Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goldy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t worry I didn’t take offence:)
I just think that this may be a reason why some people leave the church
 
BigE said:
So then back to my original point.
  1. The church HAS made errors in teachings not declared infallible.
  2. Contraception has never been declared infallible (Ex Cathedra)
  3. So there is the possibility that the church teaching on this could be in error.
Click to expand...
Again I have to correct you:
“The Church” does not make error. It’s the individual opinions and fallible groups that run into errors. We cannot possibly tackle the enormity of the former, so please let’s limit ourselves to the latter.
 
BigE said:
Not only that. But if the church is “always right” in everything - it never allows for change. Sometimes change is needed. The church is a living, growing, maturing expression of God’s love.

She is after all a human institution, and therefore prone to sin and error as we all are. I truly believe she gets it right it the long run. But the path to truth is not always a straight line.
Click to expand...
This change you speak of that is needed, on whose opinion are we to base this change? The good Dr. Hawkins, Martin Luther, Calvin, or how about Hugh Hefner or Margaret Sanger. Which man or woman should determine that the only Church Christ gave to humanity and is guided by the Holy Spirit, got it wrong? Which pope are we to follow? Oh , I see, we should all be our own pope. If that is how a person feels, there are about 40,000 protestant denominations to choose from…all of which allow contraception.

The Church bases her decisions on the word of God, sacred tradition, and the authority Christ gave to it. Since that authority which hasn’t seemed to change with the times fast enough for many is an issue, let’s take that authority out of the mix. Show me in sacred scripture or sacred tradition anywhere that it implies that contraception is a moral good.
 
BigE said:
Little Deb. Truly a beautiful post. And I want to keep saying this - I don’t disagree that NFP may deepen a couples love. I’m not in a position to argue that.

I also agree that no sex may deepen a couples love.

But does that mean if a couple chooses a different path - that the “the act” of contraception is evil?

I just don’t see it.
Click to expand...
May I suggest this audio on Marriage and the Eucharist. biblechristiansociety.com/download Scroll down to “Marriage and the Eucharist: The Two Shall Become One.” The download is free but he does ask for a little info just to see who is getting his stuff.

The audio is fabulous although he does go off on a short tangent right near the end. I think he does a great job of showing the parallels of these two wonderful Sacraments.
 
jack_hawkins said:
based on the standards of internal consistency?
whose standards would you take?
Click to expand...
Who determines the standards of internal consistency? Perhaps my standards are different than yours. Whose are right?

As for whose standards would I take… I’d take God’s. Given that the Catholic Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, works to uphold those standards, I believe her teachings on faith and morals are 100% correct.
 
jack_hawkins said:
you have lost me:confused:
Click to expand...
You said that you’d accept Catholic teaching if it “made sense” by the “standards of internal consistency.”

If that was the case, why are their 1000+ protestant denominations? Wouldn’t they all be able to magically adhere to this objective standard of internal consistency of which you speak?
 
wanner47 said:
You said that you’d accept Catholic teaching if it “made sense” by the “standards of internal consistency.”

If that was the case, why are their 1000+ protestant denominations? Wouldn’t they all be able to magically adhere to this objective standard of internal consistency of which you speak?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your point has to do with the matter at hand? :confused:

You are claiming because of someone else’s confusion the Catholic Church doesn’t have to make sense either?:confused:
 
jack_hawkins said:
I’m not sure what your point has to do with the matter at hand? :confused:

You are claiming because of someone else’s confusion the Catholic Church doesn’t have to make sense either?:confused:
Click to expand...
No, I’m claiming that the Church is the ONLY ONE that makes sense, and is the ONLY ONE that has the Authority from the Holy Spirit to uphold God’s standards.
 
originally posted by BigE
What does “natural” mean anyways? And when does it apply? Thousands of people die every year riding in autombiles and flying in planes. Neither of those activities are “natural” to us.
Click to expand...
Inventions have nothing to do with natural. Dr. Janet Smith says that tomatoes grow ripe and red because they get sunshine and water. Here is a forum on natural law.

She also says if contraception and NFP are the same, why are you not using NFP?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132924&highlight=natural+laws
originally osted by Chancellare
Let’s say God designed and created the flashlight and therefore specified its intended use.
Click to expand...
So when it is used to hammer a nail, that is not the “natural” use and therefore a lot of unintended problems will happen to the flashlight and the other things associated with such “un-natural” use.
Click to expand...
 
Not to go off topic, Galileo…

In 1543, Copernicus, A Polish monk, had published “Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs” which adavanced heliocentricism.

Prior to this people believed in geocentrism that the earth was the center of the earth. One place in scripture Johua makes the sun stand still so it made sense from a biblican point of view.

Galileo is the chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa and later at Padue. He begins to push for heliocentrism. He has an audience with Pope Paul V. Cardinal Bellarmine was intrigued but concerned that a too hasty publication would produce confusion in the minds of ordinary catholics most of who probably could not read.

The church officials asked that heliocentrism be taught as a hypothesis not proven fact and that it be discussed in scientific circles as such. It was not yet proven, not enough data existed.

Two more propositions were submitted by Galileo to the Holy Offices of the Vatican: 1. the sun is the center of the world and hence immovable of local motion and 2. the earth is not the center of the world nor immovable but moves according to the whole of itself.

Pope Paul V asked that Galileo stop teaching this as fact… He did. The church did not condemn heliocentrism as heretical.

When it came to the Inquisitions, Galileo’s enemies produced a forged document stating that Galileo had been forbidden to teach it, instead of being forbidden to teach it as proven fact and Galileo lied about the circumstances of the publication in his new book which advanced heliocentirsm. When placed under house arrest, he wrote a book on mechanics, including theories on acceleration, motion and inertia.
 
Jennifer_J said:
If you are Catholic, you are still to submit to Her authority. If you no longer believe in that authority, then I wonder if you are truly Catholic. It’s all a package deal. I’m not saying you shouldn’t question, that you shouldn’t seek the truth, etc, however, those who have trouble with church teachings are awfully quick to be their OWN authority, doing what THEY think is right, giving the Church no credit for Her 2000+ years of knowledge. Maybe, just maybe, She knows something you don’t…

Jennifer
Click to expand...
From the Catechism:
…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths…
  1. Yes I am still Catholic. Yes I do still respect the churches authority. No, it does not have to be a package deal. Heck, you will find many ordained who question the teachings on contraception, homosexuality, married clergy, women’s role in church etc. They are all still faithful catholics.
  2. Dissent is allowed within the church. It is not to be taken lightly for sure, but it is allowed if that is truly where one’s conscience takes them.
  3. Sometimes teachings within the church move from the bottom up…not the top down.
 
Jennifer_J said:
As far as I understand infalibility if the Pope and Bishop’s teach consistantly over the centuries the same teaching, it is infallible. There are many Infallible teachings (doctrines) that haven’t been formally defined because there hasn’t been a need. Here, read this it explains it better than I can:
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
<<An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. >> (there’s more at the link)

Hope that helps.
Jennifer
Click to expand...
I understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability.

And true, never can change “infallibility” (with a big i) is thus when declared “Ex Cathedra”. This has never been the case with contraception.
 
This change you speak of that is needed, on whose opinion are we to base this change? The good Dr. Hawkins, Martin Luther, Calvin, or how about Hugh Hefner or Margaret Sanger. .
Click to expand...
How about through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

That is how the church always changes. And guess what - sometimes, many times, most times - the holy spirit can work through us. It is iur church too - not just the magisterium’s.
 
gam197 said:
Not to go off topic, Galileo…

In 1543, Copernicus, A Polish monk, had published “Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs” which adavanced heliocentricism.

Prior to this people believed in geocentrism that the earth was the center of the earth. One place in scripture Johua makes the sun stand still so it made sense from a biblican point of view.

Galileo is the chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa and later at Padue. He begins to push for heliocentrism. He has an audience with Pope Paul V. Cardinal Bellarmine was intrigued but concerned that a too hasty publication would produce confusion in the minds of ordinary catholics most of who probably could not read.

The church officials asked that heliocentrism be taught as a hypothesis not proven fact and that it be discussed in scientific circles as such. It was not yet proven, not enough data existed.

Two more propositions were submitted by Galileo to the Holy Offices of the Vatican: 1. the sun is the center of the world and hence immovable of local motion and 2. the earth is not the center of the world nor immovable but moves according to the whole of itself.

Pope Paul V asked that Galileo stop teaching this as fact… He did. The church did not condemn heliocentrism as heretical.

When it came to the Inquisitions, Galileo’s enemies produced a forged document stating that Galileo had been forbidden to teach it, instead of being forbidden to teach it as proven fact and Galileo lied about the circumstances of the publication in his new book which advanced heliocentirsm. When placed under house arrest, he wrote a book on mechanics, including theories on acceleration, motion and inertia.
Click to expand...
Then why did the Pope John Paul apologize?
 
As far as I understand infalibility if the Pope and Bishop’s teach consistantly over the centuries the same teaching, it is infallible. There are many Infallible teachings (doctrines) that haven’t been formally defined because there hasn’t been a need. Here, read this it explains it better than I can:
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
<<An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Click to expand...
I found the below from the Catholic answers website:

“Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.”

I believe condition #1 refers to Ex Cathedra. So again I submit, the teaching on contraception has not met all 3 of these infallible conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top