Why are condoms wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdamC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi choose to love,

I am reprinting here post no 225 to give my basic view on the primacy of conscience:

“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

The Pope states the primacy of conscience very well! See below for full details:

Part of an Address by Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR:

At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world … on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human Church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Fr Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II: “Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

The full Address can be found at: thetablet.co.uk/article/14990

In addition I feel primacy of conscience is essential based on the Second Vatican Council Document Gaudium et Spes No.16:

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Of course I agree with Robert Obach that: “when it comes to church teaching, there is “always a presumption in favour of the magesterium.” However, we all know that theologians like John Courtney Murray were silenced by the curia before Vatican II and during VII he and other censored theologians practically wrote many of the documents which were approved by the Pope and 2500 Bishops. So let us not see the curia and their teaching as being infallible! We have people being called dissenters because they do not agree with all church teachings. The name callers are those who would have called St. Alphonsus Liguori a dissenter because he developed (changed?) doctrine.

Do you accept everything the church teaches without using your conscience or brain? I believe to do so would be an insult to God for giving us these gifts. Yes, let us always “presume” in favour of the Magesterium, but this does not mean we have to blindly accept everything taught.
 
Good day, truth

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I understand your position, that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and right, taking into account Church teaching. You see the Magisterium as more of an advisory body, which has the abiilty to inform our understanding (perhaps through analysis of different issues), and as long as you personally agree with it, you will abide by its teaching - - is that a fair paraphrase, or not? What do you do with all the associated qualifiers about informing one’s conscience, for instance in the Catechism, as pointed out upthread by abu?

To me that is not much of a teaching “authority”, and seems to me no different than our Protestant brethren and their governing assemblies, as I understand them. I do not see how one can square that with all authority being given to Peter, and the “he who hears you, hears Me”/binding and loosing scriptures. Perhaps you could spell out what your understanding of the Church’s teaching authority is? I do not mean to be a pest, but this issue has caught my attention, and you seem like a person of good will who has given this some thought.

And how do you support receiving Communion when you hold a belief directly contrary to what the Church, I think you must agree, teaches definitively (at a minimum through the ordinary and universal magisterium)? It seems to me that to be consistent the one who takes the position that one’s conscience is supreme as against the Magisterium need also refrain from presenting oneself for Communion, as it is a sign of unity; if one does not believe what the Church believes, how can one receive the Eucharist? This is why our Protestant brothers cannot receive - - they do not believe the same thing about what the Eucharist really is (well, that and St. Paul’s comments about bringing judgment on oneself). How far can one go in opposing the teaching of the Church before it has no meaning to belong to said Church? Or do you think reception is limited to agreement on the Real Presence?

Now I would agree, the issue of whether to present oneself to receive in good conscience also would be affected by the circumstances - - I think it would also have to be something that one was putting into practice (i.e., actually using contraception) or publically advocating against the Church’s position. Not sure if I’ve thought that through all the way.

As to your question, do I “blindly” accept Church teaching, well, I am not sure how to answer that. Do I try to understand, sure. Do I accept even if I have a hard time, yes. Do I attempt to see what must be definitively held and what does not, yes. For instance, we had some infertility issues at one time. We investigated the different technologies for which the Church had not definitively spoken as to their licitness, but I ultimately came to the conclusion that certain of the technologies would not be licit. That is not the same thing, precisely, as what we are discussing, but it’s the closest I can come at the moment; I’ll try to give it more thought.

I hope I am not sounding condemning or judgmental, because that is not my intent, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. I am trying to be open and candid with where I think the “primacy” theory leads. I hope to continue our exchange.
 
Hi choose,

You paraphrase my position as follows:

“You see the Magisterium as more of an advisory body, which has the abiilty to inform our understanding (perhaps through analysis of different issues), and as long as you personally agree with it, you will abide by its teaching - - is that a fair paraphrase, or not?”

My position actually gives much more weight to the Magesterium; there is for me always a presumption of truth in church teaching. However, as an example of my position, I would hope that if I had been alive in the fourth century when the Synod of Gangra met that I would not have obeyed the third canon which reads as follows:

“Canon 3
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.” newadvent.org/fathers/3804.htm

I hope I would advise the slave to run; that I would do as advised by the Second Vatican Council Document Gaudium et Spes No.16:

“For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man.”

If this was current church law would you uphold slavery and church teaching or would you obey God and your conscience? Where would you place “primacy” in this case?
 
Truth:

How much more weight do you give the Magisterium? It just doesn’t seem like the presumption is very strong if it must be balanced against your personal assent. Perhaps I am not understanding any nuances in your position.

On to your question:

“would you uphold slavery and church teaching or obey God and your conscience”

Would you permit me to label this a false dichotomy? Put another way, upholding slavery is a little different than counseling the particular slave to run, or more accurately, not run. In more detail, I have always understood that early Christianity did not encourage widespread slave emancipation by attempted escape, because of the anticipated extreme negative consequences to the then-existing social and economic fabric; indeed, your own link cites to St. Paul’s advice that slaves not attempt escape (cf. the articles also at the New Advent link, “Slavery and Christianity” and “Slavery, Ethical Aspect of”). I suppose that after applying my “conscience and brain” I would uphold the church teaching, because I understand the synod’s purpose in its canon as aiming to prevent disorder to the detriment of all.

As to Gaudium et Spes, not sure that’s where I would hang my hat - - see the rest of that paragraph that you cite: 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. (emphasis mine).

Again, the Church’s understanding of conscience seems to me to be more nuanced than you are making it - - notice how in the same paragraph that you cite, conscience is modified by “right”, i.e., informed by the Church’s teaching authority, and how conscience can be dulled by sin.

Would you care to addres my queries about reception of Holy Communion when one, under your understanding of primacy of conscience, does not believe what the Church has always and currently teaches about, for instance, contraception? On how many issues can one take a position absolutely contrary to Church teaching because one’s conscience has decided the Magisterium is wrong?
 
Hmm choose,

Humanae Vitae no 18, with reference to Romans 3:18, states:

“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it”

Yet you would agree with an old church rule, which the church has since discarded, to do evil that good may come from it. Strange; I am glad I was not an escaping slave bumping into you in the past.

It has become clear that you do not see a place for conscience where there is a church teaching. You disagree with the German bishops who stated in their pastoral letter of 22 September, 1967, that the ordinary, non-definitive teaching of the church:

“Can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors.” (The New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak ed, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1987, pg 622)

This is one reason you have a conscience. It seems that on such an occasion you will ignore your conscience and obey the erroneous church teaching, forgetting that: “man has in his heart a law written by God.” But you will be wrong in such a case and someone like myself would be right. However, if such a case arises I see no reason for you not to receive Communion as you are searching for the truth as best you can, even if you ignore the law written in your heart by God.

You seem to be eager to stop me receiving Communion, but I take heart that Jesus saw fit to give Judas Communion and loved him.
 
Choose,

I have posted this before but it is important and relevant at this point. The CCC says:

“1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

The CCC complete section on formation of conscience reads as follows:

II. The Formation of Conscience

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. 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.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. the education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 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.55

It is clear from the above that I am acting in “communion” with the Catholic Church. I am educating my conscience and I am “guided” by church teaching. Here we should note the use of the word “guided” by church teaching, again there is no demand to blindly follow church teaching as that would do away with God’s gift of freewill.

I do wonder about so called “orthodox” believers who defend every teaching of the hierarchy with venom and attack as dissenters and heretics those who are trying to live the truth of our faith while using their conscience as befits every person of freewill ( and as the CCC instructs).

I am not including you in this venomous group by the way, choose. You appear to be a searcher for truth yourself.

One last point on the primacy of conscience. On 26 April 1971 the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy published its findings on The Washington Case. The findings can be found in Vatican Council II, Vol. 2: More Post-Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, editor, 1982. Section 5 reads as follows:

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no man is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests”
 
Truthlover
So let us not see the curia and their teaching as being infallible! We have people being called dissenters because they do not agree with all church teachings. The name callers are those who would have called St. Alphonsus Liguori a dissenter because he developed (changed?) doctrine….the ordinary, non-definitive teaching of the church: “Can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors.” (The New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak ed, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1987, pg 622)
Click to expand...
Some who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices (William James). Truthlover has learned nothing.
Let us instead, assent to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium. The non-definitive teaching is not guaranteed infallibility as Fr Komonchak rightly implies.

And the definitive infallible teaching is:
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.”

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]

In still trying to make conscience a law unto itself (selfism),
You obviously are not a lover of truth for you choose to omit from *Dignitatis Humanae *the prior truth in #3 that “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.”

You obviously are not a lover of truth for you choose to ignore in *Dignitatis Humanae *#1: that “this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men…. 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. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

You obviously are not a lover of truth for from post #163 you saw that “In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

Yiou obviously are still mired in your dissent.
 
Abu,

Do you never wonder why the church says, as you quote:

““In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.”

Why does the church not just say to obey the church and ignore your conscience, as you advocate. The reason the church does not do that is clear to me but obviously a mystery to you; you must obey your conscience as: “man has in his heart a law written by God.”
The church will not tell you to ignore that “law written by God.”
 
Which natural moral law is clearly shown against contraception by God killing Onan for it.

It’s not rocket science – it’s simple – as John Paul II warned in *Veritatis Splendor *#64, ….“ ‘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.”

You obviously don’t seem to regard certainty as being useful.
 
Truthlover is showing no love for truth in posting the non-infallibility of nondefinitive teaching: “Can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors”, while omitting:
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).

Muddying the waters doesn’t help anyone to truth.
 
Blessings, truthl

Onward!

As to the slavery example, I understood you to be asking the question as if I were alive at that time. Are you applying my answer to today’s economic and social fabric? Number two, I do not see my answer as doing evil that good may come of it. How can this be, if St Paul counseled the same thing, in Scripture? I find it curious that you cite to Romans, authored by Paul, when your own citation for the synod on slavery references Pauline teaching on not requiring, for lack of a better term, active slave emancipation in that society. Do you not see the difference between opposing slavery in principle as opposed to human dignity and not advocating slaves to run away?

I am not eager to stop you receiving Holy Communion. I thought we were discussing in theory; please don’t take my submissions as an attack upon you.

I am interested in exploring the tension between the conscience, well-formed conscience, and Church authority.

You make a point that the faithful should “attend” to Church teaching. I don’t suppose either of us has the Latin for that phrase? In any event, it seems to me that you elevate the “attend” to the detriment of the “authoritative”. Put another way, I think the Church is addressing different situations: one, if the Church has not spoken definitively, then the faithful should attend to the existing teaching; two, as abu points out in numerous documents, if there is a teaching, and it is authoritative, it deserves more than a presumption of correctness - - that is us hearing Him, through His established Church.

I’ve got to run - - hope to continue later.
 
Truthlover
Synod of Gangra
“Canon 3
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”
If this was current church law would you uphold slavery and church teaching or would you obey God and your conscience? Where would you place “primacy” in this case?
Click to expand...
Continued red herrings for, as Catholics should be aware, neither Christ nor St Paul condemned the type of slavery of the time, per se – many passages in the New Testament call on Christians to recognize slaves as brothers in Christ.

Two former slaves became Popes: Pius and Callistus in the second and third centuries. As the Church gained influence over the Empire, She tried both to improve the treatment of slaves and to protect them legally.

Slavery in the Ancient World • In Israel, as in much of the ancient world, slavery was paradoxically often a humane substitute for death. Captives taken in war, thieves, debtors, and children whose indigent parents might otherwise have left them to die by exposure made up the bulk of the slave population. That population was never very large, and scholars usually refer to such societies as slave-holding societies.
[See *Slavery, Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor, C.D.].

It was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered.

“On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Dudum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa.”
From J. Budziszewski, “Preface” from The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009).
 
tjm190 said:
No, I’m saying that the argument that claims contraception is turning away a gift from God is foolish- a child that causes major health or fiscal problems is not a gift.
Click to expand...
Hmm…:hmmm:God don’t make no junk. Am I hearing echos of the culture of death in this remark?
 
TommyWommy said:
Hmm…:hmmm:God don’t make no junk. Am I hearing echos of the culture of death in this remark?
Click to expand...
No, just the claim that a conception that results in the mothers death is by no means a gift- unless we’ve adopted a Sweeney Todd-esque system of belief.
 
Abu said:
Please explain what you mean, in what circumstances.
Click to expand...
My position is that a child which causes the death or is highly likely to cause the death of the mother while she is pregnant with said child is by no means a ‘gift’, but rather a burden- in the event that this child also dies along with the mother, then that child was a burden bourn to no meaningful end.
 
tjm190
What is your conclusion from your belief and what specific cases do you have in mind?
 
Abu said:
tjm190
What is your conclusion from your belief and what specific cases do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
To be honest this is in response to two month old posts so I can’t be entirely certain what my thought process was, but I believe those comments were in response to the belief that contraception is essentially turning down a great gift from God- I sought to illustrate that a conception is not always a gift. So… that would be my conclusion. I assumed the reader was familiar with the fact that women die as a result of pregnancy on occasion, and often have prior knowledge that certain medical conditions which they happen to be a victim of make this more likely and as such did not cite specific examples.
 
tjm190
those comments were in response to the belief that contraception is essentially turning down a great gift from God… I assumed the reader was familiar with the fact that women die as a result of pregnancy on occasion, and often have prior knowledge that certain medical conditions which they happen to be a victim of make this more likely and as such did not cite specific examples.
Click to expand...
I asked simply because some propose abortion for saving the life of a mother but don’t understand the medical or moral reasons for any action involving the lives of both mother and child if complications are present. The key here being that contraception is gravely wrong objectively, always. Even the misuse of NBR is not accepting the openness to the gift of life which God requires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top