Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[Abu]

Burdock #483
I have not rejected christ, i have rejected the catholic churches interpretation
#486
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,

How perverse as:

1. The Christ founded His Catholic Church on St Peter with “he that hears you hears Me”.
2. Thus the enormous fallacy that the Christ was only a “man”, and hadn’t a clue as to what He was accomplishing in His founding of His sole Church with His teaching authority.
3. Such a recognition that “no other church believes this” exposes that the thousands of sects are solely man-made and thus pick and choose on fancies, feelings, whims, suppositions and endless variations to suit their preconceived mere notions.
4. Ignoring the fact that God made women with infertile periods which He has ordained through His Church be made use of for just and grave reasons is just another absurd fancy which clouds the realization of God’s encompassing majesty in establishing His Church through His Son, Jesus, to teach, sanctify and rule.

 

[Tomdstone]

How perverse as:…
3) Such a recognition that “no other church believes this” exposes that the thousands of sects are solely man-made and thus pick and choose on fancies, feelings, whims, suppositions and endless variations to suit their preconceived mere notions. …
.

There is a question because the Eastern Orthodox Church may allow a married couple who has several children and is facing financial difficulties to use ABC. But at the same time, the Roman Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

[cena]

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.

That isn’t the only way a teaching can be infallible

 

[cena]

No you didnt but that is what the Catholic church refers to asvto whyvthe church is against contraception.

The punishment he should have received for was not death Deut 25:7-10
And there was another man who did not want to marry his brother’s wife and he was not killed(Judah Gen 38)

 

[openmind77]

Preventing a pregnancy is a goal, not an act. It can be justly pursued. Contraception is an act - a means - which the Church explains is a wrong act.

Sorry I may have missed this in the long thread.

But I would like to know - where exactly in the Bible does it say that contraception is a wrong act and is forbidden?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sorry I may have missed this in the long thread.

But I would like to know - where exactly in the Bible does it say that contraception is a wrong act and is forbidden?

The same place it talks about the Trinity. I forget the exact verse…

 

[openmind77]

The same place it talks about the Trinity. I forget the exact verse…

The Bible does mention the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in multiple places.

But I still don’t know where it mentions contraception.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Bible does mention the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in multiple places.

But I still don’t know where it mentions contraception.

It mentions sex and procreation and rules regaurding them and the purpose thereof in several places too. But it is the Church that puts it together, just like the Trinity. Yes all three Godheads are mentioned in the Bible, but only the Church puts them together three in one.

Or was St Patrick wrong? I have also missed where nuclear war is mentioned in the Bible, or Cloning, or internet porn…

 

[openmind77]

It mentions sex and procreation and rules regaurding them and the purpose thereof in several places too. But it is the Church that puts it together, just like the Trinity. Yes all three Godheads are mentioned in the Bible, but only the Church puts them together three in one.

Or was St Patrick wrong? I have also missed where nuclear war is mentioned in the Bible, or Cloning, or internet porn…

But the Trinity was put together from the three Godheads mentioned in the Bible and it is quite easy to find the verses that mention them.

The view on contraception was put together from which passages ? (maybe you can cite a couple from the several places ?)

 

[Rau]

But the Trinity was put together from the three Godheads mentioned in the Bible and it is quite easy to find the verses that mention them.

The view on contraception was put together from which passages ? (maybe you can cite a couple from the several places ?)

Were the 10 commanents instead been 11 with that 11th addressing contraception specifically, would you then concur that contraception is wrong?

 

[openmind77]

Were the 10 commanents instead been 11 with that 11th addressing contraception specifically, would you then concur that contraception is wrong?

So you are saying there is no mention of contraception in the Bible? Even an indirect one?

 

[Bookcat]

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.
.

Because the commission was NOT about that.

Rather it was about the question of if the new (at the time) “pill” was indeed contraception or not.

It was new and there was some questions.

It was and is contraception…so it falls under the age old teaching.

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #496
The view on contraception was put together from which passages ? (maybe you can cite a couple from the several places ?)

The Catholic Church does not have “views” – it teaches the reality on faith and on morals through dogmas and doctrines as She has been founded by the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, to teach the fullness of Truth.

She has authorized the Bible, with the New Testament written by Her apostles and disciples. She also has Christ’s authority and mandate to teach what is right and what is wrong that is not in the Bible, for Christ gave us His Church not a Book.

“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, *Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

 

[Bookcat]

So you are saying there is no mention of contraception in the Bible? Even an indirect one?

1. The Sacred Scriptures are not meant to be used that way. They are not an exhaustive guide. Jesus founded a Church - to whom he gave authority and mission to teach - and who in those pages of the New Testament he said the Holy Spirit would guide and lead to further Truth.
2. But Yes in addition to the mention in the Old Testament such can be seen too in the New Testament with Paul condemning “pharmakeia".

Which is not referring to going to a pharmacy…but can yes be said to be a condemnation of such attempts at contraception.

And in later early Church …and down through the centuries.

Such has been condemned since the early days.

 

[Bookcat]

What is needed? (for all of us …)

A renewal of the mind

“In the second verse we are given the answer: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God…” (12: 2). The two decisive words of this verse are “transformed” and “renewal”. We must become new people, transformed into a new mode of existence.”

“Paul makes this process of “recasting” even clearer by saying that we become new if we transform our way of thinking. What has been introduced here with “way of thinking” is the Greek term “nous”. It is a complex word. It may be translated as “spirit”, “sentiments”, “reason”, and precisely, also by “way of thinking”. Thus our reason must become new. This surprises us. We might have expected instead that this would have concerned some attitude: what we should change in our behaviour. But no: renewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality all our thought must change from its foundations…”

~ Pope Benedict XVI

Go read the rest -there is much there for reflection:

(very rich and helpful --a very profound work):

vatican.va/holy_father/be…aolino_en.html

(starts second paragraph–read to end -though do not miss the first paragraph on another subject…)

 

[Bookcat]

What is needed ? (good for us all?)

Renewal of the mind:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

(it starts second paragraph - read it all)

From Pope Benedict XVI -please take time for reading this splendid text.

 

[Rau]

So you are saying there is no mention of contraception in the Bible? Even an indirect one?

See post #459 and also post #383.

I’m asking you whether an explicit commandment would change your view.

 

[openmind77]

1. The Sacred Scriptures are not meant to be used that way. They are not an exhaustive guide. Jesus founded a Church - to whom he gave authority and mission to teach - and who in those pages of the New Testament he said the Holy Spirit would guide and lead to further Truth.
2. But Yes in addition to the mention in the Old Testament such can be seen too in the New Testament with Paul condemning “pharmakeia".

Which is not referring to going to a pharmacy…but can yes be said to be a condemnation of such attempts at contraception.

And in later early Church …and down through the centuries.

Such has been condemned since the early days.

Sure the scriptures can not be exhaustive about everything - especially anything that are only available in modern times.

But non-pharmaceutical contraceptives must have been available for many centuries, including the time that Jesus was around. So you would expect some mention, if it was supposedly so wrong.

As for the Onan episode, it sounds like he was being condemned for not doing his duty by his brother’s wife. Not really related to contraception.

It seems to me that the Church’s teaching regarding contraceptions seems to be based on very thin Biblical background.

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #504
As for the Onan episode, it sounds like he was being condemned for not doing his duty by his brother’s wife. Not really related to contraception.

Incorrect.

See tinyurl.com/nd324ej
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on May-14-2006:
Extracts:
“The account of Onan’s refusal to carry out the obligation to raise up children in place of his brother is found in Genesis 38.

“By the ancient custom–later to become the law of God in the time of Moses–in order that the family name would live on through a man’s descendants, if a brother died leaving a widow and no sons, then it was the duty of his brother to take his widow as his own and produce offspring from the relationship. Onan not only failed to fulfill this command of God, but committed an additional violation of the law of God by spilling his seed on the ground, that is, withdrawal during the act of sexual intercourse. His sin was twofold and showed contempt for God and nature. Incidentally, this biblical account is important to keep in mind in the whole matter of contraception which is against the law of God and nature. Sexual intercourse is intended to be fruitful and one must have at least the openness to the possibility of new life; Onan showed contempt for life and law.

‘There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:
25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, —My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, – I do not wish to take her,’ 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, – So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.”

“**The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground – a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. **Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient – they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.” [My emphasis].

 

[openmind77]

Incorrect.

See tinyurl.com/nd324ej
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on May-14-2006:
Extracts:
“The account of Onan’s refusal to carry out the obligation to raise up children in place of his brother is found in Genesis 38.

“By the ancient custom–later to become the law of God in the time of Moses–in order that the family name would live on through a man’s descendants, if a brother died leaving a widow and no sons, then it was the duty of his brother to take his widow as his own and produce offspring from the relationship. Onan not only failed to fulfill this command of God, but committed an additional violation of the law of God by spilling his seed on the ground, that is, withdrawal during the act of sexual intercourse. His sin was twofold and showed contempt for God and nature. Incidentally, this biblical account is important to keep in mind in the whole matter of contraception which is against the law of God and nature. Sexual intercourse is intended to be fruitful and one must have at least the openness to the possibility of new life; Onan showed contempt for life and law.

‘There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:
25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, —My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, – I do not wish to take her,’ 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, – So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.”

“**The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground – a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. **Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient – they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.” [My emphasis].

Not a very convincing argument. He just glibly says ‘This leads us to conclude’. It does no such thing as far as I can tell.

If you read the verse from the Bible yourself (always a good idea to make your own judgment), it is clear what the punishment is for - it was not for spilling his seed, it was for not doing his duty by the brother’s wife. This story is in no way a prohibition of contraception