N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
The moral difference between contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP)By Doug McManaman
Go look it up…
Go look it up…
- Status
Q
quotidianum
Guest
I’m not even going to bother.
Q
quotidianum
Guest
I’m quoting myself to make a correction: I meant Humanae Vitae, not Dignitatis Humanae (decree on religion liberty). Mind blip–my bad.
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
I think the logic used is similar to the logic used to treat a tubal pregnancy. Where the death of a child may occur in order to save the life of a mother. Personally I believe the logic is flawed because a tubal pregnancy must be taken care of to save the mothers life and the ending of the life of the child is not morally wrong since it had no chance of living if the tubal ligation were not performed. The choice of using a condom during anal sex is NOT something that needs to be done, and although it may prevent passing HIV the reason it is being used is a moral wrong and inherently evil. Using it to prevent the spread of HIV in a marriage would be no different to me. Maybe some other logic will be used published? In any event once the teaching is published I will accept it.
A
Abu
Guest
No, there is no change, contraception is intrinsically evil whether by condoms or otherwise. No, there is no change to what is licit and what is not in married intercourse.
Further:
ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:22:09:44Z
“Okay, first of all, this is an interview book. The pope is being interviewed. He is not engaging his official teaching capacity.
“…as Janet Smith puts it,
The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.”
catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220
ope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70“Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes? Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.
“Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms? No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.”
T
Truthlover
Guest
The following information from the pope’s new book can be found in post #4304 at:
theratzingerforum.yuku.com/to…html?page=216
It’s worth noting that in a different section of the new book, the pope defended the 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” which taught that, in the context of married love, contraception techniques, including condoms, are immoral because they close off the possibility of the transmission of life.
“The basic lines of ‘Humanae Vitae’ are still correct. Finding ways to enable people to live the teaching, on the other hand, is a further question,” the pope said. He indicated that pastors should show some tolerance for Catholics who have difficulty with the teaching on contraception.
“We should not take the failure to live up to this high moral standard as an authoritative objection to the truth. We should try to do as much good as we can and to support and put up with each other” and create conditions for better understanding of the teaching, he said.
The Pope does appear to be taking a softer approach than traditional church teaching, as did Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae when he deliberately refused to call the use of contraception a grave or mortal sin. Paul VI said contraception was “intrinsically wrong” which was less harsh than previous Popes who had called contraception a “grave sin”.
It is difficult, at this stage, to draw any other conclusion than that Benedict is indicating a softening in the church teaching regarding contraception
theratzingerforum.yuku.com/to…html?page=216
It’s worth noting that in a different section of the new book, the pope defended the 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” which taught that, in the context of married love, contraception techniques, including condoms, are immoral because they close off the possibility of the transmission of life.
“The basic lines of ‘Humanae Vitae’ are still correct. Finding ways to enable people to live the teaching, on the other hand, is a further question,” the pope said. He indicated that pastors should show some tolerance for Catholics who have difficulty with the teaching on contraception.
“We should not take the failure to live up to this high moral standard as an authoritative objection to the truth. We should try to do as much good as we can and to support and put up with each other” and create conditions for better understanding of the teaching, he said.
The Pope does appear to be taking a softer approach than traditional church teaching, as did Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae when he deliberately refused to call the use of contraception a grave or mortal sin. Paul VI said contraception was “intrinsically wrong” which was less harsh than previous Popes who had called contraception a “grave sin”.
It is difficult, at this stage, to draw any other conclusion than that Benedict is indicating a softening in the church teaching regarding contraception
M
MtnDwellar
Guest
I am not sure that Pope Benedict is softening on contraception so much as saying that people who do not accept the Church’s teaching on extra-marital sex should not be killing one another with diseases.
It is really a question that shouldn’t have to be asked in the first place. The Church has teachings about sex and also teachings about contraception. The question is then, if we ignore your teaching about sex, would it then be moral or immoral to ignore the teaching about contraception? The Church seems to have always said, pay attention to the first teaching and you will not have to ask about ignoring the second.
I think that the subject gained attention when the Pope made a comment while flying over an African nation that was plagued with aids. If the people of those countries practiced chastity, aids would be eliminated within two generations.
T
Truthlover
Guest
This statement clearly shows that the Pope does not see contraception as being a grave or mortal sin.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is incorrect. Read Humanae Vitae:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
The Vatican has issued a clarification about Pope Benedict’s comment about condoms: No Change.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325
Peace,
Ed
T
Truthlover
Guest
Post #402 covered Humanae Vitae and I will post it once again for clarification:
A mortal sin is an “authoritative objection to the truth,” whereas in regard to the use of contraception Pope Benedict VI said “We should not take the failure to live up to this high moral standard as an authoritative objection to the truth.” The Pope does not see non-abortifacient contraception as being a mortal sin.
A
Abu
Guest
Typically false, again.
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, but as self-styled “at worst…a venial sin” – expresses ably the selfism and wishful thinking that permeate every aspect of this poster’s falsehoods.
He has used this thread to promote his dissenting fantasies against the definitive infallible doctrine in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).
In 1930, in his encyclical, Casti Connubii (56), Pope Pius XI declared, “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 offence against the law of God and of
nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
In 1968, in *Humanae Vitae *(14), Pope Paul VI declared: “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.”
May 10, 2008, VATICAN CITY
In a speech marking the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: “What was true yesterday remains true even today….The truth expressed in Humanae vitae doesn’t change; on the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries it is ever more up to date…. Forty years after its publication, that teaching not only shows itself to be unchanged in its truth, but it reveals the farsightedness with which the problem was tackled.”
legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20080510-0643-pope-birthcontrol.html
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act.” (Dr Jeff Mirus, Nov 22, 2110).
This is an outstanding article on the comments in Pope Benedict’s Book, showing the permanence of the definitive, infallible teaching against contraception in marriage.
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
In CONTRACEPTION, GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH*
By William E. May very good arguments are made to the Grave nature of Contraception.
Mr. May writes…
The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
In its treatment of marriage, this Catechism, used universally in the Church from the end of the sixteenth century until the late twentieth century, had this to say about contraception: “Whoever in marriage artificially prevents conception, or procures an abortion, commits a most serious sin: the sin of premeditated murder.” [7] We ought to note that Pope Paul VI explicitly referred to this text in footnote number 16 appended to Humanae vitae, no. 14.
And finally, we have the testimony of one of the leading figures of the Protestant Reformation.
John Calvin
Calvin, in his commentary on the sin of Onan (Gen 38), wrote as follows, in language reminiscent in part of that used by St. Thomas Aquinas in the passage already cited:
Onan not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrefy on the ground….The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before is born the hoped-for offspring….If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation, and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth. [8]
The above clearly point out that the intent of preventing life was the mortal sin. If you twist the meaning of HV you do great harm…according to Humani Generis. If you believe that HV is church teaching and you claim to be a Catholic then you must also comply with Humani Generis as I pointed out in a previous post. If you are not a “Catholic” then you don’t have to as you are protesting the teachings of the Church the same as Martin Luther.
By William E. May very good arguments are made to the Grave nature of Contraception.
Mr. May writes…
The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
In its treatment of marriage, this Catechism, used universally in the Church from the end of the sixteenth century until the late twentieth century, had this to say about contraception: “Whoever in marriage artificially prevents conception, or procures an abortion, commits a most serious sin: the sin of premeditated murder.” [7] We ought to note that Pope Paul VI explicitly referred to this text in footnote number 16 appended to Humanae vitae, no. 14.
And finally, we have the testimony of one of the leading figures of the Protestant Reformation.
John Calvin
Calvin, in his commentary on the sin of Onan (Gen 38), wrote as follows, in language reminiscent in part of that used by St. Thomas Aquinas in the passage already cited:
Onan not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrefy on the ground….The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before is born the hoped-for offspring….If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation, and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth. [8]
The above clearly point out that the intent of preventing life was the mortal sin. If you twist the meaning of HV you do great harm…according to Humani Generis. If you believe that HV is church teaching and you claim to be a Catholic then you must also comply with Humani Generis as I pointed out in a previous post. If you are not a “Catholic” then you don’t have to as you are protesting the teachings of the Church the same as Martin Luther.
- In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
- If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
T
Truthlover
Guest
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope if he intended his comments to apply only to men. Benedict replied that it really didn’t matter — the important thing was that the person took into consideration the life of another, Lombardi said.
“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no. The problem is this: … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”
courier-journal.com/article/20101123/FEATURES03/311230100/1010/FEATURES/Pope++Condoms+to+prevent+AIDS+also+permitted+for+women
“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no. The problem is this: … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”
courier-journal.com/article/20101123/FEATURES03/311230100/1010/FEATURES/Pope++Condoms+to+prevent+AIDS+also+permitted+for+women
A
Abu
Guest
No Pope has ever taught or implied this. Some “theologians” engage in wishful thinking.
“Please note, that the Supreme Pontiff is making it clear that the Church cannot actually expect people who are not living the Church’s teaching (for one reason or another), not to use condoms. If they or indeed we, are practically unable or, more importantly, do not wish to live Church teaching in respect to sexuality at all, then you cannot expect these to avoid contraception.
“Please note, that he doesn’t condone either the sin (sex, be it homosexual or heterosexual, outside of marriage) or artificial contraception (within marriage), but wishes to lead all to repentance and respect for the sanctity of life and to the great joy to be discovered in Christ’s mercy and in His Church.”
[That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill: Why Pope Benedict XVI's Next Visit Will Not be Sponsored by Durex]](That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill: Why Pope Benedict XVI's Next Visit Will Not be Sponsored by Durex])
M
MtnDwellar
Guest
This is my thinking. Wouldn’t rapists, fornicators, and adulterers use or not use condoms regardless of Church teachings? What truth could there be when people say that the Catholic teaching on birth control has significantly contributed to the rapid spread of aids? I don’t think that aids is spread by married couples who practice fidelity and also unprotected sex.
T
Truthlover
Guest
It is clear that in the case of a married couple, where one of the couple is HIV positive, that the Pope believes that a main point of the conjugal act is that “of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”
In the case of the conjugal act this necessarily involves the use of contraception.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
C’mon, now, truthy, ya know I luv ya, but if there is anything that the recent comments were not, it is “clear”.
As a counter, I don’t think he was talking about marital relations, but specifically those outside marriage.
If you want to make the double effect argument, go ahead.
As a counter, I don’t think he was talking about marital relations, but specifically those outside marriage.
If you want to make the double effect argument, go ahead.
T
Truthlover
Guest
Choose, are you saying with regard to a prostitute taking responsibility and “taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship” that the Pope does not consider the life of one’s marriage partner “the life of another with whom you have a relationship”?
A
Abu
Guest
All condomistic intercourse is evil in marriage because it deliberately tries to thwart the procreative end of marriage by placing a barrier to it.
Never rely on the secular media, nor on self-styled “Truthlover” for anything Catholic. The Holy Father was being interviewed and a book written – there is no change in doctrine on morals. Everything that is immoral stays immoral – God is immutable (changeless), and Christ’s Church teaches His truth infallibly.
There is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it but cannot be relied upon for protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified, nor adultery nor fornication. The habit of using a condom might come to be taken as normal, so that an ensuing real marriage would be tainted by grave evil through condomistic intercourse, hence “(w)hen, with respect to the distribution of condoms to reduce the risk of AIDS, the Pope says the Church ‘of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality’, he is doing exactly the sort of extrinsic moral analysis required for this case.” (Dr Jeff Mirus).
The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.
With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: “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 (cf.Rom.3:8) - 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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).
On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
Evil may not be done to achieve a good. Self-styled “Truthlover” has his own agenda of corruption of Catholic definitive infallible doctrine.
Never rely on the secular media, nor on self-styled “Truthlover” for anything Catholic. The Holy Father was being interviewed and a book written – there is no change in doctrine on morals. Everything that is immoral stays immoral – God is immutable (changeless), and Christ’s Church teaches His truth infallibly.
There is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it but cannot be relied upon for protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified, nor adultery nor fornication. The habit of using a condom might come to be taken as normal, so that an ensuing real marriage would be tainted by grave evil through condomistic intercourse, hence “(w)hen, with respect to the distribution of condoms to reduce the risk of AIDS, the Pope says the Church ‘of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality’, he is doing exactly the sort of extrinsic moral analysis required for this case.” (Dr Jeff Mirus).
The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.
With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: “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 (cf.Rom.3:8) - 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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).
On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
Evil may not be done to achieve a good. Self-styled “Truthlover” has his own agenda of corruption of Catholic definitive infallible doctrine.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
No, I’m saying using contraception in the context of already disordered sexual relations, i.e., prostitution, is different from marital relations. I think that is what the Pope was saying too
BTW, as I am sure you suppose, I don’t think the double effect principles work.
I would think the way “one takes into account the life of another with whom you have a relationship” in the marital context is to abstain.
Why do you think the Pope was discussing marriage? It seems to me you are extrapolating way beyond his intent. We’ll see, I guess.
BTW, as I am sure you suppose, I don’t think the double effect principles work.
I would think the way “one takes into account the life of another with whom you have a relationship” in the marital context is to abstain.
Why do you think the Pope was discussing marriage? It seems to me you are extrapolating way beyond his intent. We’ll see, I guess.
- Status