpretation
B
Burdock
Guest
I have not rejected christ because I dont think contraception is wrong. That IS man made teaching.How on earth is contracepting evil. No other church belueves this anymore,But if the Catholic Church interprets Christ correctly, then you HAVE rejected Him, have you not? What makes you sure that your personal interpretation of Christ where it ‘differs’ from that of the Church is the correct interpretation? (and let’s face it, you ACCEPT a lot of the Church’s teaching on Christ. . . .I refer you to the Nicene Creed. You believe that, right? Yet that is the "Catholic Church’s of Christ. Why do you believe that and not other things?)
A
Abu
Guest
The simpleton approach of confusing the majority view of Pope Paul VI’s Commission as trumping infallibility is the petard that has characterized forays into fantasy land. The only requirement was to consider the moral effects of the “Pill” which was not around when Casti Connubii was issued.Tomdstone #481
Why did the Vatican appoint a commission to look into the question? If nothing can change, wouldn’t it have been a waste of time to appoint this commission.
“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Lio told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time *Humanae Vitae *was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *(1930) - could best be reaffirmed.
“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when *Gaudium et Spes *was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of *Casti Connubii *in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’
“It will be clear by now that, if Fr. Lio’s criteria for infallible papal pronouncements are valid, contraception had already been infallibly condemned in this earlier encyclical of 1930, Casti Connubii. The objection might be raised, then, that Paul VI could not have intended to define infallibly what had already been defined infallibly. Not so, says Fr. Lio. The 1870 definition of papal infallibility lays down no such restrictions, as if ex cathedra definitions were intrinsically unrepeatable, like certain sacraments. Pius XI had indeed settled the immutable character of the teaching, and this was recognized by his successors Pius XII and Paul VI. However, because of the de facto situation of serious dissent which had arisen by the 1960’s, it was necessary for Paul VI to define the teaching once again. The words introducing the formal judgment given in Humanae Vitae: 14 were carefully chosen: “We must therefore declare once again (iterum debemus edicere).”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html
R
Rau
Guest
Burdock, I asked you, were there such a commandment, would it alter your view?No commandment says thou shalt not contracept
- Status
- Not open for further replies.