Why are condoms wrong?

[joandarc2008]

OK I am really jumping in late but I said this once on a Facebook discussion and was told I should say it again if it ever presented itself so here goes:

1. Sexual relations between Sacramentally married persons is a renewal of vows.
2. In a marriage sacrament the Holy Spirit is present with the two married persons in the marriage act as they repeat their Sacramental vow through the marriage act
3. How is putting a piece of latex in between them stopping the Holy Spirit different from placing something over the Eucharist during Adoration?

It isn’t - it is still there but it partially defeats the purpose and shows a lack of Faith.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Regarding the argument that the church’s teaching on contraception was a “long-standing tradition of the Catholic Church” and is therefore infallible, well we will not claim the teachings on slavery, the crusades and the Inquisition were infallible. (Post # 177)

Another dig at Christ’s Church from one who has been malformed about infallibility, and is quite unable to show any erroneous doctrine on slavery, the crusades or the Inquisition, or on ANYTHING – parading only misinformation. To recall the truth, let’s look at the reality of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as compared with the extraordinary Magisterium through which dogmas are proclaimed, using *Defending the Papacy *by Gerard Morrissey, Christendom Publications, 1984, Chap 4 The Magisterium And Infallibility, p 42-58].

Facing Reality on the meaning of infallibility
The doctrine against contraception, for instance, is:
Infallible because it is an infallible exercise of the ordinary Magisterium as declared by the 1870 dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I. The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium has been reiterated by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, 25. Thus the definitive propositions against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1968) are infallible.

Infallible because of the universality of time – the Church has always taught the immorality of contraception.

Infallible because of the universality of the present – because an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI].

The argument from the universality of time, for instance, was used by Pius XII in the proclaiming the Dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption – it had been taught through many centuries – which proclaimed its infallibility:
“…from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven…is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”

 

[tjm190]

Perhaps your two most recent posts were intended to respond to truthlover exclusively- in which case, my apologies for this. However, if a response to my question about the statement, which you cited, by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, was contained in those posts then I’m afraid I missed it- would you kindly point it out?

 

[Abu]

tjm190

1. since I have ‘made myself deaf’ to what the Church believes to be true, I am sinning. However, there would be no additional sin in my using contraception (were I to become married.)
2. Again- “It is never wrong to follow convictions that one has arrived at” seems to mean that if you have determined that a certain act is moral, you can go through with that act without sinning.
3. But- "The guilt lies much deeper –not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” Seems to mean that, while going through with the act is not sinful, simply disagreeing with the Church is.

tjm190

1. Was correctly answered by davidv (post #192) – every morally wrong action is objectively sinful, unless there is diminished culpability. In post #194 I referred to post #164: ]" ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.” (Australian Bishops, 1976)
2. You don’t “determine” whether an act is moral, as a Catholic, until you have formed your conscience to the teaching of Christ’s Church and judged the action by that teaching. **CCC #2039: **“Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” (Post #164)
3. Vatican II, *Gaudiem et Spes *16: “Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.” (Post #163). Cdl Ratzinger applies this to any Catholic who dissents from the Church’s doctrine, through negligence or design.

The Catholic who knows what the Church teaches infallibly against contraception but has freely chosen to reject that teaching, has no excuse to “arrive at any ‘conviction’ ” other than the truth taught – whereas the Catholic who has been malformed, misinformed or disinformed, might. So no Catholic here has any excuse, now. (Post #197). Dissent from doctrine is always wrong.

 

[tjm190]

tjm190

1. Was correctly answered by davidv (post #192) – every morally wrong action is objectively sinful, unless there is diminished culpability. In post #194 I referred to post #164: ]" ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

(Australian Bishops, 1976) Didn’t even remotely answer the question- first, the then-Cardinal seemed to say that simply disagreeing with the Church on a matter of morality is sinful.

1. You don’t “determine” whether an act is moral, as a Catholic, until you have formed your conscience to the teaching of Christ’s Church and judged the action by that teaching. **CCC #2039: **“Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” (Post #164)

Yes, I could arbitrarily pick some people and decide they’re always right. Doesn’t seem like a very reliable way of getting to the truth though. AGAIN you didn’t address the issue I presented- the then-Cardinal said, in plain (insert language the statement was given in) that it is NEVER wrong to follow convictions one has arrived at. Are you claiming that statement was false?

1. Vatican II, *Gaudiem et Spes *16: “Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.” (Post #163). Cdl Ratzinger applies this to any Catholic who dissents from the Church’s doctrine, through negligence or design.

I don’t think I’ve got invincible ignorance, since I know just about everything the Church teaches… I also dedicate far too much time to attempting to forming my conscious that I don’t believe I can be said to ‘care little for truth’ so… that model doesn’t fit.

The Catholic who knows what the Church teaches infallibly against contraception but has freely chosen to reject that teaching, has no excuse to “arrive at any ‘conviction’ ” other than the truth taught – whereas the Catholic who has been malformed, misinformed or disinformed, might. So no Catholic here has any excuse, now. (Post #197). Dissent from doctrine is always wrong.

If you’re going to respond to this post, please tell me, in plain English, exactly what you believe the then Cardinal’s statement means- and support that belief by breaking down the statement.

 

[Abu]

tjm
By confounding your confusion, you’re not helping yourself.

Cardinal (Ratzinger) seemed to say that simply disagreeing with the Church on a matter of morality is sinful.

Yes he does, as davidv has written (see post # 201).
“Simply disagreeing” is to have a different opinion which is to dissent. Morality is not based on opinion. Doctrine is not based on opinion. Christ did not give opinions when He built His Church on St Peter and gave him His authority to bind and loose – He gave the power of authority to serve us with truth. Even non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…” (Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25 (post #170).

“Revelation also contains moral teachings which per se could be known by natural reason. Access to them, however, is made difficult by man’s sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium (17).” (Donum Vitae, CDF, 1990).
“Notes
(17) Cf. Vatican Council, I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 2: DS 3005.”

So dissenting from the infallible teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *and Humane Vitae, a doctrine taught always and everywhere, is a sin.

 

[tjm190]

Alrightie- glad to see that I have a proper understanding of our now-Pope’s belief.

 

[peary]

This might not not be the right section for this.

I don’t understand why condoms are wrong for married couples. I can understand the pill, as it manipulates hormones and things, but why are condoms a problem? The only answer I’ve received from websites is this idea that condoms somehow get in the way of God creating life. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s a thin layer of latex, how could that possibly get in God’s way?

I don’t mean to offend anyone, and I DEFINITELY don’t mean to offend the Lord, but He’s GOD! He had Abraham’s wife get pregnant at quite an old age, he had Mary get pregnant with Jesus even though she never even had sex. If God wants a you to have a baby, YOU’RE HAVING A BABY! Again, I mean no offense, I’m just trying to demonstrate a point. God created all things from nothing, how can latex get in His way? Condoms even have a disclaimer that says they’re not 100% fail-safe. Even a hundredth of a percent would be miles to God. Or He could just disregard the condom altogether.

Besides any of this, doesn’t going out of your way to arrange specific times of the month to have sex amount to the same thing? If condoms get in the way of creating babies, wouldn’t designating special “sex days” do the same? So why is that sinful? It amounts to the same thing, having sex for the sake of sex. Yeah, there’s a bigger chance of pregnancy than with a condom, but the intent is the same.

I read on another thread that a person said people can’t just be baby machines, pumping out kid after kid. Others responded, “why not”? Well, money, for one. It’s a little tough to have a big family if they all starve to death or freeze in the streets because you can’t make mortgage payments.

Honestly, what is morally wrong with having sex with your spouse just for the sake of having sex? Don’t say it’s the same as masturbation, it’s not. Masturbation is a selfish act, and depends solely on lust. Married couples have sex because they’re in love, and they want to demonstrate that love by pleasuring each other physically. I don’t see how this could be wrong, it makes no sense to me.

Is there anything that can be said? If there is an honestly good reason, I’d like to hear it. I really don’t mean to sound like a troll, and please believe me, I really don’t want to offend anyone.

They are wrong because (1) they relegate the sex act to that of recreation rather than creation (2) it goes against God’s first commandment to humankind: “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen.) It is morally wrong to have sex just to have sex, even with your spouse if your not open to the transmission of life. Your focus is on self-absorption, not on the transmission of life. You have your love for God backwards. God never said that married couples cannot experience sexual pleasure. The pleasure is in the knowing that it is the way He may bless your household with children.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu, unfortunately you seem to be very selective in your quotations and I would encourage you to open your mind in love and truth. Clearly you have a deep love of the Church, but do not let that love override your love of God when He speaks to you, remembering that a right conscience and the Church rarely disagree, but as the Church says in Gaudium et Spes No 15:

“Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Regarding papal infallibility:

“the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals” (Lumen Gentium, No 25 )

Note that for a doctrine to be infallible it has to be made explicitly clear that the doctrine is infallible; this has to be done “by a definitive act”.

When Pope Paul VI tells us to use our conscience in Humanae Vitae then HV is clearly not a “definitive act” and the Pope did not feel the Church teaching on contraception was definitive.

This clearly did not and does not appeal to a lot of dissenters who try to make infallible that which is not.

Abu, do you really think that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are incapable of saying “This teaching is infallible” if they believed that was the truth?

 

[ddarko]

Abu, unfortunately you seem to be very selective in your quotations and I would encourage you to open your mind in love and truth. Clearly you have a deep love of the Church, but do not let that love override your love of God when He speaks to you, remembering that a right conscience and the Church rarely disagree, but as the Church says in Gaudium et Spes No 15:

“Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Regarding papal infallibility:

“the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals” (Lumen Gentium, No 25 )

Note that for a doctrine to be infallible it has to be made explicitly clear that the doctrine is infallible; this has to be done “by a definitive act”.

When Pope Paul VI tells us to use our conscience in Humanae Vitae then HV is clearly not a “definitive act” and the Pope did not feel the Church teaching on contraception was definitive.

This clearly did not and does not appeal to a lot of dissenters who try to make infallible that which is not.

Abu, do you really think that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are incapable of saying “This teaching is infallible” if they believed that was the truth?

My dear friend, do not lead people astray.

Contraception is WRONG. It will always be wrong. Personal conscience does not override what is a sin. I cannot say that the ten commandments do not apply to me because some sort of personal conscience informed me that way.

The sin of contraception has nothing to do with infallibility. Its just a mere derivation from existing axioms of what it is to sin. There are numerous scripture passages that back it up. Please don’t lead people astray and take a look yourself at the following scripture.

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

the encyclicals merely describe these scripture to the faithful. It is not Pope’s pulling things out of thin air.

A sin does not change on your conscience. Sin is an act that goes against God’s nature. Depending on what your mood is or who you are, does not change that fact that something is a sin.

Your ability to use your conscience depends on how well it is formed. Conscience is reasonable. All Popes have shown in these encyclicals why Contraception is unreasonable and UNETHICAL. Therefore, to say that ‘‘my conscience informs me otherwise’’ is ignorance to TRUTH and REASON. It clearly shows a malformed conscience my friend. You must have failed to read the ‘ARTICLE 6, MORAL CONSCIENCE, IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT, 1790 - 1794’’ of the Catechism and stopped reading after the first 3 sections.

It is one thing to struggle with the problem of contraception if you are someone who uses it. I pray that you will be able to overcome this sin. But to try and make it OK by using conscience as a scapegoat is unacceptable.

God bless

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
I would encourage you to open your mind in love and truth…HV is clearly not a “definitive act”… and the Pope did not feel the Church teaching on contraception was definitive. This clearly did not and does not appeal to a lot of dissenters who try to make infallible that which is not….do you really think that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are incapable of saying “This teaching is infallible” if they believed that was the truth?

You have shown clearly why dissent from definitive doctrine is unreasonable and gravely wrong.

1. Opening minds to love and truth is to accept Christ and Christ’s mandate to Peter to bind and to loose.
2. The Pope teaches infallible doctrine in H.V., he does not “feel” instead of proclaiming truth.
3. You have singularly failed to supply even a skerrick of justification for your feeling that any Pope must declare, or has at any time in any doctrinal definitions ever declared, that a doctrine “is infallible”.
4. That a doctrine does not “appeal” to “dissenters”, immediately declares them to have alienated themselves from Christ’s Church.

One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he "was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible." (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Now that you know that Vatican I teaches that a pope teaches infallibly when he defines a doctrine on faith and morals to the whole Church with his supreme authority, you try to ridicule the clarity of *Humanae Vitae *as “not definitive” doctrine! So for the confused, we see clearly from Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930:

“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.” [My emphasis].

Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968:
“Unlawful Birth Control Methods
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) [Note 16 refers to *Casti Connubii)

**“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.” ** [My emphasis].

Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.” [My emphasis].

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

You say:

“3) You have singularly failed to supply even a skerrick of justification for your feeling that any Pope must declare, or has at any time in any doctrinal definitions ever declared, that a doctrine “is infallible”.”

What about John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No 4:

“I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

I trust you will agree that this is stronger than any words used in HV.

You quote:

Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968:
“Unlawful Birth Control Methods
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) [Note 16 refers to Casti Connubii)"

You are quoting the Church condemning Natural Family Planning:

“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. (Note 16 refers to Casti Connubii)” ( enlargement of before is mine)

If a couple wish to make love ( before sexual intercourse) then realise they are fertile so do not make love then their not making love: “is specifically intended to prevent procreation”.

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE makes a few points pertinent to the debate:

“On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.
This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force.”(1)

“all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.”(2)

“…the highest norm of human life is the divine law…… Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.”(3)

“Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.
Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.”(3)

It is imperative that we realise how truth is to be sought and I have highlighted “free” and “aid” to show how non-infallible Church teachings are to be used.

“On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience.”(3)

Please note this, that it is through our consciences that we see and recognise the demands of the divine law. Also that in “all” of our activities we are “bound” to follow our consciences.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 is also relevant:

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

I believe we are going round in circles at this stage and that we would both be better spending our time praying that God sends the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth. At least neither of us can argue that we do not have an informed conscience. May God guide us all.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Here is the thread for this topic which was started in 2007.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=192914

Here is another one started in 2006.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110257

Lot’s of good arguments for this infallible teaching.

Cheers…

 

[Abu]

Of course, NEWCATHOLICJEFF.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Now, the would-be destroyer of truth is trying to declare that Christ’s Church is wrong also in affirming that the infertile periods created by God are part of His providence and can be used for a sufficiently grave reason!

Dissenters concoct their own self-serving prejudices as the CCC attests:
CCC #1792 identifies specifically “the errors of judgment in moral conduct”, including “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching.”

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

They don’t have a leg to stand on. They don’t even know that the Holy Spirit protects Christ’s Church from teaching error and enables us to assent to Her truth unless we choose not to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life.

In Veritatis Splendor #64, Pope John Paul II teaches**;……“ ‘freedom of conscience’ is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth**…because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

 

[ddarko]

Abu,

… Please note this, that it is through our consciences that we see and recognise the demands of the divine law. Also that in “all” of our activities we are “bound” to follow our consciences.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 is also relevant:

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

I believe we are going round in circles at this stage and that we would both be better spending our time praying that God sends the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth. At least neither of us can argue that we do not have an informed conscience. May God guide us all.

Actually I would claim that you have a VERY misinformed conscience.

You are under the impression that Conscience can OVERRIDE reason. Contraception is a SIN from reason and SCRIPTURE. It is unethical. The encyclicals and papal writings describe why contraception is unethical. IT IS NOT A PAPAL opinion piece. Therefore you cannot say that ‘‘my conscience informs me that I am right’’ because you are defying reason.

About natural family planing, you seem to be seriously ill informed once again. One does not need to obey his/her inclination to have sexual intercourse. One can choose self control. If the family is unable to support another child, that is the way to go. If the couple is just doing it to avoid children when they can support them, THEN IT IS A SIN. I think your notion that ‘‘if they already decided to make love, then to not do so later is a sin’’ comes from the same incorrect notion you have about conscience. REASON must always guide your CONSCIENCE. In this case, reason should show the couple although they decided to make love that they CANT support another kid.

Next thing you know, you are going to say your conscience is telling you to disobey the ten commandments and that same sex marriage is good, abortion is good etc. Every place you meet a stance of the church that does not agree with you will be omitted by ‘‘your conscience’’. Make sure you keep your reason in check. Otherwise your conscience is ill formed no matter how informed you are.

So my dear friend, you clearly have issues with your conscience and right now you are not helping your cause by leading people astray.

God Bless

 

[Truthlover]

Abu & ddarko,

It would be helpful if you showed where my logic is wrong rather than leaving paper trails that are not relevant to my post.

Ddarko,
Please refrain from misquoting me and misrepresenting me.

It is clear that both of you do not agree with the Second Vatican Council document Dignitatis Humanae that “a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God”(3).

It is clearly not Christian for this debate to continue. May God guide us all.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

**CCC 1789 **Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”
**CCC 1792 **identifies specifically “the errors of judgment in moral conduct”, including “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching.”
**CCC 2039 **teaches “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

Gn 1:27-28 and Gn 9:1;35;11 “be fruitfull and multiply”
Ps 127:3-5 ‘children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver”
1 Chr 25:5 “God gave 14 sons and 3 daughters to exalt him”
1 Chr 26:4-5 “God indeed blessed Obed-edom with 8 sons”
Hos 9:10-17 “Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 “blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness”
Dt 7:13-14 “you will be blessed:no male or female barrenness
Gn 38:9-10 “Onan killed for spilling his seed on the ground”
Dt 25:5-10 “penalty for defying Levirate law; not death”
Lv 20:13 “if man lies with animal, put to death (wasting seed)
Note: no similar penalty prescribed for lesbian actions or relations between single man and single woman (Dt 22:28-29)
Lv 20:15 “if man lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 20:16 “woman lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 21:17-20 “a crushed testicle is called a defect and blemish”
Dt 23:1 “no one who is castrated shall enter the assembly”
Dt 25:11-12 “punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1: 25-27 “natural function of women (=childbearing)
1 Tim 2:11-15 “women saved thru the bearinf of children
Act 5:1-11 “Ananias/Saphira slain=withholding part of gift”
Gl 6:7 “God is not mocked accepting pleasure, denying fruit”
Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 “Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree”
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21,21:8 “Greek pharmakeia=abortifacient potions”
1Cor 6:19-20 “body temple of Holy Spirit, glorify God in body”

After reading the above…is the world still flat?

 

[ddarko]

Abu & ddarko,

It would be helpful if you showed where my logic is wrong rather than leaving paper trails that are not relevant to my post.

Ddarko,
Please refrain from misquoting me and misrepresenting me.

It is clear that both of you do not agree with the Second Vatican Council document Dignitatis Humanae that “a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God”(3).

It is clearly not Christian for this debate to continue. May God guide us all.

I have no disagreement with Vatican II. And I clearly stated what is wrong with your position. You are assuming that your conscience is very well formed and DOES NOT need to be governed by REASON.

So I am simply claiming that your conscience is NOT well formed. Your view that Contraception is good is defying reason and ethics. Therefore, it cannot be from a good conscience. If you are talking about consistency with Catholic teaching, you need to read the Catechism on what it says about ‘‘moral conscience’’. It clearly states that Conscience is REASONABLE. i.e. You cannot pull something straight out of nowhere saying that ‘‘God told you its OK’’. An ill formed conscience does NOT lead you to God.

Your view of ‘‘conscience’’ is NOT the Vatican II view and can never be supported by Christianity. Just ask yourself, according to your definition of Christianity, what stops a muslim from claiming Jesus is NOT the son of God? He can always say thats what God told him and leads him closer to him. The only way to convince him otherwise is through REASON. So your position on Conscience is NOT FEASIBLE. Conscience MUST be governed by REASON.

If I did misquote you or said something illogical, please feel free to point it out

God Bless

 

[choose_to_love]

All I have time for, for now:

docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd2cg4kp_3cfzjmj on conscience

mliccione.blogspot.com/2010/06/conscience-about-conscience.html

for all to consider.

 

[ddarko]

All I have time for, for now:

docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd2cg4kp_3cfzjmj on conscience

mliccione.blogspot.com/2010/06/conscience-about-conscience.html

for all to consider.

Thanks, the articles are interesting but it appears in the 2nd article that they are again confusing the fact that conscience does not mean some sort of ‘‘urge deep down inside’’. As stated in the catechism, '‘1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed’’. The key term here is the term ‘‘REASON’’. Many seem to ignore this.

The catholic position regarding same sex marriage, abortion and contraception are direct derivations from scripture using REASON. One cannot therefore say that ones conscience advices him otherwise. Then they should be able to prove using reason that the derivations are incorrect or give a reasonable argument for it. But this is not what people mean by having a ‘‘conscience’’. They basically mean that they had a God induced gut feeling that they are RIGHT. But that is NOT conscience. From that definition of conscience, one can REJECT the scriptures, and even the ten commandments depending on the society they live in. For an example, someone from Amsterdam would probably feel that prostitution is fine as a livelihood from his/her ‘‘conscience’’ since he has been more exposed to it (but which I hope is obvious to someone reasonable that it is FALSE). The only feasible definition of conscience has to be based on something objective which is reason. Otherwise we just start treading down the path of moral relativism.

However one might be ignorant to the fact that it was a sin in the first place. This might reduce the blame for the action but nevertheless the action is still a SIN.

And in reply to the 2nd article, there is indeed proof that McBride has a malformed conscience because it shows from her ACTIONS itself

God bless