Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[Abu]

The misconceptions and doubts voiced by Bob Crowley (post #60) illustrate the absolute necessity for all to listen to the Christ, the Son of God, as He so clearly founded His Catholic Church, when He mandated:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

 

[someperson555]

I cannot accept a number of church teachings which is why I dont call myself a Catholic anymore.
The teachings I dont accept are as follows:
Contraception
Premarital sex
Masturbation
Divorce
Papal infallibility

Heres my explanation for each.
Contraception:
The reason I dont accept this is because there is no biblical basis for it and not even a strong church tradition basis. The only reason the church opposed contraception at first was due to their MISUNDERSTANDING of the human body. They thought spilling the male seed was tanramount to an abortion. But now we know that is not the case. Abortion is the taking of a life, while contraception is the PREVENTING of it. Huge difference.
Furthermore when jesus said " when two people come together for procreation" I seriously doubt he meant that EVERY TIME you have sex youre supposed to want to concieve. I believe what Jesus meant was merely that Children should not be excluded from a marriage. Otherwise you have to admit that NFP is also a sin then. Since your INTENT is not to concieve. Also I think this irrational church view on contraception comes from a prudish neurosis towards sex. It stems from the old gnostic idea that sex just for pleasure is evil.

Next is premarital sex.
I dont think this is wrong. Human beings have natural urges which are not healthy to repress. You have to remember that back in biblical times and medieval ages people would marry at 17. So there was no issue of sexual frustration. I just dont see what the big deal is anyway. Besides sex is a basic human need.

Next is divorce.
Look I actually dont believe in the institution of marriage to begin with. I think its an archaic institution which we as a society no longer have use for. I don’t think love should be forced. You fall in love and sometimes you stay together for life but sometimes you just fall out of love and go your separate ways. Also I think its very wrong to force a person to stay with someone who treats them like garbage. Picture this. Guy and a girl get married. But girl decides one day that things are boring so she starts sleeping around with other guys. So her husband would naturally want a divorce so he could find better partner who respects him. BUT according to church law hes not allowed to remarry! Are you kidding me?

Masturabation

I don’t necessarily believe its sinful but I dont believe its healthy either. Like with food its bad if you use it as a crutch or if it becomes and addiction.
Last papal infallibility

I believe in ecumenism. I believe the church should be more decentralized.

 

[Tomdstone]

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Many people here do not agree with the US Catholic Bishops on immigration and capital punishment.

 

[Rau]

I cannot accept a number of church teachings…

premarital sex.
I dont think this is wrong. Human beings have natural urges which are not healthy to repress. You have to remember that back in biblical times and medieval ages people would marry at 17. So there was no issue of sexual frustration. I just dont see what the big deal is anyway. Besides sex is a basic human need.

You took several extreme positions in your post, but this one stands out! To summarize your point: “it is not right to refrain from indulging urges”. How can it be good for men to sleep around? Does that not lead to children not knowing their father, among other things? Food and water and shelter etc are needs. Sex is a desire. And it starts well before 17!

 

[someperson555]

You took several extreme positions in your post, but this one stands out! To summarize your point: “it is not right to refrain from indulging urges”. How can it be good for men to sleep around? Does that not lead to children not knowing their father, among other things? Food and water and shelter etc are needs. Sex is a desire. And it starts well before 17!

Obviously I meant we should only indulge our desires in a responsible manner. So ofcourse children and their well being should always be put first. I believe strongly in the golden rule. Im pro life. Theres a lot of stuff I like about the church. But then theres also a lot of stuff I dislike. I agree with the churchs stance against abortion and homosexuality. I think homosexuality is a mental disorder.

 

[Rau]

Obviously I meant we should only indulge our desires in a responsible manner. So ofcourse children and their well being should always be put first. I believe strongly in the golden rule. Im pro life. Theres a lot of stuff I like about the church. But then theres also a lot of stuff I dislike. I agree with the churchs stance against abortion and homosexuality. I think homosexuality is a mental disorder.

So…use of 100% effective contraception during extra-marital sex makes it fine? Rumor has it that this may be quite rare!

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #83
Many people here do not agree with the US Catholic Bishops on immigration and capital punishment.

That has nothing to do with expressing dogma or doctrine on these matters as the Bishops are expressing their views.

 

[Tomdstone]

I believe what Jesus meant was merely that Children should not be excluded from a marriage. Otherwise you have to admit that NFP is also a sin then. Since your INTENT is not to concieve.

This also bothers me. Since artificial contraception is a mortal sin, as you are frustrating the primary purpose of marriage, wouldn’t NFP, when used to avoid children, also be a mortal sin. Your intention is to avoid having children in both cases, and with NFP, you are using the artificial means of thermometers, calendars, and paper and pencil record keeping to help you avoid having children and frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

 

[Rau]

This also bothers me. Since artificial contraception is a mortal sin, as you are frustrating the primary purpose of marriage, wouldn’t NFP, when used to avoid children, also be a mortal sin. Your intention is to avoid having children in both cases, and with NFP, you are using the artificial means of thermometers, calendars, and paper and pencil record keeping to help you avoid having children and frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

Good grief. This has been discussed hundreds of times here. The sin of contraception is in corrupting the act, separating the unitive and the procreative. Avoiding the act is not a corruption.

 

[Tomdstone]

That has nothing to do with expressing dogma or doctrine on these matters as the Bishops are expressing their views.

The office of the bishop has been set up to teach, rule and sanctify. Capital punishment and immigration are matters of ethics and morality.

 

[Rau]

The office of the bishop has been set up to teach, rule and sanctify. Capital punishment and immigration are matters of ethics and morality.

But every utterance is not teaching.

 

[Tomdstone]

But every utterance is not teaching.

The bishops have been teaching Catholics on immigration and capital punishment.

 

[Tomdstone]

Good grief. This has been discussed hundreds of times here. The sin of contraception is in corrupting the act, separating the unitive and the procreative. Avoiding the act is not a corruption.

But the intention to avoid children is the same, and NFP uses artificial man made instrumental means to accomplish that.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #88
This also bothers me. Since artificial contraception is a mortal sin, as you are frustrating the primary purpose of marriage, wouldn’t NFP, when used to avoid children, also be a mortal sin. Your intention is to avoid having children in both cases, and with NFP, you are using the artificial means of thermometers, calendars, and paper and pencil record keeping to help you avoid having children and frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

Some never learn.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

So contraception is wrong because as Pope Pius XI teaches “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Casti Connubii, 56, 1930].

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”[My emphases].

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Abu]

Bob Crowley #60
I’ve raised these two before - namely the ban on contraception esp. the Pill, in an age of super population growth (it’s doubled from about 3.5 billion to 7 billion just in my lifetime) and the “infallibility” ruling, which to me just raised one more barrier to church reunification.

Some never learn.

In the thread Contraception reconsiderd?, Abu #34 28/9/14, Bob Crowley was informed that:
“Even in 1998, we have the Declaration by the Pontifical Council for the Family issued in Rome on February 27, 1998: On Decrease of Fertility in the World, L’Osservatore Romano, p 6-7, April 22, 1998:
“For 30 years, the rate of growth of the world’s population has continued to decline at a regular and significant rate. At this point, following an impressive drop in their fertility, 51 countries in the world (out of 185) are no longer able to replace their population. To be precise, these 51 countries represent 44 per cent of the population of the world. In other words, the total fertility rate (TFR) in these countries, that is to say, the number of children born of each woman, is lower than 2.1. This is the minimum level of fertility needed for the replacement of the population in a country which has the optimum public health conditions.

“This situation is found to be the same on almost every continent. There is below-replacement-level fertility in America (the United States, Canada, Cuba, and most of the Caribbean islands), in Asia (Georgia, Thailand, China, Japan and South Korea), in Oceania (Australia) and in almost all the countries of Europe. On this continent, the effect of aging on population leads to depopulation, with the number of deaths surpassing the number of births. This negative balance is occurring in 13 countries already, including Estonia, Latvia, Germany, Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, Spain and Italy."

 

[Rau]

But the intention to avoid children is the same, and NFP uses artificial man made instrumental means to accomplish that.

Avoiding children is entirely fine, and at times responsible! Artificial means to gain information is hardly controversial. The sex act is not corrupted. That is the only wrong the church speaks of in connection with contraception.

 

[gracepoole]

The Church takes no position on the basis or cause of SSA. That same sex sexual
behaviour might occur in other animals would be scientifically interesting but not relevant to morality, and hence to the Church. So while SSA might be natural, as you use the term, it is at odds with the body, and that makes it contrary to our “nature”. It is in the nature of a defect. We are two sexes each equipped to join sexually with the other sex. That is our nature, a nature we each “know”.

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.

Second, really, as I said earlier, I’m not really here for a debate. I don’t even think that’s the point of the thread, though only the OP could say for sure.

This also bothers me. Since artificial contraception is a mortal sin, as you are frustrating the primary purpose of marriage, wouldn’t NFP, when used to avoid children, also be a mortal sin. Your intention is to avoid having children in both cases, and with NFP, you are using the artificial means of thermometers, calendars, and paper and pencil record keeping to help you avoid having children and frustrate the primary purpose of marriage?

Yes, this always bothers me, as well (yes, despite the numerous threads on this topic). So-called traditional Catholics still disagree with NFP for the reason you’ve noted.

 

[Lithophyte]

The problem that I honestly have, and its a fight to believe, is the idea of a loving God as we understand loving in modern times. I often find myself reverting to saying “the idea of a loving god is an absurdity of the modern age.” For an example of how this works in mind I will use one of the most painful topics, what happens to the child soul after an abortion. I would never say this to a post abortive woman who is grieving, but It makes perfect sense that the child is in hell given what God has revealed to us. Now a days the church says we can hope in God’s mercy, but my brain always thinks of the older understanding because it is so beautifully logical and coherent. They will be denied the beatific vision of God "poena damni’ because they lacked baptism by all the forms revealed to us God (desire, blood, and water), which is a requirement for salvation. To me this is still an act of love by God because creation in it’s self is good and God owes us nothing. I also see his love going further since they may not have the ‘poena sensus’ suffering from the external (e.g.hell fire). St Augustine and what I consider the penultimate description of God and his nature by St Aquinas seemed cruel when I was first learning, but the logic changed my mind and this is the God I believe in. Now it is hard for me to embrace how the church has softened God. Our current pope is a special challenge to me since he is so sloppy in his statements compared to Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Rau]

…
Yes, this always bothers me, as well (yes, despite the numerous threads on this topic). So-called traditional Catholics still disagree with NFP for the reason you’ve noted.

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.

 

[gracepoole]

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.

:thankyou: Always happy to astound.