Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[Abu]

Bob Crowley #60
The difficulty with people getting remarried. I wonder if the hard line on divorce taken by the Church was really what Christ meant.

Yes, that is precisely what Christ meant. Christ Himself restored the stability of the primeval institution of marriage on His own authority with the implicit assurance of His grace: “Now I say to you: the man who divorces his wife – and I am not speaking of fornication – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.” (Mt 19:7-9). [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 357].

Indulgences which I don’t understand - full stop. To me Purgatory is a place of refinement and I fail to see how there’s going to be any quick fix.

From Pope Paul VI, the measure of how efficacious an indulgenced work is depends on two things: the supernatural charity with which the indulgenced task is done, and the perfection of the task itself.

Christ’s Church is the only one to teach the fullness of His truths and the reality is that our good actions with faith bring our reward.

euthanasia is more of a gray area for me.

Another example of a failure to assent to the teaching of Christ through His Church.

“it is contrary to the natural and the divine positive law” (Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 1940).

“The Catholic Church reprobates euthanasia because it is a usurpation of God’s lordship over human life. As creatures of God, to whom human beings owe every element of their existence, they are entrusted only with the stewardship of their earthly lives. They are bound to accept the life that God gave them, with its limitations and powers; to preserve this life as the first condition of their dependence on the Creator; and not deliberately curtail their time of probation on earth, during which they are to work out and thereby merit the happiness of their final destiny.”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Rau]

First, the term “disordered” is a direct response to natural order – ergo, natural law is most definitely a part of the Church’s teachings, though you are certainly correct in noting that it does not take a position on what causes SSA.

Grace, lying is disordered! Fornication is disordered. The Term relates to nature in the sense of natural law, which is NOT about what we observe in nature or what afflictions beset us “naturally”.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Current RC teaching for RC Catholics:
Automatic excommunication happens to those;
**
Incredulity, heresy, apostasy, schism—Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith**. Apostasy is total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church (CCC 2089). These sins break the bonds of unity with the offender and the Catholic Church.

Any world catholic gathering of catholic bishops and their unified council agreements and doctrines, are infallible.

Papal comments on various occasions, under specific conditions are infallible. Also, all Papal teachings RC catholics are to submit to under the mortal sin of immediate excommunication for refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Who is Christ’s Vicar and Steward on earth. All Catholic teachings are mandatory,

Therefore recent examples would be the entire Vatican II (which was a world council of Catholic Bishops offering unified reiteration of Catholic Doctrine) and the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church which Pope John Paul the 2nd ordered written and he commanded afterwards “I put my Apostolic Authority on this”, as bound for the faithful to submit to under mortal sin (under the three conditions),

Automatic excommunication under the three conditions of mortal sin for RC Catholics who:
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith.

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff

Good Evening OurLadysServant: Are you excommunicating people again?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Some never learn.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law,

Good Evening Abu: What differentiates that from other violations of natural law? For instance, isn’t the idea of humans flying in airplanes, spaceships, smashing atoms, and performing bypass surgery or cutting our hair or shaving all violations of natural law? It almost seems that the purpose in being human is the ability to redefine natural law. Since defying natural law seems to be our natural specialty, I am interested in where we draw the lines and why we draw what lines we do.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Rau]

Good Evening Abu: What differentiates that from other violations of natural law? For instance, isn’t the idea of humans flying in airplanes, spaceships, smashing atoms, and performing bypass surgery or cutting our hair or shaving all violations of natural law? It almost seems that the purpose in being human is the ability to redefine natural law. Since defying natural law seems to be our natural specialty, I am interested in where we draw the lines and why we draw what lines we do.

All the best,
Gary

Gary, that’s only because you have an erroneous concept of natural Law. You might state your understanding of it to confirm.

 

[Abu]

Gary Sheldrake #104
What differentiates that [contraception] from other violations of natural law? For instance, isn’t the idea of humans flying in airplanes, spaceships, smashing atoms, and performing bypass surgery or cutting our hair or shaving all violations of natural law? It almost seems that the purpose in being human is the ability to redefine natural law. Since defying natural law seems to be our natural specialty, I am interested in where we draw the lines and why we draw what lines we do.

As you should know the debate is about the natural moral law. The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).

zenit.org/en/articles/papal-address-on-natural-law
Address Of His Holiness Benedict XVI To The Participants In The
International Congress On Natural Law
Clementine Hall
Monday, 12 February 2007
'It is precisely in the light of this contestation that all the urgency of the necessity to reflect upon the theme of natural law and to rediscover its truth common to all men appears. The said law, to which the Apostle Paul refers (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is written on the heart of man and is consequently, even today, accessible.

'This law has as its first and general principle, “to do good and to avoid evil.” This is a truth which by its very evidence immediately imposes itself on everyone. From it flows the other more particular principles that regulate ethical justice on the rights and duties of everyone.

'They are, in fact,** norms that precede any human law: as such, they are not subject to modification by anyone. The natural law, together with fundamental rights, is the source from which ethical imperatives also flow, which it is only right to honor**.

'Natural law is, definitively, the only valid bulwark against the arbitrary power or the deception of ideological manipulation. The knowledge of this law inscribed on the heart of man increases with the progress of the moral conscience.

’The first duty for all, and particularly for those with public responsibility, must therefore be to promote the maturation of the moral conscience. This is the fundamental progress without which all other progress proves non-authentic.

‘What has been said up to this point has very concrete applications if one refers to the family, that is, to "the intimate partnership of life and the love which constitutes the married state… established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 48).’ [My emphases].

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m astounded. The premise of Tom’s post is wrong. The primary aim of marriage is not to Maximise children or achieve a randomly determined number. Doing either may be irresponsible. The wrong of contraception is NOT connected with avoiding children.

The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m astounded. The premise of Tom’s post is wrong.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Does this not say that you are not allowed to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

 

[Rau]

The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

Procreation without limit (or limited only by the onset of menopause)? Where is that stated? Procreation to the point that health, education and other goods are harmed? Where does it say that?

 

[Tomdstone]

Procreation without limit (or limited only by the onset of menopause)? Where is that stated? Procreation to the point that health, education and other goods are harmed? Where does it say that?

In Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), does he not say that it is not allowed to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? Do you agree with my premise that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children?

 

[Rau]

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Does this not say that you are not allowed to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

The primary purpose is children, not as many as possible. Where is the reverse said Tom?

A decision to have no children is another matter and the Church will not marry a couple who are committed to having no children. Such a commitment would indeed be to oppose the primary purpose.

 

[Rau]

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Does this not say that you are not allowed to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

It says you may not frustrate the natural course of the conjugal act.

 

[Tomdstone]

The primary purpose is children, not as many as possible. Where is the reverse said Tom?.

It is said by Cardinal Ottaviani:
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)

 

[Tomdstone]

It says you may not frustrate the natural course of the conjugal act.

What does the word purpose mean, and why was the word purpose used in the text?

 

[Rau]

What does the word purpose mean, and why was the word purpose used in the text?

Tom - if you would like to argue that NFP (endorsed by the Church) is in conflict with the teaching of the same Church, please find ANY Catholic teaching that advocates any of the following:

• Parents are obliged to have as much sex as possible;
• Parents are obliged to have as many children as possible;
• Parents are obliged to remain ignorant of their fertility at all times;
• Parents are obliged to ignore their capacity to cope with, care for and/or educate their children;

The intention and matching behaviour to have children (God willing) fulfils the primary purpose of marriage. Why you attach “ever more children” to this understanding is beyond me.

 

[Rau]

It is said by Cardinal Ottaviani:
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)

And you will have heard Pope Francis remark recently (in connection with a woman with a very great many children - I can’t recall the exact circumstance), exhorting parents to not lose sight of “responsible parenthood”.

 

[Tomdstone]

And you will have heard Pope Francis remark recently (in connection with a woman with a very great many children - I can’t recall the exact circumstance), exhorting parents to not lose sight of “responsible parenthood”.

You asked me where this is said and I gave you the quote showing you one place where it was said.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom - if you would like to argue that NFP (endorsed by the Church) is in conflict with the teaching of the same Church, please find ANY Catholic teaching that advocates any of the following:

• Parents are obliged to have as much sex as possible;
• Parents are obliged to have as many children as possible;
• Parents are obliged to remain ignorant of their fertility at all times;
• Parents are obliged to ignore their capacity to cope with, care for and/or educate their children;

The intention and matching behaviour to have children (God willing) fulfils the primary purpose of marriage. Why you attach “ever more children” to this understanding is beyond me.

I am not arguing anything. The thread concerns teachings that you are struggling to accept. I am struggling to accept the difference between ABC and NFP when used to restrict the number of children. As far as the intention goes, I am struggling to see any difference in the intent of the parents.

 

[Rau]

I am not arguing anything.

Yes you are - you argue that limiting children via NFP is to oppose or reject or deny the primary purpose of marriage.

The thread concerns teachings that you are struggling to accept. I am struggling to accept the difference between ABC and NFP when used to restrict the number of children. As far as the intention goes, I am struggling to see any difference in the intent of the parents.

That’s because there may be no difference in intent - both aim to “defer” a conception for a time. There is nothing wrong with that. Responsible parenthood, or the health needs of the parent(s), or similar factors may make that intention (“defer children for one of these reasons”) a perfectly good intention. But separate from the intention is what you DO in service of the Intention. Abstaining from sex when fertile is not of itself an illicit thing to do. Breaking of the bond between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex (ie. use ABC) is an illicit thing to do (you may or may not agree).

That is what makes NFP and ABC different. The thing ‘done’ is different. Potentially the same intent - different means.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Separately, you appear to want to argue that utilising NFP for the good intentions I reference is to deny, or act in opposition to, the primary purpose of marriage. That idea only flies if the purpose is to have or “allow to happen” children with no limit to the number, other than the arrival of menopause. The Church does not teach that.

 

[Tomdstone]

…you argue that limiting children via NFP is to oppose or reject or deny the primary purpose of marriage.

Holy Scripture says that women will be saved through the bearing of children. I struggle to see where in the Bible it says that women will be saved by using NFP to avoid having children?
1 Timothy 2:15
But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.