Why are condoms wrong?

[Abu]

The whole tenor of the posts of “Truthlover” is relativism – reducing the certain truth to feelings, opinions, prejudices, wishful thinking and obfuscation – typical of dissenters.

The Pope Or Conscience? Catholic Dossier, Jan Feb ‘98]
by Janet E. Smith
"Sadly sometimes Newman is invoked in support of the reprehensible position that conscience trumps church teaching. His famous toast in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk: ‘I shall drink to the Pope, if you please – still to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards,’ taken out of context, may seem to suggest that Newman is an advocate of the liberty of conscience over Church teaching. Placed in context nothing could be further from the truth, for Newman is speaking not of a pope who is teaching the faithful Church doctrine, but who is dictating to the faithful what to do in concrete particular situations, an area in which the pope does not enjoy infallibility. Newman is not talking about such moral doctrines as the condemnation of contraception; indeed, Newman gives as examples papal dictates that we must be teetotalers or that it is mandatory to hold lotteries for the missions.

"Yet even in these arenas, Newman does not allow the conscience to have free play. He states: ‘If in a particular case, [the conscience] is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.’

"What Newman is saying here is that if the conscience of a Catholic goes against the Church, the Catholic should presume that the Church is right and he is wrong. And this is in reference to teetotaling and lotteries! Yes, we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme, but a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church.

"Many theologians seem to have decided that the Church and the Pope are an obstacle to freedom of conscience; they so loathe blind obedience that they are much more comfortable with blind disobedience.

"The blackguards of our Church, however, in the wake of Humanae Vitae invented what might be called a “conscience clause”; it is a clause that invokes freedom of conscience to enable Catholics to act in opposition to Church teaching. Blackguards evidently existed in Newman’s day, too, for he tells of those who ‘When [they] advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. Such a view conflicts greatly with what conscience is.’
“As Newman stated:
‘Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives.’ Rather than being free from Church and papal guidance, the conscience greatly needs such guidance. Newman observes, ‘The sense of right and wrong, which is the first element in religion, is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressible by education, so biased by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that, in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect, this sense is at once the highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous; and the Church, the Pope, the hierarchy are, in the divine purpose, the supply of an urgent demand.’ (Now, there’s a sentence!)”
[My underlining].

 

[Truthlover]

The whole tenor of the posts of “Truthlover” is relativism – reducing the certain truth to feelings, opinions, prejudices, wishful thinking and obfuscation – typical of dissenters.

Abu, when you cannot agree with statements from Cardinals Suenens, Konig, Newman and Ratzinger you call me a relativist and dissenter. Thank God I am in good company.

Unfortunately this response of yours is typical of blind obeyers. The Pope when Cardinal writes:

“Newman embraced an interpretation of the papacy which is only then correctly conceived when it is viewed together with the primacy of conscience, a papacy not put in opposition to the primacy of conscience but based on it and guaranteeing it."

Ratzinger’s article on conscience can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

The Pope will this week break his rule of not canonizing saints to canonize John Newman who is quoted above. Nowhere in his article does the Pope criticize Newman’s opinion.

Janet Smith writes that Newman states:

“If in a particular case, [the conscience] is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.”

Her comment on this is:

“What Newman is saying here is that if the conscience of a Catholic goes against the Church, the Catholic should presume that the Church is right and he is wrong. And this is in reference to teetotaling and lotteries! Yes, we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme, but a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church.”

Please note Abu that Smith agrees that “we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme”. However, she then goes against church teaching to say that “a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on formation of conscience and nowhere does it say that a conscience should be formed by the church alone. This is where a lot of lovers of authority fail to comprehend church teaching. Section 1785 of the CCC on the Formation of Conscience states:

“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Note we are “guided” by church teaching, but we are also assisted by the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” and aided by the “witness or advice of others”. The “Word of God is the light for our path” and we “must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross.” Please note that the only time we see the word “must” is in reference to examining our conscience.

 

[Truthlover]

I think you are really not considering the whole of Church teaching when you place conscience above the Magisterium on issues which have been decided.

O.K, choose, but what do you mean by “decided.”

It is clear we are debating two questions:

1. The primacy of Conscience; and
2. Infallible church statements.

I agree with Newman who taught that conscience must be obeyed. The CCC 1790 states that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

Like Newman I agree that a well formed conscience will not direct you to go against an infallible church declaration as there is only one truth.

This brings us to 2) what is an infallible church statement? I believe this is where the most questions arise. I feel that what is “decided” in a lot of peoples’ minds as church teaching is not necessarily “infallible”. Just because the church teaches something, even over centuries, does not necessarily make it infallible; we only have to look at slavery to see the truth of this point. This is where conscience is vital.

 

[casey_zia]

Like Newman I agree that a well formed conscience will not direct you to go against an infallible church declaration as there is only one truth.

This brings us to 2) what is an infallible church statement? I believe this is where the most questions arise. I feel that what is “decided” in a lot of peoples’ minds as church teaching is not necessarily “infallible”.

I’d like to know what YOUR criteria for “infallible” is! I have no problem with something that the Church declares as infallible being just that. Vatican I and Vatican II, Casti Connubii, Humane Vitae–all infallible teachings, definitive declarations against contraception. The Church has always taught that contraception is immoral.

You have decided that these teachings are not infallible. What’s your criteria? Today’s standards of sexual license? Your own lifestyle and choices? Do you choose what parts of Church teaching you would like to be infallible? Just like you choose to quote dissident theologians, take out of context Newman’s and Ratzinger’s teachings, and ignore the likes of Janet Smith, one of the best modern-day theologians on the topics of Humanae Vitae and human sexuality?

 

[illmatic]

among other reasons, any form of intercourse not open to life is condemned by the Catholic Church

This isn’t necessarily true: the Church does not condemn intercourse between a married couple unable to conceive.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Please note Abu that Smith agrees that “we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme”. However, she then goes against church teaching to say that “a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on formation of conscience and nowhere does it say that a conscience should be formed by the church alone. This is where a lot of lovers of authority fail to comprehend church teaching.

Your pontificating that Dr Smith is wrong in truthfully saying that “a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church” reveals your deceit. You brazenly reject CCC1785 which teaches that the formation of conscience must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” For those you may be trying to confuse by your deceit, to guide is to “direct one in the course of life.” Further you try to impose a dichotomy between the Holy Spirit and His Church as though the Holy Spirit can contradict the teaching of His Church.

This is precisely the petard on which you continue to hang yourself – the persistent denigrating of infallible doctrine and of all those who offer such doctrine, by using the “human deceit” specifically identified by Pope John Paul II in *Veritatis Splendor *#64: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

You brazenly reject CCC1783, persistently preferring your own judgment warped by human deceit.
“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).

You brazenly reject CCC1792 which identifies your “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”

Thus you assert a deceitful “primacy of conscience” to mean trumping Christ’s teaching through His Church
In Paragraph 14 of *Humanae Vitae *, it is definitively declared that the Church must “once more” state that contraception is “intrinsically evil”. Intrinsically, not “if I think it’s not, it’s not”. The Church has always and everywhere taught this truth. For those you may be trying to confuse by your deceit, intrinsically means “essentially”, “in and of itself”.

I feel that what is “decided” in a lot of peoples’ minds as church teaching is not necessarily “infallible”. Just because the church teaches something, even over centuries, does not necessarily make it infallible; we only have to look at slavery to see the truth of this point. This is where conscience is vital.

Ad nauseam you project “feel” for reason, and ad nauseam with human deceit project the mirage that a non-infallible doctrine should be treated with contempt if one so chooses, when you have been shown ad infinitum that even non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…” (Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25). For those you may be striving to confuse, submission means “humble compliance”, “in conformity with”.

False ad nauseam – conscience cannot “decide” what is truth and what is not; what is infallible and what is not. Another petard on which you are hoist, since ad infinitum conscience does not make truth. Only the Magisterium defines what is truth and what is error on which conscience can be formed correctly with certainty. Engaging conscience is an act of responsible moral judgment as to whether to do good or evil. Conscience has to be formed by truth, it is not independent nor an infallible whim. It is not a god.

On slavery, false again. There has been no doctrine teaching slavery – quite the contrary.

 

[Truthlover]

I’d like to know what YOUR criteria for “infallible” is! I have no problem with something that the Church declares as infallible being just that. Vatican I and Vatican II, Casti Connubii, Humane Vitae–all infallible teachings, definitive declarations against contraception. The Church has always taught that contraception is immoral.

You have decided that these teachings are not infallible. What’s your criteria?

In Humanae Vitae No 10 Pope Paul VI writes:

“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”

The Pope is saying that “a right conscience is the true interpreter” of the objective moral order. That is not a pope making an infallible statement re contraception. What is your criteria of Infallibility?

 

[Truthlover]

Just like you choose to quote dissident theologians, take out of context Newman’s and Ratzinger’s teachings, and ignore the likes of Janet Smith, one of the best modern-day theologians on the topics of Humanae Vitae and human sexuality?

Please:

1. Name the dissident theologians I have quoted;
2. Show me where I have taken Newman’s and Ratzinger’s teachings out of context;
3. I did not ignore Janet Smith; I showed where she erred.

Casey I am afraid you are joining Abu in misrepresenting my posts and using insults instead of logical argument.

 

[Truthlover]

Your pontificating that Dr Smith is wrong in truthfully saying that “a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church” reveals your deceit. You brazenly reject CCC1785 which teaches that the formation of conscience must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” For those you may be trying to confuse by your deceit, to guide is to “direct one in the course of life.”

Abu,

My online dictionary.com defines guide as “to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.” I am sure this is what most reasonable people would have expected. Why lie about my posts? Can you not find logical arguments to support your position?

You say that to guide is to "“direct one in the course of life.” The same dictionary defines “direct” as “to manage or guide by advice, helpful information, instruction, etc”. I agree with this but obviously you prefer a more authoritarian interpretation.

Clearly my point re your quote from Janet Smith was and is correct as my analysis of CCC 1785 proved:

"Please note Abu that Smith agrees that “we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme”. However, she then goes against church teaching to say that “a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on formation of conscience and nowhere does it say that a conscience should be formed by the church alone. This is where a lot of lovers of authority fail to comprehend church teaching. Section 1785 of the CCC on the Formation of Conscience states:

“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Note we are “guided” by church teaching, but we are also assisted by the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” and aided by the “witness or advice of others”. The “Word of God is the light for our path” and we “must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross.” Please note that the only time we see the word “must” is in reference to examining our conscience."

 

[Truthlover]

Thus you assert a deceitful “primacy of conscience” to mean trumping Christ’s teaching through His Church

Can you show me where I said anything trumps “Christ’s teaching?”

**In Paragraph 14 of *Humanae Vitae ***, it is definitively declared that the Church must “once more” state that contraception is “intrinsically evil”. Intrinsically, not “if I think it’s not, it’s not”. The Church has always and everywhere taught this truth. For those you may be trying to confuse by your deceit, intrinsically means “essentially”, “in and of itself”.

Humanae Vitae No 14 on the Vatican website reads as follows:

"14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."

Where does the Pope say contaception is “intrinsically evil” above?

Ad nauseam you project “feel” for reason, and ad nauseam with human deceit project the mirage that a non-infallible doctrine should be treated with contempt if one so chooses

Abu, God gave us feelings and emotions as well as intellect; do not make little of God’s gifts. In fact, Gaudium et Spes states:

"16. Dignity of moral conscience.

Within his conscience man discovers a law which is not upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love, to do good and avoid evil, when inwardly of the heart: do this, shun that.

He has a law inscribed by God into the heart to obey is the very dignity of man, and he will be judged according to this (17). Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of man, where he is alone with God whose voice echoes the intimacy (18).

Through consciousness you know how wonderful that law which finds its fulfillment in the love of God and neighbor (19). In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with others to seek the truth and the truth to solve numerous problems which arise both in private life and in that society. The more, therefore, conscience prevails, the more individuals and groups move away from blind choice and strive to meet the objective norms of morality."

A law inscribed by God on your heart will affect your feelings and emotions as well as your intellect. Do not rubbish feelings.

On slavery, false again. There has been no doctrine teaching slavery – quite the contrary.

That will be news to everyone, including St Paul.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
God gave us feelings and emotions as well as intellect.Do not rubbish feelings.

The self-styled “Truthlover” continues to savage truth and to promote dissent against Christ and His Church in the arrogant attempt to pontificate that contraception is not wrong, nor evil, nor a grave sin, by falsely feeling that his conscience, which must, and can only, make a practical judgment whether an act is right or wrong, can actually make or break truth itself! It cannot make truth.
The monumental error is to substitute feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking for infallible teaching and to call that “his conscience.”
Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II, 1993:
“#63. **In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.108 Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: “Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light **(cf. Jn 9:39-41).
[108. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 17, a. 4,].

 

[Abu]

**Time To Face The Reality Of Truth **-- the primacy of conscience lies in obedience to doctrine
catholicnewsagency.com/news/theologian-calls-papal-trip-to-uk-a-courageous-visit/
Theologian calls papal trip to UK a ‘courageous visit’
**Madrid, Spain, September 16, 2010 (CNA) **.- Theologian Pablo Blanco of the University of Navarre in Spain commented this week that Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United Kingdom is a “courageous visit” in which the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman “could be a sign of unity between Anglicans and Catholics.”

**Benedict XVI has underscored “the great contribution of Cardinal Newman: the primacy he gives to conscience. For him, there was no contradiction between obedience to doctrine and following one’s conscience. Perhaps that is why he was so controversial in his time,” Blanco explained. **

 

[Truthlover]

Benedict XVI has underscored "the great contribution of Cardinal Newman: the primacy he gives to conscience. For him, there was no contradiction between obedience to doctrine and following one’s conscience. Perhaps that is why he was so controversial in his time," Blanco explained.

Perhaps Blanco has not read Blessed Cardinal Newman’s letter to the Duke of Norfolk, wherein Newman writes on Conscience:

“IT seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. Now I wish to place this proposition on a broader basis, acknowledged by all Catholics, and, in order to do this satisfactorily, as I began with the prophecies of Scripture and the primitive Church, when I spoke of the Pope’s prerogatives, so now I must begin with the Creator and His creature, when I would draw out the prerogatives and the supreme authority of Conscience.

I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certain character, which, expressed in human language, we call ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wisdom, sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal characteristics in His nature, the very Law of His being, identical with Himself; and next, when He became Creator, He implanted this Law, which is Himself, in the intelligence of all His rational creatures. The Divine Law, then, is the rule of ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a sovereign, irreversible, absolute authority in the presence of men and Angels. “The eternal law,” says St. Augustine, “is the Divine Reason or Will of God, commanding {247} the observance, forbidding the disturbance, of the natural order of things.” “The natural law,” says St. Thomas, “is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.” (Gousset, Theol. Moral., t. i. pp. 24, &c.) This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called “conscience;” and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. “The Divine Law,” says Cardinal Gousset, “is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the fourth Lateran Council says, ‘Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam.’”

“there is no scoffing of any Pope, in formal documents addressed to the faithful at large, at that most serious doctrine, the right and the duty of following that Divine Authority, the voice of conscience, on which in truth the Church herself is built.

So indeed it is; did the Pope speak against Conscience in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet. His very mission is to proclaim the moral law, and to protect and strengthen that “Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.” On the law of conscience and its sacredness are founded both his authority in theory and his power in fact.”

“The championship of the Moral Law and of conscience is his raison d’être.”

“But, of course, I have to say again, lest I should be misunderstood, that when I speak of Conscience, I mean conscience truly so called. When it has the right of opposing the supreme, though not infallible Authority of the Pope, it must be something more than that miserable counterfeit which, as I have said above, now goes by the name. If in a particular case it is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon {258} serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. And further, obedience to the Pope is what is called “in possession;” that is, the onus probandi of establishing a case against him lies, as in all cases of exception, on the side of conscience. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.”

Newman, as usual, expresses how primacy of conscience works so well. There is no conflict with infallible statements and one needs a good studied reason to go against a non-infallible papal proclamation. Yet he still upholds the authority of conscience.

 

[Abu]

Reduced to misrepresenting Blessed Newman on conscience, the self-styled “Truthlover” continues to savage truth.

EWTN posts the Holy Father’s reflection at the centenary of Newman’s death in 1990. The section on conscience was very relevant for us as we think about the forthcoming beatification.
frjeffreysteel.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinal-newman-on-conscience.html
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Doctrine on conscience
“Newman had become a convert as a man of conscience; it was his conscience that led him out of the old ties and securities into the world of Catholicism, which was difficult and strange for him. But this way of conscience is everything except a way of self-sufficient subjectivity: it is a way of obedience to objective truth.”

one needs a good studied reason to go against a non-infallible papal proclamation

1. No “studied reason” can excuse deceitfully and arrogantly rejecting the teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25:
   “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
   The lie in post #169:

I agree that it is better if a conscience is well formed, but it is then our duty to follow our conscience even if it disagrees with a fallible church teaching.

False for the Catholic who is faithful to Christ through His Church.

1. Deceitfully and arrogantly encouraging the trumping of Christ’s teaching through His Church by rejecting the doctrine of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25:
   “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.”
2. Deceitfully and arrogantly persisting in encouraging the trumping of Christ’s teaching through His Church which in CCC #2039 teaches “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”
3. Further, arrogantly calling Pope Paul, VI a liar in post #169:

Can we say that the physical love of a loving married couple is evil? No, as God is love and is present during such a loving act evil cannot be present. Evil is the lynchpin of this argument and while it may never be right to do evil that good may come of it, we need to be careful what we call evil, especially when we are talking about a sacrament; marriage.

You have equated “wrong” with “evil” in your post #169, which is correct, simply because contraceptive wrong = morally evil. Contraception is “grave sin” (Pope Pius XI *Casti Connubii *#56).
Truth: Pope Paul, VI defines contraception as “intrinsically wrong” in Humanae Vitae #14.

1. Savaging truth by claiming a non-existent doctrine promoting slavery.

Just because the church teaches something, even over centuries, does not necessarily make it infallible; we only have to look at slavery to see the truth of this point.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

I feel sorry for your blindness. I believe you are entitled to your viewpoint , but not to accuse people who disagree with you as being “deceitful and arrogant”.

“Newman had become a convert as a man of conscience; it was his conscience that led him out of the old ties and securities into the world of Catholicism, which was difficult and strange for him. But this way of conscience is everything except a way of self-sufficient subjectivity: it is a way of obedience to objective truth.”

My point exactly. Conscience should be “a way of obedience to objective truth.”” Cardinal Ratzinger, who is quoting Blessed John Henry Newman, demonstrates the objective truth of conscience:

“John could say: you do not need such instruction, for as anointed ones (i.e., baptized) you know everything (cf. 1 Jn 2:20). This does not mean a factual omniscience on the part of the faithful. It does signify, however, the sureness of the Christian memory… In the crisis of the Church today, the power of this recollection and the truth of the apostolic word is experienced in an entirely new way where much more so than hierarchical direction, it is the power of memory of the simple faith which leads to the discernment of spirits. One can only comprehend the primacy of the Pope and its correlation to Christian conscience in this connection. The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be a papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience.”

Ratzinger’s article on conscience can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

As regards your other points:

[1)
“**This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” .

In the above article Ratzinger writes:

“It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church No1790 states:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

[False for the Catholic who is faithful to Christ through His Church.

Your comment “False” would be laughable if not so sad, misplaced and wrong.

1. “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.”.

Yes, when he “proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals”, but every proclamation by a Pope is not an “absolute decision” just because you and a section of the hierarchy wish it to be “absolute.”

3)CCC #2039 teaches “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church

.”.
[/quote]

Who is being deceitful now, Abu, you left out the important preceding sentence in CCC #2039:

“As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”.

Note “As far as possible”. Of course “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” I would never suggest conscience be “set in opposition”, but that does not mean that after careful consideration you may have to disagree because your “certain conscience” demands that you must and if you do not obey your conscience you sin.

 

[Truthlover]

Here are my replies to 4 and 5, Abu.

1. Further, arrogantly calling Pope Paul, VI a liar in post #169:

You have equated “wrong” with “evil” in your post #169, which is correct, simply because contraceptive wrong = morally evil. Contraception is “grave sin” (Pope Pius XI *Casti Connubii *#56).
Truth: Pope Paul, VI defines contraception as “intrinsically wrong” in Humanae Vitae #14…

Once again, Abu, I must insist that you cannot win a debate by insulting me. I did not call Pope Paul VI a liar, as you well know, and if I did you would use the quote and rightly so! You are only letting yourself down. The section in HV #14 reads:

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—…Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

But this does raise a matter of interest; after all the talk of “evil” in the paragraph, in the last sentence the Pope talks of “serious error” not mortal sin and as you noticed , Abu, he calls contraception “intrinsically wrong” not “intrinsically evil.” Yes, it does highlight that the Pope stepped back, as I quoted Cardinal Konig as saying, from calling contraception a mortal sin and removed the words “mortal sin” from the document. If he did not believe contraception was a mortal sin, which is intrinsically evil, then he could only have believed contraception, at worst, to be a venial sin.

1. Savaging truth by claiming a non-existent doctrine promoting slavery.

Slavery was permitted by the church for years and whether or not it was church teaching is hotly debated. All historical bad church teaching is downgraded by authoritarian followers for understandable reasons.

Abu, it is obvious that you tend to the authoritarian, obey all church teaching, no conscience needed wing of the church. I would urge you to consider church teaching and adhere to your God given conscience.

 

[Abu]

Self-styled Truthlover
I did not call Pope Paul VI a liar (Post #332)

His Post #169 denigrating Pope Paul VI’s infallible doctrine in Humanae Vitae:

The problem with paragraph (14) is that it reads: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”
The logic of this for a loving couple, using non-abortive contraception, is that their act of conjugal love is evil. Can we say that the physical love of a loving married couple is evil? No. Evil is the lynchpin of this argument.

So this dissenter says Pope Paul VI is a liar, by arrogantly pontificating NO to the Pope’s definition that contraceptive intercourse is intrinsically wrong, after he agrees that “wrong” logically means “evil”. Further his deceit is to try to portray that any act of “physical love” in marriage cannot be evil.

The phobia of self-deception is very prevalent, but the remedy is also very clear:
freedom of conscience
Question from Mary Therese on July 24, 2007:
Recently, a priest told me about “freedom of conscience.” He said that we can tell a person what the Church teaches, but if he/she doesn’t accept what the Church teaches, we cannot impose sin on him/her. He said that if a Catholic is practicing birth control and it doesn’t bother his/her conscience (after being told what the Church teaches), then we can’t impose sin on him/her - and neither will God. He said that sin is in the conscience. I’m confused, because I thought that I was obligated to accept all of the Church’s teachings, and therefore, form my conscience to all of the Church’s teachings. Can you help me?

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 24, 2007: **
What that priest told you is wrong. There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.

Canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray, a priest in the Archdiocese of New York, Sep 16, 2010 (CNA)
When asked if he believes that silence on the part of clergy today on contraception has in fact contributed to Catholics’ use of it, Fr. Murray said “yes.”

“Even worse,” he continued, “it is incontestable that some clergy have contradicted Humanae Vitae and have stated that contraceptive use is not sinful.”

“But a delicate approach does not mean moral relativism which would subvert God’s law by calling contraceptive use not a sin,” Fr. Murray underscored. “Church teaching on the gravity of artificial contraception is clear and binding on all. If the penitent confesses this sin, the priest must never contradict the moral law under the guise of pastoral charity. The repentant sinner needs to be encouraged to leave sin behind.”

 

[Truthlover]

His Post #169 denigrating Pope Paul VI’s infallible doctrine in Humanae Vitae:
So this dissenter says Pope Paul VI is a liar, by arrogantly pontificating NO to the Pope’s definition that contraceptive intercourse is intrinsically wrong, after he agrees that “wrong” logically means “evil”. Further his deceit is to try to portray that any act of “physical love” in marriage cannot be evil.

Abu,

As you know in your heart you were unable to show where I called the Pope a “liar.” Please refrain from slander. Disagreeing with someone does not mean you think they are a liar!

I would like you to explain how “the physical love of a loving married couple is evil?”

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 24, 2007: **
What that priest told you is wrong. There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.

Stephen Torraco has an opinion which disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church and that is his entitlement. However, I will follow the CCC #1790 and remain within the church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

It is clear you cannot argue against CCC #1790, a long standing church Tradition.

 

[davidv]

Abu,

As you know in your heart you were unable to show where I called the Pope a “liar.” Please refrain from slander. Disagreeing with someone does not mean you think they are a liar!

I would like you to explain how “the physical love of a loving married couple is evil?”

Stephen Torraco has an opinion which disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church and that is his entitlement. However, I will follow the CCC #1790 and remain within the church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

It is clear you cannot argue against CCC #1790, a long standing church Tradition.

Why do you leave out the rest of #1790?
CCC #1790:

…Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[Abu]

Self-styled Truthlover
Stephen Torraco has an opinion which disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church and that is his entitlement

1. This is a gem of deceit – slandering the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), who answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network.
   Here is Fr Torraco’s statement of truth which the deceiver calls “opinion”:
   **Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 24, 2007: **
   What that priest told you is wrong. There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.
2. Further, it is deceitful to pontificate that any Catholic is “entitled” to “disagree” with the teaching of Christ’s Church on faith or morals and remain a faithful Catholic. Yet another falsehood.
   Can #750 declares that “all are bound to shun any contrary doctrines.
   Can #752: “Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” (For non-infallible doctrine of the Magisterium).

Playing at Magisterium ill behoves such a deceiver.