J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Your implication was that Grisez was opposed to Humanae Vitae. By implication the average Catholic would presume that to mean he is in favour of ‘birth control’, which is of course patently false.
- Status
A
amarischuk
Guest
John of Woking:
In chronological order:
post 3
post 53
When Catholicism has too abandon the moral philosophy of the Church developed by the most important Doctor of the Church, in order to defend a teaching which was initially based on improper scientific knowledge, I cannot help but wonder.
When the only people defending the teaching are also willing to abandon such a philosophical heritage I cannot help but feel that conservative Catholicism is nothing but the worst kind of superstition and ecclecticism.
Since this thread started with the direct complaint about ‘cafeteria’ Catholics not ‘being able to wrap [our] minds around’ the teaching on contraception. I would have figured that by showing the inherent problems and contradictions in the teaching would show who is really being anti-intellectual.
Adam
Next time why don’t you actually read what I said?
In chronological order:
post 3
and
post 53
What part of those statements are misleading? And this doesn’t negate the important fact that the natural law arguments have failed.
When Catholicism has too abandon the moral philosophy of the Church developed by the most important Doctor of the Church, in order to defend a teaching which was initially based on improper scientific knowledge, I cannot help but wonder.
When the only people defending the teaching are also willing to abandon such a philosophical heritage I cannot help but feel that conservative Catholicism is nothing but the worst kind of superstition and ecclecticism.
Since this thread started with the direct complaint about ‘cafeteria’ Catholics not ‘being able to wrap [our] minds around’ the teaching on contraception. I would have figured that by showing the inherent problems and contradictions in the teaching would show who is really being anti-intellectual.
Adam
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
ARE YOU A CAFETERIA CATHOLIC?
Do you not agree with the Teaching on Contraception. This is the Church’s teaching on Faith and Morals. Maybe you want to set up your own Church for intellectuals only. (But they have to agree with your opinion)
A
amarischuk
Guest
John of Woking:
But I’ve been called worse.
I wonder if the pharisees called Jesus a ‘cafeteria Jew’ because he rejected the requirements of the sabbath. In fact we as Catholics don’t have anything to do with the sabbath really, as Josef Andreas Jungmann showed in his book on the Early Christian Liturgy.
Or Paul because he denied the need for circumcision.
It is sad that the present state of the Magisterium is so anti-intellectual. Credit that to JPII and Ratzinger. But that is also the way the church is going since the priesthood is no longer attracking intellectuals like it did at the beginning of the century or through the middle ages.
By your definition of Cafeteria Catholic I qualify. I disagree with the church’s teaching on contraception (actually, I don’t think the magisterial’s position is the position of the Church, but that is a different topic).ARE YOU A CAFETERIA CATHOLIC?
But I’ve been called worse.
I wonder if the pharisees called Jesus a ‘cafeteria Jew’ because he rejected the requirements of the sabbath. In fact we as Catholics don’t have anything to do with the sabbath really, as Josef Andreas Jungmann showed in his book on the Early Christian Liturgy.
Or Paul because he denied the need for circumcision.
It is sad that the present state of the Magisterium is so anti-intellectual. Credit that to JPII and Ratzinger. But that is also the way the church is going since the priesthood is no longer attracking intellectuals like it did at the beginning of the century or through the middle ages.
B
banjo
Guest
If anyone following this thread is interested, I suggest the following two articles.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15548a.htm
www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp
May Christ’s peace be with us all.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15548a.htm
www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp
May Christ’s peace be with us all.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
we were originally talkingabout contraception here. funny how moderism has crept into our everyday thinking, and we use un neccesarly complicated thoughts to convince our selves something like artificial birtthcontrol isnt wrong. till 1930 all christian denominations considered it a bigtime sin. then in 1930 one of the wesleyian denominations “legalized” it for their members, but with many cautions, then wala the flood gate opened and lots of denominations declared it not a sin anymore and the vatican is told to get with the porgram. with this bs going on I really wonder now if Fr gruner is correct and many catholics are going to hell. its simple, either be catholic and accept the churches teachings or dont be catholic. dont try and change the church. now Ive got a question that Id like a "cafeteria catholic: to answer for me, because it drives me a little nuts at times. what is so important to you that youv’e got to use contraception? ok dont want kids? then are you so weak you cant supress your urges? is satifieing your urges more important thaN your salvation? inquiring minds want to know.
S
sherilo
Guest
Maybe because some people, such as myself, do not agree that artificial contraception is baby killing. It is not the same thing as abortion at all. It is preventing an unwanted( for whatever reason) pregnancy. Not everyone wants children or should be parents. Marital sex is a wonderful gift from God and is meant to be enjoyed. Maybe I am still ignorant as to why the church takes the position that it does, and I am open to teaching, but I am not aware of anything in the Bible or early church writings that discusses this issue. Also, there are many women whose cycles are not perfect, and NFP cannot completely be relied upon. It is a little insulting when you question whether or not people are too weak to suppress their urges. Whether they practice NFP or artificial birth control is really between them and God. Finally, since you asked, I think the term cafeteria catholic is very judgemental. Only God knows our heart.
Peace,
Sherilo
B
banjo
Guest
P
patg
Guest
Some thoughts:
We know from such disciplines as paleoanthropology and comparative primatology that what is unique and special about human sexuality is ***not ***its procreative but its pair-bonding aspects. We are pervasively instead of episodically interested in sex, ready for it at almost any time and attracted to members of the opposite sex precisely because these characteristics were selected in the evolutionary process to bind together the male and the female in a bonding of the sort necessary to sustain their relationship so that the infant of the species, weak and defenseless for many years, might have two parents to protect him or her during the infancy and childhood years.
Thus, for those interested in natural law, frequent and passionate sex between the male and the female of the human species is "natural" because it reinforces the bonding, and to abstain from sex is "unnatural" because it weakens the bonding.
I believe, therefore, that the Catholic attempt to minimize marital sexuality in the name of the natural law in fact betrays that law.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You have a misunderstanding of Church teaching. The teaching is that there is a unitive (bonding) and procreative aspect of sexuality, but they shouldn’t be seperated. There is nothing you stated which is contrary to the catechism. If anything, the Church encourages more marital sexuality, but it needs to be open to procreation. “Be fruitful and multiply.” You ought to read Theology of the Body by JPII, if you haven’t already.
Some Catholics even consider NFP contrary to Church teaching…
R
rlg94086
Guest
Peace Sherilo,
I felt the same way about contraception, but I decided to dig a little deeper out of obedience to the Church. Through study and prayer, I discovered I was wrong and the Church was right.
Regarding NFP, have you taken any classes? I believe there are practitioners that can help with these issues. My wife and I have relied on a book up until now, but we are enrolling in a class.
As far as the term being judgmental, it’s just shorthand for Catholics who don’t believe everything the Church teaches. It does not mean Catholics who don’t do follow what the Church teaches. I know this is a subtle difference, but none of us follow teachings perfectly. Otherwise, there would be no need for confession! Don’t take it personally.
Since you are open to teaching, use the term “I’m struggling with…” rather than “I don’t agree”. Again, I know it’s subtle, but IMHO the latter shows a hardness of heart.
God bless,
Robert.
Bonus verse…“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.” - Matthew 5:6
M
mercygate
Guest
Good. You are honest. This is actually one of the most beautiful teachings of the Church, and one of the oldest. Start here: catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
You just told us you were not well informed, so try not to make statements that arise from un-information. Things have changed since the last time you looked: ccli.org/
Whoa! Not if you’re Catholic! Actually, artificial birth control exludes God from the relationship. No Christian can claim to be isolated in his own conscience when it comes to basic tenets of Christian life. We are in Communion with one another.
Can you suggest a kinder designation for those who willfully ignore or dismiss important aspects of Christian thought and life?
P
patg
Guest
I’ve heard that and I actually think that may be more logical than the current situation.
Barriers to conception come in many forms and keeping our distance is a barrier which is not exactly natural between two commited lovers.
S
Strider
Guest
Sharilo,
Not all forms of artificial birth control “kill babies.” Most forms of “the pill,” however, are abortafacient. Contraception takes place, but the blastula is denied implantation in the uterine wall by means of hormonal manipulation caused by the pill. This is an abortion.
Yes, marital sex is a wonderful gift from God and has two purposes, procreative and unitive. The Church teaches, through the currently disputed Humanae Vitae and John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” as well as his Evangelium Vitae that **both ** aspects of the marriage act must be possible.
The URL for Humanae Vitae is below.
The point both popes and other Magesterial teaching makes is that if the porocreative aspect of the marriage act is artificially inhibited, then there is not the full, total giving of self to other in the marriage act. This may lead to the attitude that each member of the couple is using the other as an object of pleasure.
I am sure you will find support and information on the proper use of NFP here ccli.org/ even for women with erratric cycles.
The reason I put the URL for the whole of Humanae Vitae is that I didn’ want to copy all of the Biblical references Paul VI used. Just scroll down to his references scetion to see them. Besides, since it seems to be the point of this whole thread, I thought people might want to read it for themselves.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Hi sherilo!
Many forms of artificial birth control prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The pill includes a chemical that, should ovulation occur and fertilization take place, will prevent the baby from implanting.
No child is unwanted by God.
This is where the Church’s teaching is so beautiful. In a nutshell the Father and Son’s love for one another is so perfect, selfless and giving that the person of the holy Spirit preceeds from it. The person of the holy spirit is love personified. Therefore true love is meant to be self-donating and life-giving. Marriage is to be a reflection of the love that flows between the Father, Son and holy Spirit. The self-donating love of a husband and wife, when God wills it, is life- giving. When the life-giving element of love is removed it is far less than what God intends the love of marriage to be. That is not to say that the absence of children according to the will of God makes it less. The intention NOT to allow one’s love to be life-giving and therefore not a true reflection of God’s love is what makes it less than it should be.
Satan has convinced so many people that sex is an end in and of itself rather than a true and complete reflection of God’s love. Pleasure is seen as the real purpose, making sex ultimately a selfish act rather than the completely and totally selfLESS act that God intended it to be; pleasure -seeking rather than self-donating and life-giving.
Sex is not “meant” to be enjoyed, it is “meant” to be a self-giving and life-giving reflection of the love between the Father, Son and holy Spirit. Any pleasure that one gets from it is merely a bonus, not the purpose.
A woman’s cycle need not be perfect in order for NFP to be as reliable as the pill. I think for some that is an excuse not to look into it fully.
The label “cafeteria Catholic” isn’t a judgement of one’s heart, but rather used to describe one who picks and chooses from the “menu” that is Church teaching as opposed to one who embraces all that God has proposed for belief through His Church regardless of his personal feelings about it.
In Christ,
Nancy
S
Strider
Guest
Yes, the human female is continuously receptive and the human male is continuously “in rut,” for lack of a better term. It does pertain, though, to my point.
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.There are any number of good reasons to temporarily abstain from the marriage act. Some couples look at these times as opportunities for growth in other aspects of their relationship which are also unitive, which makes the return to the marriage act even more rewarding.
We are not slaves to our instincts as most mammals with annual female estrus cycles are, and I consider it an insult to intimate that we are incapable of controlling ourselves.
That’s the logic behind “give the high school kids condoms because, ‘they’re going to do it anyway’.”
Not if they’re properly taught. Maybe they should read Humanae Vitae, for starters.
S
Strider
Guest
Yup. And some Catholics consider it okay to get an abortion. But only if it’s necessary. Some Catholics consider it okay to sleep in on Sunday until noon. Heck, they were out late Saturday night. Some Catholcs consider it against Church teaching to avoid taking the pill. Some…well, you get the idea.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
That’s the logic behind “give the high school kids condoms because, ‘they’re going to do it anyway’.”
QUOTE]
Do you know of any parent who would simply put a helmet on their toddler’s head because “they’re going to run out in the street anyway”? Why on earth would we do that with our teens?
In Christ,
Nancy
M
mercygate
Guest
I think we’re missing a nuance here. “Natural law” here refers to natural acts in their specifically human totality. My dog can have sex. But not in a fully human way. “Natural law” for human beings requires the full exercise of human faculties. Mere rutting, even in marriage, would not be a fully “human” act, for it neither requires nor contributes to the dignity of the human person.
S
Strider
Guest
Strider:
Nancy,That’s the logic behind “give the high school kids condoms because, ‘they’re going to do it anyway’.”
QUOTE]
Do you know of any parent who would simply put a helmet on their toddler’s head because “they’re going to run out in the street anyway”? Why on earth would we do that with our teens?
In Christ,
Nancy
I believe we are in agreement, here. Sometimes, the sarcasm gets lost in the translation.
- Status