Why are condoms wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdamC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The deceitful dissent for the grave evil of contraception being promoted by the self-styled Truthlover betrays every truth on conscience and doctrine.

From Vatican II itself, we know that all Catholic consciences must always be conformed to that divine law interpreted by the Magisterium and submissive to the Magisterium.
For such dissenters:
“must always be conformed to” means “must always obey” the divine law.
“submissive” allows of no wriggling out of the obligation to follow the doctrine of the Magisterium

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)

Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930):
Casti Connubii infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” [45]

“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.”
 
Abu said:
[and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin
Click to expand...
.”

Abu,

Quoting Pius XI again? As you are aware Pope Paul VI in HV, the most recent encyclical on contraception, downgraded contraception from a mortal sin

As I wrote in post #332:

HV #14 reads:

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

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

As I wrote in post #331: “in CCC #2039:

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

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

The most recent strong church teaching, papal encyclicals and the CCC, disagree with your argument.
 
**The artist of selfism in self-denial **
Self-styled Truthlover has promoted and continues to promote contraception as his agenda against the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church as objectively not sinful, now promoting it as merely “at worst…a venial sin”: “he [Pope Paul VI] could only have believed contraception, at worst, to be a venial sin.”

This purveyor of dissent, in a puerile denial of reality, of the truth that contraception is objectively gravely sinful, would have us believe that the perennial teaching of the Church culminating in two great encyclicals *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1968) with the clear doctrine of Vatican II in Gaudiem et Spes #50, #51, as in post #357, were all about a “venial sin”! Such a caricature tries to hold Christ’s Church up to ridicule.

In Evangelium Vitae, 1995, John Paul II affirms that “contraception contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love…is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage.” (#13). The opposite of virtue is vice and God killed Onan for contracepting.

“By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself” (Pope John Paul II, Moral Theology Congress, Rome, 1988).

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].

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the use of artificial contraception in all its forms, including direct sterilization, is gravely immoral, is intrinsically evil, is contrary to the law of nature and nature’s God…Catholics who practice artificial birth control may not receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege” – Bishop G.P. Flavin, Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, 1991.
 
Abu, still trying to convince yourself re the infallibility of church teaching on contraception? For your benefit I will once again show that the magisterium did not see this teaching as infallible at the time of Humanae Vitae. In the book Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig stated:

“Humanae Vitae plunged the Church into a credibility crisis and the developments in the Church’s teaching on sexual morality since have been tragic. Guidelines are certainly necessary, but the significance of the personal conscience must not be overlooked. Two months after Humanae Vitae was published, in October 1968, the Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time, published a declaration, the so-called “Maria Trost Declaration”, emphasizing the significance of the sincerely informed conscience in the matter of birth control. I firmly reject recent accusations from certain ultra-conservative churchmen who say that the Austrian bishops’ declaration threw people into confusion. As president of the Austrian bishops’ conference at the time, I naturally discussed the text of the declaration with Pope Paul VI, and later also with Pope John Paul II. Neither raised any objections concerning the text, ahich they would have been obliged to do if it had contained any serious errors.” Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig, ed Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, Burns and Oates, London, 2005, Pg 28

It is clear neither Pope Paul VI or John Paul II saw HV as infallible. On the same page the Cardinal writes:

“In their declaration, the Austrian bishops’ particularly emphasized the positive role model of marriage and responsible parenthood that Paul VI had underlined in his encyclical, but pointed out that the Pope had not spoken infallibly.”

On page 29 the Cardinal writes, referring to Pope Paul VI:

“He himself emphasized that exclusion of the contraceptive pill was not a dogma and that the encyclical was not infallible. He cut out passages that referred to mortal sin and in no way suggested that absolution must always be refused.”
 
In Humanae Vitae No 10 Pope Paul VI writes:

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

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

Gaudium et Spes states:

"16. Dignity of moral conscience.

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

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

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

In Blessed Cardinal Newman’s letter to the Duke of Norfolk he writes:

“The Divine Law,” says Cardinal Gousset, “is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the fourth Lateran Council says, ‘Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam.’”

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

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

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

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

Newman, as usual, expresses how primacy of conscience works so well. There is no conflict with infallible statements and one needs a good studied reason to go against a non-infallible papal proclamation. Yet he still upholds the authority of conscience. It is no coincidence to anyone who has read Pope Benedicts’ writings as Cardinal Ratzinger that he personally took charge of the beatification of Newman. It is no wonder that as a peritus at Vatican II he wrote:

““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.”

References can be found at: thetablet.co.uk/article/14990
 
Truthlover said:
Abu, still trying to convince yourself re the infallibility of church teaching on contraception?
Click to expand...
What element of infallibilty is missing. See summary.

The follow was extracted and summarize from Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church’s article on infallibility. These are the basic of when infallibility comes into play.
1.objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals
2. taught by the proper “organ of authority”.

The teaching contraception is definitive, per the Church Council documents.
The teaching was provide by the proper authority, the ordinary magisterium, and reiterated in a document of an ecumenical council.
For your benefit I will once again show that the magisterium did not see this teaching as infallible at the time of Humanae Vitae. In the book Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig stated:

“Humanae Vitae plunged the Church into a credibility crisis and the developments in the Church’s teaching on sexual morality since have been tragic. Guidelines are certainly necessary, but the significance of the personal conscience must not be overlooked. Two months after Humanae Vitae was published, in October 1968, the Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time, published a declaration, the so-called “Maria Trost Declaration”, emphasizing the significance of the sincerely informed conscience in the matter of birth control. I firmly reject recent accusations from certain ultra-conservative churchmen who say that the Austrian bishops’ declaration threw people into confusion. As president of the Austrian bishops’ conference at the time, I naturally discussed the text of the declaration with Pope Paul VI, and later also with Pope John Paul II. Neither raised any objections concerning the text, ahich they would have been obliged to do if it had contained any serious errors.” Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig, ed Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, Burns and Oates, London, 2005, Pg 28

It is clear neither Pope Paul VI or John Paul II saw HV as infallible. On the same page the Cardinal writes:

“In their declaration, the Austrian bishops’ particularly emphasized the positive role model of marriage and responsible parenthood that Paul VI had underlined in his encyclical, but pointed out that the Pope had not spoken infallibly.”

On page 29 the Cardinal writes, referring to Pope Paul VI:

“He himself emphasized that exclusion of the contraceptive pill was not a dogma and that the encyclical was not infallible. He cut out passages that referred to mortal sin and in no way suggested that absolution must always be refused.”
Click to expand...
Out of context quotes = pretext.
 
**Self-styled Truthlover scoffs at Christ, His truth and His Church. **
The attempts ad nauseam to justify the grave sin of contraception as “at worst venial” have no basis whatsoever in truth as amply affirmed by the Popes and Vatican II. The dissenter is incapable of presenting the truth from Christ to anyone.

tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm
The Holy Father in his powerful January 17, 1984 address to priests in Rome, reaffirmed: “When … through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential creative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God.“ The Holy Father then warns that “… contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it’s lawful not to recognize God as God.”

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson 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.”

No attempts by those prelates who have helped to deform consciences and thought can prevail against infallible doctrine. That’s why we have Popes and Ecumenical Councils to define truth from error – that contraception is gravely sinful, intrinsically evil.
 
Davidv and Abu,

I will state once more what is obvious and will keep it simple. In Humanae Vitae No 10 Pope Paul VI writes:

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

The Pope is saying that “a right conscience is the true interpreter” of the objective moral order. That is not a pope making an infallible statement re contraception.
 
Hello again truth

As I think I pointed out, oh, about eleventeen pages ago, that section is you quote is referring to the exercise of responsible parenthood. The couple is to discern what they are being called to in terms of what God wants of them, their responsibility to each other, to the existing family, and to society. That determination is what they are to apply their consciences to - - are they being called to have a(nother) child?

Once they have prayerfully determined that they are not called to have another child at that particular time, they are not free to use contraception to achieve that legitimate end. They may be completely or periodically abstinent.

I do not see how you can look at HV any other way. It is not an instruction on conscience rights, per se, especially as compared to some of the other documents cited in this very thread.

I trust you are well, truthlover?
 
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.”

Pope Paul VI in his landmark encyclical, Humanae vitae, 1968 (14) proclaimed, “Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm
The Holy Father in his powerful January 17, 1984 address to priests in Rome, reaffirmed: “When … through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential creative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God.“ The Holy Father then warns that “… contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it’s lawful not to recognize God as God.”

“By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself” – Pope John Paul II, Moral Theology Congress, Rome, 1988.
 
40.png
choose_to_love:
Hi choose,

I am well, thank you, and it is good to be reminded that we are supposed to be christians posting on a christian website. I am a little tired of regurgitating the same information, however, here goes:

Post #361 is called for again here:

In Humanae Vitae No 10 Pope Paul VI writes:

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

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

This is important as the conscience is the true interpreter of the objective moral order.

We read more on infallibility in post #292:

In the book Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig stated:

“Humanae Vitae plunged the Church into a credibility crisis and the developments in the Church’s teaching on sexual morality since have been tragic. Guidelines are certainly necessary, but the significance of the personal conscience must not be overlooked. Two months after Humanae Vitae was published, in October 1968, the Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time, published a declaration, the so-called “Maria Trost Declaration”, emphasizing the significance of the sincerely informed conscience in the matter of birth control. I firmly reject recent accusations from certain ultra-conservative churchmen who say that the Austrian bishops’ declaration threw people into confusion. As president of the Austrian bishops’ conference at the time, I naturally discussed the text of the declaration with Pope Paul VI, and later also with Pope John Paul II. Neither raised any objections concerning the text, ahich they would have been obliged to do if it had contained any serious errors.” Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig, ed Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, Burns and Oates, London, 2005, Pg 28

It is clear neither Pope Paul VI or John Paul II saw HV as infallible. On the same page the Cardinal writes:

“In their declaration, the Austrian bishops’ particularly emphasized the positive role model of marriage and responsible parenthood that Paul VI had underlined in his encyclical, but pointed out that the Pope had not spoken infallibly.”

On page 29 the Cardinal writes, referring to Pope Paul VI:

“He himself emphasized that exclusion of the contraceptive pill was not a dogma and that the encyclical was not infallible. He cut out passages that referred to mortal sin and in no way suggested that absolution must always be refused.”

Post #358 adds to the non-infallible position of HV:

Originally Posted by Abu [and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Abu,

Quoting Pius XI again? As you are aware Pope Paul VI in HV, the most recent encyclical on contraception, downgraded contraception from a mortal sin

As I wrote in post #332:

HV #14 reads:

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

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

Pope Paul VI in his landmark encyclical, Humanae vitae, 1968 (14) proclaimed, “Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”
Click to expand...
Abu,from post #263 I rebut your argument again:

NFP contradicts this statement; not performing an act clearly ensures “that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life.” As does part of your quote from Humanae Vitae 14:

“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.”

By refraining from an act you prevent its performance “before” sexual intercourse.

Stated again in post #281:

When a married couple decide to make love there is nothing which interferes with the “natural order of ones fertility” as much or as effectively as abstinence in order not to procreate.
Abu said:
tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm
The Holy Father in his powerful January 17, 1984 address to priests in Rome, reaffirmed: “When … through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential creative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God.“ The Holy Father then warns that “… contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it’s lawful not to recognize God as God.”

“By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself” – Pope John Paul II, Moral Theology Congress, Rome, 1988.
Click to expand...
It is good you mention JPII and I will quote from post #287:

Veritatis Splendor #64 is particularly useful as this section of the encyclical emphasises how the Magisterium helps in the formation of conscience:

“Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium.”

“It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.”

“The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

Readers will note how John Paul II insists that the Church “helps” in forming conscience and is “at the service of conscience”. This is completely in keeping with Gaudium et Spes.

Post #289 deals with your constant reference to “dissenters.”

Regarding theologians I think it is important here to listen to Cardinal Suenens in his 1968 book Coresponsibility in the Church. Note that it was written just after the experience of Vatican II.

Commenting on the original curia documents being thrown out by the Council he writes:

“The shift from a theology which could be summarily called “of the Roman school” to a theology “of a universal council” was, to an appreciable degree, the work of theological experts who labored on the conciliar commissions, or on their fringe. Their collaboration contributed the wealth of a thought which was large, nuanced and open to the modern view of problems. The whole movement of renewal on the fields of biblical, patristic, dogmatic, moral and liturgical studies thus entered fully into this healthy and varied brewing of ideas. But the contribution was not made without pain. Up to the moment of the council, certain theologians of international reputation were considered suspect. They had accepted this suffering nobly for the sake of the church, preparing by their labor and their pain for the hour when the deepest and fullest truth would be recognised.” Page 141

The Cardinal goes on to say:

“The seriousness of such divisions is appreciated when we recall that every governing body is dominated by the vision which animates those who direct it: the Roman curia is no exception to this law.” Pgs 141-142

This shows that the Roman curia does not always speak for the Magisterium, being the bishops and/or the Pope. It also demonstrates that to be a “suspect” theologian can be a badge of honour. This is one reason why Fr Ratzinger stated that “conscience…… establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

In post #346 we find the refutation of your last point:

You pointed out that Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae #14 reduced the severity to “is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong” from the standard of Pope Pius XI “shameful and intrinsically vicious”.

As HV is the most recent encyclical it is current church teaching. Again, as you pointed out, doing something “wrong” is not the same as doing something “evil”. That is why Paul VI dropped the term “mortal sin” out of his encyclical according to Cardinal Konig.
 
Apparently condoms are not wrong:

Pope Benedict condones condom use in some cases.

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,” he said.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
 
**Self-styled Truthlover scoffs at Christ, His truth and His Church. **
The attempts ad nauseam to justify the grave sin of contraception as “at worst venial” have no basis whatsoever in truth as amply affirmed by the Popes and Vatican II. The dissenter is incapable of presenting the truth from Christ to anyone.

How strange that never has Christ’s Church ever allowed this intrinsically wrong, and evil practice – BTW, intrinsic = by its very nature!

tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm
The Holy Father in his powerful January 17, 1984 address to priests in Rome, reaffirmed: “When … through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential creative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God.“ The Holy Father then warns that “… contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it’s lawful not to recognize God as God.”

“By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself” – Pope John Paul II, Moral Theology Congress, Rome, 1988.

How strange that never has Christ’s Church ever allowed this intrinsically wrong, and evil practice – BTW, intrinsic = by its very nature!

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the use of artificial contraception in all its forms, including direct sterilization, is gravely immoral, is intrinsically evil, is contrary to the law of nature and nature’s God…Catholics who practice artificial birth control may not receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege” – Bishop G.P. Flavin, Bishop of Lincoln Nebraska, 1991.
 
I think that Pope Benedict says that condoms are OK under certain circumstances.

I think that the Church allows it???
 
MtnDwellar
Apparently condoms are not wrong
Click to expand...
They are always, intrinsically, wrong, re their use in marriage for contraception which is “branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #56, 1930). Further, #59: “Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.”

Speculation is always rife, yet we have not had an authoritative declaration from the Holy See.
Dr Janet Smith, a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family, comments: “[The pope] 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 programmes designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.
“The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a ‘first step’ in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality.”
 
AdamC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Start with the purpose of the original condom: it was to keep whores from getting pregnant. I have a similar complaint about IVF: it is animal husbandry. In short, both things degrade the relationship between the man and the woman.
 
If an action is intrinsically wrong, it has to be wrong under all circumstances.

Is the Pope saying that condom use is not intrinsically wrong?
 
 
Abu said:
MtnDwellar
The use of condoms is always wrong for contraception.
Click to expand...
I understand that condoms are wrong for contraception.
I also know that the teaching was/is that condom use is intrinsically evil.
Did Pope Benedict just change this teaching?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top