I was reading the latest edition of the NZ Catholic over the weekend, and it featured a story about a protest (that happened a few weeks ago I think) regarding the NZ Family Planning Association’s application for an abortion license.
They want the license so that they can carry out abortions with the RU-486 abortion drug in their Hamilton FPA clinic – previous NZ Catholic stories about this issue have indicated that the FPA plans to extend this abortion service throughout the entire country if their initial license application is successful.
The story in the NZ Catholic got me thinking.
You see, it’s no secret that the NZ FPA regularly sends their sex educators into many Catholic high schools around NZ.
This happens because of what is basically a bit of a loophole in the physical education and health department area (I don’t know the full details, but most teachers at Catholic high schools can clarify how it all works).
Now, this has always struck me as a completely farcical and contradictory situation – in one classroom little Timmy is taught about the beautiful and important Catholic teachings regarding sexuality and marriage, and in another classroom he is taught how to reduce his risk when he violates those teachings (and he is taught this by a group that vehemently opposes Catholic sexual norms).
Now, to my way of thinking, this latest move by the FPA to become an national abortion chain has completely changed the game, and it has to spell the death of any further involvement of the FPA in NZ Catholic high schools.
If FPA is granted this abortion license, it will no longer be just a purveyor of contraception and libertarian sexual morality, it will also be in the business of carrying out abortions.
So, in the name of social justice, how could Catholic schools continue to have any association/relationship with a group that kills babies?
I’d be interested to hear from those teachers in Catholic schools confirming (or denying) this practice of allowing FPA into our classrooms. Please jump in, if you’re one of those teachers.
how could Catholic schools continue to have any association/relationship with a group that kills babies?
The theological principle of remote material cooperation would allow this.
http://www.consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience-Ethical/Ethical02.html
There are often groups or individuals which do good things and evil things. One can applaud the good while opposing the evil.
A recent example would be the Catholic businessmen’s group Legatus which awarded President Bush a pro-life award despite his support for abortion in cases of rape and incest and his very anti-life invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and use of torture, because he did do some pro-life things.
http://www.zenit.org/article-28249?l=english
If we refused to have any association/relationship with any person or group which does or advocates evil then we would be forced to live in a very small and isolated community indeed.
I think Catholic schools should teach what contraception is and some basic information about various methods and their strengths and weaknesses.
I think this would be better done in the context of teaching the Catholic approach to sexuality as a whole (something I think our schools could do rather better at) rather than inviting other groups like FPA in to do it.
God Bless
Ox
you have it slightly incorrect.
There is no loophole.
FPA, just like anyone else, are allowed access to Catholic school classrooms at the leisure of the Board of Trustees.
The fact of the matter is that some DRS’ and Principals AGREE with the tenets of FPA and allow them on. Some are simply asleep at the wheel. This is a shame as most are fully aware of what the policy should be and act accordingly, informing their respective Boards as they go.
All it would take is for the Boards to receive a letter from their Bishop, or Diocesan Administrator for education, that FPA is NOT be allowed into Catholic schools for the purposes of sex education. All diocese’s in New Zealand have their own version of the Sex Ed curriculum, which takes into account Catholic Special Character, and has been prepared by the CEO. There is NO need for FPA to even be at the gates asking.
Thank you for the link, Chris. I think having FPA teach sex-ed classes in schools would fall under the following quote from that statement:
Is there a sufficient reason? No. Other alternative programmes are available, and people to teach them. Can scandal be avoided? Not a chance.
So the cooperation can’t be justified.
Incidentally, when I saw that you were using Legatus and President Bush as positive examples for anything, I checked out my window for the second coming or at least for some winged porcines. Are you sure you’re well?
Well – Scribe, I’m here…
I’m a Catholic Educator (being somewhat distracted during his lunch break)
I have a few points to make:
Unfortunately I believe Ox has made one fatal assumption… why would Catholic School’s say no to FPA after they become the new McDonalds of fetal terminations? They certainly didn’t do much to stop supporting Amnesty International after they decided to promote abortion as a basic human right… From my experience as a Religious Educator, and Board of Trustee’s Representative… nothing is likely to change!
The one “green shoot” of hope we have is the large number of faithful and passionate Young Teachers coming into our schools. Please pray for them! They are always at risk of being smothered out by the majority of baby booming dissenters who love nothing better than to sling mud at any one with faith! And to dismiss anyone who accepts all major teachings of the Church as being a fundamentalist non-thinking drone.
There are a number of quality Sexuality Programmes out there, that build upon the work of JPII’s Theology of the Body. My experience and the experience of many others confirms that the youth of New Zealand are so thirsty for this Good News!
Meanwhile the National Centre for Religious Studies continues to push pychosexual bable down the throats of non-suspecting luke-warm Catholic teachers, undermining the truths of beautify of our sexuality – teaching “ideals” – but condoning people falling short of these ideals… If there is demand I will post a draft of a letter I have on the teachers “Understanding Sexuality” professional development programme and the huge errors being taught there!
Anyway – there ends my rant for now
AMDG
If there is demand I will post a draft of a letter I have on the teachers “Understanding Sexuality” professional development programme and the huge errors being taught there!
Please post that.
It is certainly possible to support the very good work Amnesty International does for human rights despite it’s unfortunate support for abortion.
God Bless
Edited copy of the Letter I intend on sending to the NZCBC
I am writing to manifest some serious concerns I have about the orthodoxy and efficacy of the current “Understanding Sexuality” programme that is provided by the National Centre of Religious Studies through each Diocesan Catholic School’s Office.
I attended this four day course during August and September of this year. The course was led by Mrs Barbara Simpson. I have already raised these issues with Mrs Simpson, with most of them remaining unresolved. I have a undertaken a lot of personal research into this area (especially regarding John Paul II’s Theology of the Body), and have also completed two moral theology papers. I have written a programme which is loosely based on the Theology of the Body, and through its delivery have seen it open the hearts and minds of many young people over the last four years.
The Understanding Sexuality programme is an amazing opportunity for outreach and Catechesis. Hundreds of teachers complete this course every year, most of them either primary based teacher, or teachers of Health and Physical Education. For many, the news that the Church is not manichiestic, is a revelation. They get excited, and rightly so. However, there are many areas where only half-truths are being given, and the opportunity to deepen the faith and understanding of the participants is compromised.
I would like to outline some of my concerns. I am not condemning the entire programme. There is far more good than bad, however, we owe it to Christ to always give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1. A fundamental misunderstanding of the “primacy of conscience”
On the first morning of the course the Church’s teaching on the primacy of conscience was outlined. Barbara explicitly said that it is not just a way out of tricky teachings (or something similar)… however, in concluding every controversial teaching of the Church, Barbara stressed that the participants were to remember the primacy of conscience, and that “the Church doesn’t have camera’s in your bedroom” or “in the end if you’re happy to stand before God”. These statements are half truths, however, they are misleading. At no time was the idea of objective truth mentioned.
2. Culpability confused with objectivity (especially with regards to masturbation)
The course workbook states that “Common Sexual behaviour is a natural expression of sexuality”, this comes after stating that things like “sexual fantasies and masturbation” are common sexual behaviours at most stages of phycho-sexual development. Barbara taught that masturbation is only sinful if it becomes a habit in adulthood. This point was also heard loud and clear by the health teachers from my school who completed the course in 2008. They returned to the College and immediately began teaching the “the Catholic Church no longer sees masturbation as a sin”. This is of serious concern! Distinctions need to be taught between objective truth, moral culpability and pastoral action.
3. A large focus of the course is on “Psycho-sexual development”. While this approach could be valuable, it misses the fundamental truths about human sexuality. Our sexuality is deeply rooted in our nature as man and woman, created in the image and likeness of God. The model’s of psycho-sexual development also hint at dualistic philosophies.
4. The information regarding Homosexuality is skewed. The importance it places on avoiding any form of homophobia is important. However, it portrays the Church as only being oppressive of homosexual people. Also the idea that social conditioning can be a factor in homosexual orientation is dismissed (it is taught as being completely genetic).
5. The course is dated. There is little reference to the Theology of the Body, and when it is mentioned it isn’t understood. The philosophical and anthropological aspects (which form the basis for the entire work) are not mentioned.
6. The issue of contraception was handled very poorly. Key points like the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intimacy were not mentioned. The history and development of contraception, and the Churches response through Humane Vitae (and other appropriate documents) was not mentioned. Also, natural family planning was portrayed as a Catholic form of contraception, which is a serious error.
7. While the times of open discussion with the participants of the course was valuable, these discussions were never concluded appropriately. If consensus with the Church’s teaching was not possible, it was brushed aside, often by referring to the primacy of conscience in an inappropriate way. At one stage she even raised the issue of slavery as an example of how the Church isn’t always right, so you never know what the Church will teach on any given issue in the future.
8. The workbook for this course is huge. It has a lot of information in it, and some of which is not a faithful expression of Catholic teaching. I searched it from cover to cover and found no imprimatur. This was both a cause of relief and concern. The workbook requires major modification and simplification, so it more accessable to the participants and can be used as a source of reference for participants in the future.
Some suggestions
• Sexuality Education is primarily the responsibility of the parent. The reality is that this seldom occurs. However, we need to provide resources and guidelines to encourage parents to involve themselves in this most important area of formation and growth.
• A major tidy up of the Understanding Sexuality programme is required. Including re-writing of the workbook, the delivery material and the style and content of delivery. This new programme should be modeled firstly on the Theology of the Body, and then have other aspects of morality, health and development added to this (rather than being the other way around).
• NCRS has the position that no programmes will be written and distributed around Catholic Schools, because “one size does not fit all”. The fact that “one size does not fit all” however, should not prevent the development of sexuality programmes. There are fundamental facts that must be delivered. In every learning area the teacher must make adaption’s and allowances for the specific needs of the class in front of them. A programme should be provided that teachers can use as a starting point. This is especially pertinent when there are many aspects of Church teaching related to sexuality that will remain a mystery to teachers, even after they have participated in an Understanding Sexuality course. Teachers should not be re-inventing the wheel! Especially when they’ve only had a four day “wheel making” course as the foundation of their knowledge.
I hope that these suggestions are helpful. If you would like further information about anything I have said I am more than willing to discuss them with you.
Warm Regards and Blessings
In Christ
Chris,
If even a small part of the money that I might give to Amnesty International is going to support abortion then I feel bound to withdraw any future donations and give them instead to one of the many other worthwhile deserving charities .. I don’t understand how you can feel it is possible to do otherwise no matter what other good works they may do..
Shallom
bamac,
I had in mind supporting one of the Amnesty International campaigns for someone whose human rights have been abused rather than giving money.
But perhaps it is now possible to donate money to AI and stipulate that it is not used to promote abortions ?
If you feel so strongly about funding abortion, how do you get on paying your taxes, a small part of which is also used not just promote abortions but to actually to fund abortions ?
The fact is that it is impossible to do anything in the real world without coming into contact with those doing evil in one way or another.
That’s why Catholic moral theology developed the concept of remote material cooperation. It’s a principle worth learning something about.
God Bless
Excellent letter, NCR, and very important points.
I was in my late teens, and not a Catholic, when Humanae Vitae was published. In some ways, this was fortunate, as I assumed that the information about it (from secular and protestant sources) was skewed. So by the time I became a Catholic a decade later, I had missed the indoctrination from priests, religious and other authorised teachers of the ‘faith’ who were determined to bury it deep – often using the tag ‘primacy of conscience’ as a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
Going back to read it in recent years, I find it remarkably prescient.
And this second paragraph has already happened in China and is being urged on the rest of the world by environmentalists:
Chris,
What the government does with my taxes I have no control over but I do not have to compound matters by giving money volunterily to any other group that uses part of those funds to further abortions when I can give the donations to another charity that doesn’t.
Thank you for the encouragement to learn more about moral theology, You must be learning so much about so many things in your years of study … God bless you with it all and congrats for all you have studied so far,
Shallom
Chris
If I give $20 specifically to help a prisoner… the money from the general pool of funds that is not stipulated for “Non Abortion Promotion” will replace my $20 there…
Thus – any financial support of Amnesty is a financial support of their abortion stance
Regards
NCR,
Thanks for posting your letter.
We’ve discussed primary of conscience a number of times on this blog. It would appear that what you have related on what Barbara said is actually the Catholic position – we do teach the primacy of conscience understood in the sense that an individual must follow their informed and considered conscience even when that goes against what the Church teaches.
The reality is that most Catholics (eg 94% on contraception and we’re steadily loosing on the morality of homosexual acts and same sex marriage) disagree in good conscience on certain aspects of Catholic sexual morality. I think it is important to teach those in light of the principle of the primacy of conscience otherwise Catholics are likely to throw out everything we say because they disagree strongly with some things we way. That was one of the negative repercussions of Humanae Vitae – those who disagreed strongly with it tended to throw out most of the rest of Catholic sexual teaching.
I agree that the statement that “masturbation is only sinful if it becomes a habit in adulthood” is wrong. But Catholic teaching on masturbation is rather nuanced in the Catechism, aspecially in terms of the “affective immaturity” of school students:
While I find Theology of the Body a useful approach, it is still to early to say if it has captured the mind of the Church. From what I can tell, the current Pope doesn’t seem to give it any promotion at all. The mechanism which Pope John Paul II used to teach it was one of the least authoritative forms of Papal teaching. I wouldn’t criticise sexuality courses merely because they didn’t use TOB packaging. There are other useful aproaches, for example the concept of eros in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
I think we do need to accept that the way Catholic teaching on sexuality has sometimes been presented in the past has been a problem. Pope Benedict XVI readily admits this:
God Bless
If I give $20 specifically to help a prisoner… the money from the general pool of funds that is not stipulated for “Non Abortion Promotion” will replace my $20 there…
Could you rephrase that in simple clear English ? I’m having trouble understanding your point.
Surely if you give $20 earmarked to help a prisoner then AI will use your money to help the prisoner, not to promote abortion.
Thanks & God Bless
EROS… Hmm
“must follow their informed and considered conscience”
Exactly!
That was not promoted at all in this course! FAR FAR FROM IT!
As you’ve been told many times on this blog… Primacy of Conscience is not just a loop hole to get away with moral relativism!
GOD BLESS
The reality is that most Catholics (eg 94% on contraception and we’re steadily loosing on the morality of homosexual acts and same sex marriage) disagree in good conscience on certain aspects of Catholic sexual morality.
I think the reality is that most Catholics disagree with the Church’s teaching out of convenience, rather than after a lengthy study of Humanae Vitae, TOTB etc. That’s how conscience is formed. They’re almost all skipping that part.
Scribe,
I think that contraception is an area many couples really struggle with.
Reading Humanae Vitae is unlikely to convince many readers because it is not written in a clear and understandable way – I mean, HELLO, why bother developing Theology Of the Body at all if Humanae Vitae was an adequate catechesis ?
The reality is that the modern mind, even among loyal faithful Catholics, has great difficulty even understanding what the Church’s objection to contraception really is.
Not to mention that fact that having more children than a couple is able to cope with emotionally, psychologically, and financially can put enormous strains on a marriage.
I think it is rather callous and lacks pastoral empathy to dismiss these very real problems as merely “convenience”.
God Bless
christopher
all this means is that only 6% of ‘catholics’ are Catholic
They do not agree in good conscience? that is the point! beacuse in fact they disagree in a bad, uninformed and unformed conscience.
The only possible teaching alluding to a ‘primacy of conscience’ is in relation to CCC1782 and Dignetatis humananae (declaration on religious freedom) 3 2
“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind”
Talk about taking things out of context!!
the freedom is to practice a catholic conscience, not an excuse for dissent from one!
The move to put ‘catholic’ back in school names was an attempt to reclaim the ground lost under integrated schools. Where can a school even consider that teaching this stuff has a place! It may be too late?
What happened to catholic schools as teachers of the truth; what ae they doing with our young minds?
that is the point! beacuse in fact they disagree in a bad, uninformed and unformed conscience.
Pope Paul VI’s 72 member Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, formed to advise the Pope on contraception, and composed of many experts and theologians, voted 65:7 in favor of allowing contraception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control
If those loyal and faithful Catholics, experts in the subject, couldn’t fathom why contraception is wrong, then it’s quite understandable why almost all other Catholic’s can’t either.
That fact is that most Catholics find it hard to understand this teaching.
We are not called to judge them by passing off their consciences as bad, uninformed, or unformed; but to help them to better understand this teaching.
God Bless
Chris,
But that is precisely what has not happened! Our priests, our lay leaders and our Catholic media all abdicated responsibility… and left young married couples like we were, and like so many of our friends, with a void into which the secular society was only too happy to step.
The responsibility of informed conscience is to find out why the Church teaches what it teaches. Instead of trying to understand Humanae Vitae – which is, despite what you say, a very easy read, clear, and also short – our shepherds treated their pastor as if he was a wolf. And they freely told their flocks (who were desperate for guidance) – oh no, we don’t have to worry about that. Believe me. I was there!
And we’ve had 43 more years of experience of the contraceptive mentality than the good members of Pope Paul’s commission. We should now be finding it easy to teach why contraceptive is seductive, corrosive, and ultimately disabling. The evidence is all around us. And there is now an extensive body of research to corroborate anecdotal evidence.
So tell me, NCR, how much time was given to teaching the teachers how and what to teach about natural family planning? A little? A lot? None? The truth? A pack of liberal lies?
And how much to teaching about the harm early sexual activity, promiscuity and even a fascination with pornography can do to the ability to form lasting mature relationships?
JoyfulPapist,
I don’t know about where you are but in our parish we have run sessions on the theology of the body and on contraception and our local Catholic Secondary School teaches NFP. So I don’t think it is correct to say that this has not happened.
But you do make a good point – that in 1968 Rome failed to convince most priests of the teaching against contraception. Which again underscores my point about the difficulty which good honest and faithful Catholics have had in getting their minds around the teaching against contraception.
I haven’t heard of any Catholic programme for teaching this which just hands out copies of Humanae Vitae because it is widely recognised that the papal documents themselves do not explain the matter in a manner which is easily understood by most Catholics. If it was then Chris West et al would be out of business.
BTW: have any other parents had any luck getting a copy of the curriculum taught in Catholic schools? It doesn’t seem to be online. My wife rang up and asked and was told NO because the material was written for adults (which is odd given that the curriculum is for children). There seems to be a frequent pattern of obstruction from officials in denying Catholic parents access to the material being taught.
God Bless
which is precisely why JPII spent so much time developing ‘theology of the body’! Catholics no longer have this excuse! HV teaches what TOTB explains!
yes but to not recognise a bad conscience, informing it with the truth, and conforming it to the teaching of the church is in fact teaching falsely and condemning them in the process, and as B16 says we are also guilty of false charity.
If you read what I said Chris, you will see that I nowhere suggested that parishes ‘just hand out copies of Humanae Vitae’. What I was saying is that many, many, many of our shepherds – our spiritual leaders – not only did not try to understand Humanae Vitae, they actively spoke against it. This is a fact. Ask people of my generation. How you can then imply that they were good, honest and faithful is beyond me.
And so of course those who have looked to them for leadership have also failed to understand. And even after the experiences of the last 43 years, people are still arguing the point.
With all due respect, I think there is only one reason to argue that it is hard to understand the Church’s reasons for its position on contraception. I think it is hard to argue the reasons if you disagree with the Church.
If you agree with the Church, the reasons are all there: The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.
Secular scientists have shown that contraception has led to an increase in marriage breakdown, single parenthood and abortion, and the resulting drop in marriages and married fatherhood has led to an increase for men of substance abuse, incarceration, and arrests.
Archbishop Chaput explained twelve years ago: “If Paul VI was right about so many of the consequences deriving from contraception, it is because he was right about contraception itself.”
And if Paul VI was right in his four negative predictions, how much more was he right in his positive prediction:
Now how hard is that to understand?
Excellent stuff, JP.
Just one thing – never ask a question, you just get a twisted answer…see post #21, second paragraph for proof.
JP,
I think one needs to understand what happened in 1968 and why almost all the Papal Comission on contraception and almost all parish priests concluded that contraception was the lessor evil.
Before World War Two, most people in the West lived on farms. Feeding and accommodating a large family was relatively affordable and having many children to help out on the farm was an asset. After WWII most people moved to the city where accommodation was more limited, food more expensive, and wages often low. The increasingly technological economy made educating children substantially more expensive. For many, the economics of having a large family radically changed.
The medical and scientific revolution meant that people were more open to medical interventions previous generations would have rejected.
It was only recently (Pius XII) that the Church had openly allowed the rythm method (previously Catholics had been taught that ANY type of family planning was evil – even natural family planning). That change caused a loss of confidence in the teaching against contraception.
Memories of Jansenist teachings against sexuality were very strong which discredited Catholic sexual morality in the eyes of many of the faithful.
The old rhythm method was unreliable and did not work for many. This resulted in families which were too large for many parents to cope with – not just financially but also emotionally, psychologically and time and stress wise. The sexual strain in trying to avoid additional pregnancies in families already too numerous was causing enormous strains on marriage leading to separations and divorce.
It was all very well for celibate Popes in the Vatican living it up in style at other peoples expense to issue teachings but at the pastoral level priests were having to deal with the reality of tremendous suffering and poverty in families and marriages where families had to live in the real world and pay their own bills.
The presbyteriate came to the conclusion that tolerating contraception was a lessor evil than the poverty and divorce resulting from the unreliable rhythm method. Pope Paul VI had explicitly referred to this principle of tolerating the lessor evil in Humanae Vitae so it was hardly a novel or dissident principle.
There is solid scriptural support for this view as the New Testament says a great deal about poverty and divorce but nothing whatsoever about contraception despite that fact the various contraceptive methods were well known in the ancient world and practiced in Israel and the gentile communities of the early Church.
I would be cautious of overstating the evils of contraception because that simply doesn’t gell with the experiences of Catholic couples who use contraception and found it has enhanced their marriage. Try to tell them that contraception will damage their marriage and they’ll wonder what planet you are living on.
Fortunately we are now in a much better position to promote NFP with the much more reliable Billings method and a much better sexual theology being taught (TOB), but it will help us to understand how we got to where we are today rather than just condemn the presbyterate of the 1960’s and subsequent generations.
We need to keep in mind that Humanae Vitae explicitly recognised the very real difficulties many Catholics have with this teaching.
God Bless
In other words, Chris, the easier option was chosen.
Rural vs urban living doesn’t change the morality of an action. This is the same sort of argument people use to justify abortion, saying that it all depends on a person’s situation.
There is also a dimension of disobedience from the priests who just said Humanae Vitae wasn’t worth listening to. I’m glad we’re seeing an upsurge in priests who are faithful to their promise of obedience to the bishop and the Church.
This is the same sort of argument people use to justify abortion, saying that it all depends on a person’s situation.
Not really, because the direct killing of innocent human persons is always wrong (intrinsically evil) whereas contraception is not always wrong (not intrinsically evil).
For example, the Church allows contraception after rape. (And there are marriages in which conjugal relations are akin to rape in which the same would apply.)
This is why the principle of toleration of the lessor evil applies in the case of contraception but not in the case of abortion.
God Bless
Chris,
I’m sorry to say that not all Catholics are as pro-life as you are. There is a pervasive attitude among people that different circumstances can be used to circumvent Church teaching on one issue, eg contraception, so why not in other areas too?
You see that abortion is always wrong, which it is. Others don’t because of this blurring and fudging on other issues of importance.
And I don’t think you do yourself any favours by — as is often the case — citing the most extreme cases to try to make a point.
Chris, your base assumptions are wrong, your logic is flawed, and your conclusion is nonsense.
Where do I start.
Good grief, Chris.
To suit your argument, you say Humanae Vitae is not clear and understandable. But I agree with another blogger — Humanae Vitae is fairly short, and it is clear and easy to understand.
JP,
Why not start with the teaching of the NZ Catholic Bishops in 2006 on “What is the Church saying today about marriage and marriage difficulties?” which puts it this way, explicitly recognising the primacy of conscience and the difficulties couples face in this area both in understanding the teaching and in living it :
POST EDITED – ATTEMPTED THREAD JACK – PLEASE DO NOT TRY AND RE-INTRODUCE YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT CONTRACEPTION OUTSIDE MARRIAGE, THAT TOPIC HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH ON MANY OTHER THREADS.
Although I must say that I don’t buy the “complete gift of each other” argument as it is not love to give to the other that which the other does not want to receive. A better argument is found in Karol Wojty?a’s classic “Love and Responsibility” which argues from the nature of love.
God Bless
Chris.
I concur with JP.
Your #25 is so shot through with inaccuracies and half truths and downright wrong assumptions that it is difficult to know where to start.
And:
It was all very well for celibate Popes in the Vatican living it up in style at other peoples expense………….etc”
is a damnable lie, and I consider it an insult.
I would appreciate a retraction – or is this another warmer upper to “Womyn should be priests”?
Of course contraceptive teaching doesn’t apply outside of marriage; celibacy teaching applies outside of marriage!
Some correction is needed, because comment #25 contains several factual errors…
People didn’t conclude that contraception was the lesser of two evils at all.
Instead what they thought was the the NEWLY invented chemical contraceptive pill was not actually a contraceptive barrier device because it changed the nature of female fertility independently of the sexual act.
Humanae Vitae was about responding to the Pill, and the moral/theological questions that had arisen since its arrival on the scene in the early 1950’s.
This is completely incorrect.
Before WWII much of the world was caught up in the Great Depression, and poverty and joblessness was at an all time high, after WWII the world began to experience a new period of economic growth.
Secondly, the ratio of farm dwelling to urban living didn’t actually change that dramatically after WWII at all – in fact the farming sector became a vital industry during the War, which is why many farmers were not allowed to go overseas and fight in Europe.
Yes and no.
The increasing reliance on medical and scientific technologies had been happening since the late 1800’s, so this wasn’t actually that big an issue regarding Humanae Vitae.
Not true.
The Catholic Church never taught that “any type of family planning was evil” at all.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, because the simple fact is that the Rhythm Method was not invented until the 1930’s, prior to that time there was NO natural family planning, so how could it have been taught against if it didn’t exist?
Not true.
It was instead the invention of the Pill, combined with the cultural revolution of the 1960’s which caused the rebellion against the natural law teaching regarding contraception.
Once again, I’m not sure where you are getting your info from, but the truth is that the Catholic divorce rate has increased massively (to the point where it is now close to the secular divorce rate) AFTER the laity rejected the Catholic teaching on contraception and began openly using it in their marriages.
Some years ago I read an article by a very experienced Cannon Lawyer in the US, and in that article he stated that of all the thousands of annulment cases he presided over, he can remember only two which involved Catholic couples who were NOT using contraception.
This is just a ridiculous cheap shot that has no basis in reality.
Humanae Vitae expresses a clear solidarity with married people, and the struggles which are simply part and parcel of the married vocation, so it is just a total fabrication to suggest that the Popes didn’t have any appreciation for the difficulties of married life.
This is completely untrue.
Firstly, it was some priests and bishops, not “the presbyteriate”.
As I have already stated above, they rejected the moral law regarding contraception not because of any lesser of two evils scheme, instead they rejected it because of the confusion created by the invention of the Pill, and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.
Comment FAIL.
Contraception was actually referred to in Scripture, firstly in the story about Onan, and secondly contraception was covered by the Scriptural ban on sorcery.
Secondly, the Early Church Fathers clearly taught against contraception.
Thirdly, there is absolutely NO Scriptural support for the argument that contraception is mortally acceptable if it is being used to combat poverty.
If you really believe this is true then please provide us proof in the form of a clear Scriptural reference which states that poverty is a justification for disregarding moral law?
This is just laughable.
It’s like suggesting that if a drug addict thinks that smoking crack is good, then smoking crack can’t be that bad, right?
What?!
The gift argument (as you call it) is exactly the same argument as found in Love and Responsibility – they are one and the same thing.
BTM, Don the Kiwi and JP,
you’ve missed another glaring error.
Christopher, the word ‘lesser’ is spelt lesser, not lessor.
Sheesh!
The suggestion that married couples using contraception is akin to smoking crack is the exactly the kind of absurd argument that will merely result in laughter from married couples.
Have you read Genesis where the sacred author says that God closed up Sarahs womb and the wombs of everyone else in Abemilech’s household ? If God does it then it can’t be intrinsically evil, can it ?
If the authors of the New Testament felt that contraception was a priority for the Church then they would have said so. That doesn’t speak to the morality of contraception. But it does speak to the relative weight given to the issue in the early Church – something still relevant today. There were other early documents which did condemn contraception but they weren’t considered sufficiently inspired to make it into the canon.
please provide us proof in the form of a clear Scriptural reference which states that poverty is a justification for disregarding moral law?
The Church has always taught that it is not theft to steal when necessary to prevent starvation. And the Jewish principle was that all the other laws were set aside when human life was at stake.
God Bless
From my recollection, Love and Responsibility argues that love always wants the best for the other. As contraception actually harms the other then it is not love. The gift doesn’t come into it.
God Bless
The Church has always taught that it is not theft to steal when necessary to prevent starvation.
Chris Sullivan, once again searching for the most extreme examples to try to justify immoral behaviour in another area.
Scribe,
I’m not trying to justify immoral behaviour. As you know, I think contraception in marriage is wrong and harmful. I would never have become a Catholic had I thought otherwise.
God Bless
FXD.
# 36
Brilliant (as always) :lol: :lol:
Chris, I seek understanding. You say: Catholic couples find the Church’s teaching on contraception hard to understand. You also say: I accept the Church’s teaching on contraception.
So how come you understand it and others don’t? More intelligence? Better catechisis? Grace?
JP,
A lot of grace + a lot of hard work, prayer, discussion and study. I started out from the feminist position on the dangers of chemical contraceptives which was a helpful starting point. The Green naturalism approach I also found useful.
I’m not sure the average married Catholic has the time to put in the study I did on the matter.
Much of the language used to explain the Catholic position is at best highly ambiguous and very difficult to understand. The Catholic position is also very nuanced.
God Bless
On the gift idea : I don’t see how that fits with NFP because in NFP the couple are still withholding the gift of fertility from each other when they only make love on infertile days and, for good reasons, it is perfectly moral to thereby withhold that gift. In fact, withholding that gift is very often the loving thing to do where there are good reasons not to seek more children. Not to mention that the periodic abstinence phase also involves withholding the complete gift of self.
God Bless
If what you’ve stated above is what you believe the Catholic position to be, Chris, I’m not surprised you find it nuanced and ambiguous. But your understanding is not yet complete. Keep at it, as I have, and you will find you can lose the dross of all the nay-sayers and the true teaching is very pure and very simple.
Of course it would, which is why I NEVER suggested that using contraception is akin to using crack.
What I said was that your argument (that if contracepting couples don’t see any problem with their actions, then using contracreption can’t be that bad) was as silly as proposing that smoking crack must be okay if crack users don’t see anything wrong with it.
It’s called logical fallacy Chris, and you were engaging in it.
What a bizarre thing to propose – inventive, but very bizarre.
What you are ultimately proposing here is that if it’s okay for God to punish a group of people by making them infertile, then it must be okay for married couples to punish themselves by inflicting the harm of infertility upon themselves with contraception.
Sounds like a solid argument against contraception to me.
Spoken like a true Protestant.
If you knew more about Catholic Tradition and theology then you would know that the Church came BEFORE the Bible – 300 years before the Bible in fact – and that the early Church Fathers – the successors of the Apostles – spoke strongly against contraception.
The Bible doesn’t condemn slavery either – so I suppose that means that you think that slavery isn’t really that big a deal either?
Like I said earlier, the New Testament clearly condemns sorcery – and a big part of first century sorcery was the production of contraceptive potions and powders.
Um, this is still not a Scriptural argument.
I asked you to provide a clear Scripture reference which supported your claim that it is okay to abdicate the moral law in order to overcome poverty.
(your original claim was the there is ” Solid Scriptural support” for the argument that poverty is grounds for rejecting the moral law regarding contraception)
Instead you have provided me with a moral teaching from Catholic Tradition – the very same Catholic Tradition that you reject on the issue of contraception and poverty.
Love and Responsibility teaches that authentic love requires a self-gift to the other.
Thus the term: “law of the gift”.
Totally wrong.
NFP does NOT involve the withholding fertility at all – which is precisely why it is morally acceptable to the Catholic Tradition.
NFP couples do not do anything to change the nature of the sexual act, and they do not withhold their fertility from each other.
By having sex during the infertile periods of the female cycle, they are merely cooperating with the nature of our sexuality as it has been designed by God.
And even though they engage in intercourse during an infertile period, the fact that they do not interfere with the sexual act with any contraceptive devices means that they still remain open to the possibility of conception occurring.
Even though conception is less likely to occur, the NFP couple has still left the door wide open for God to act if He desires to do so.
When an NFP couple engage in sex they still make a total gift of themselves to each other – they hold nothing back when they have sex.
A contracepting couple on the other hand engage in a sexual act that they have dominated and distorted, and they withhold their fertility from each other, thus there is not a total self-giving occurring.
Uh oh – I detect this thread is about to enter into the ‘contraception is acceptable for married couples’ zone.
*backs out slowly*
Not if I have anything to say about it it won’t!
your argument (that if contracepting couples don’t see any problem with their actions, then using contracreption can’t be that bad)
That wasn’t my argument.
My argument was : be careful telling people that contraception will harm their marriage because their lived experience is the opposite.
the New Testament clearly condemns sorcery – and a big part of first century sorcery was the production of contraceptive potions and powders.
That is an extremely weak argument. Sorcery means all sorts of things quite apart from contraception, which is not sorcery but medicine (and clearly perceived as medicine in the ancient world). For example, the Talmud describes a number of methods of contraception (barriers, positioning) none of which are anywhere near sorcery.
The word used in the NT is pharmakeia – literally drugs or medicine but also meaning sorcery or poisoning. It is only used as a single word in a list of evils so one ought to be cautious of reading too much into it.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5331&t=KJV
The reality is that contraception wasn’t sufficiently high on the agenda of the early Church for any explicit condemnation to make it into the New Testament. I think that speaks volumes for the harm done by contraception relative to other evils – validating the Church’s position that in some cases (eg rape) contraception really is the lesser evil (eg the Vatican’s permission for nuns at risk of rape in the Congo to use the pill).
A few scriptural examples of the principle that minor moral laws can be set aside in cases of hunger and other human need :
When David was hungry, he and his men ate the bread of the presence which was not licit for them (they weren’t priests). Jesus and his disciples picked grain and ate it on the Sabbath. He also healed on the sabbath.
Jesus seemed to make rather a big issue about this principle.
God Bless
NFP does NOT involve the withholding fertility at all
Of course it does, precisely by witholding intercourse in the fertile periods.
And to withhold that fertility is the very reason couples choose to use NFP.
You are right that it doesn’t modify the sexual act and therefore those sexual acts are licit.
And witholding the other sexual acts is perfectly licit too.
But my point is that the “total self gift” argument is not a very good argument because very often in marriage the spouses are unable, and ought not, make a total self gift to each other.
EG when one is tired, distracted, busy, needs some space etc.
God Bless
I want to repeat the quote I put on the last thread, because I think it is relevant. The same argument applies to contraception. Unless people can see that their private actions affect other people – not just their significant other but also the wider community – they just can’t see why the Church has any right to have a say – so here goes:
Particularly relevant given that much contraception is actually very early abortion.
be careful telling people that contraception will harm their marriage because their lived experience is the opposite.
Well, how about telling them that it might cause SERIOUS harm to their soul? Will that work?
but why?
Just don’t buy any contraceptives.
If you get given some for free chuck them in the nearest bin.
struggle resolved.
Chris, can you give me references for your claim that the Vatican has given permission for nuns in danger of rape to use the pill?
JP
http://www.pndiocese.org.nz/dox/Bishops/More%20Catholic%20than%20the%20Pope%20-%20Comment%20on%20Card%20Martinis%20comments.pdf
The position of Brendan Malone on contraception was fundamentalist and outside what the Catholic Church teaches. The NZ bishops were so concerned at his position that they saw fit to publicly correct him.
I didn’t mean that the teaching was ambiguous – just some of the language used to express it.
The Catholic position on contraception really is rather nuanced and I think that the general approach (I might differ on some details) of Mrs Barbara Simpson in the course on “Understanding Sexuality” programme that is provided by the National Centre of Religious Studies rests on very solid and orthodox teaching and pastoral solicitude.
God Bless
Chris, Bishop Cullinane is not saying that this was a lesser evil, but that it was outside of the teaching on contraception.
Also Ottaviani was speaking prior to Humanae Vitae – Pope Pius XII died in 1959, and the recommendation was made during his papacy.
So it doesn’t apply in the context of your argument.
BTW
Great post Ox,
Nice letter NCR.
JP,
Allowing contraceptives in cases of rape still seems to be the Vatican position.
See Sr. Lorraine’s comment 4 and 5 here
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2007/11/the-precedent-of-the-congo-nuns/
And http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1320624/Nuns-can-use-Pill-for-risk-of-rape-in-war-zones.html
The pill was illicit under Papal teaching even before Humanae Vitae because it was taught as illicit in Casti Connubi so I don’t think HV actually added much to do with the licitness of nuns at risk of rape using contraception (the possible abortifacient effect of the pill might have but that is medically disputed and does not seem to have been accepted by the Church).
The Church explicitly allows contraception after rape (see the medical directives to Catholic Hospitals in the US and Australia). See #36 in http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml
God Bless
Rape is not a sexual act, it is an act of violence.
Scribe, your #54 fell into the fallacy that Chris wanted to achieve…i.e. for people not to question his assumption that couples using contraception are all doing fine.
And Christopher, from your link, Sr Lorraine says the following:
Just saying.
But Chris, none of your examples supports your argument that the church accepts contraception as a lesser evil in some cases.
In all your examples, either the pill or whatever is being used outside of the conjugal act (as Sr Lorraine says), or a barrier is being used for disease prevention.
None of these relate to the use of contraception in a marital relationship.
Or quasi-marital relationship, as the case may be.
94 % of catholics use contraception but 85% dont attend Mass regularly (if at all) either
perhaps the former leads to the later?
Christopher
What do you believe? That we should lower the goal(sheep pen gate) posts or be true to the teaching Truth?
John 6;66 seems appropriate (again) but the response of the apostles our witness.
I use Billings, in my experience NFP does not involve withholding my fertility since we don’t ever use any method to make the sexual act infertile. The fact that I don’t always have an ovum ready to become a person is God’s design and there’s no rule saying we MUST have sex on a certain day, therefore abstaining is perfectly licit. Indeed it would not be prudent for me to become pregnant. However if it did happen, then we would accept it as God’s will.
As has been mentioned this subject has been done to death. I would like to say this – I think NFP is better for women’s bodies, there’s no hormones or side effects. It’s better for the environment too because the hormones aren’t being passed into the water system via the sewage system. It gives women knowledge and control over their bodies and I’d like to see it promoted more.
You guys are just far too obsessed with sex
KA
Whose obsessed with sex?
Who develops and promotes Cialis, Viagra.
Who promotes the pill and condoms so they can have no consequences sex whenever they want with whoever they want?
The Catholic Church gives guidelines from a moral perspective, and responds to the challenges put up by the world who act from a purely hedonistic viewpoint.
Whose obsessed with sex when you watch TV, listen to radio, read some of the garbabge that is presented as literature?
Our sex saturated society did not become so because of the Church – it became so out of the lust and lack of self discipline that is becoming more and more evident in our society today, the more we abandon our God.
I stand corrected on Magisterial support for the licitness of the rhythm method.
It seems that “in house” advice to confessors had approved the methods in the 19th century although this was not made fully public until Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubi in 1930 and further clarified by Pius XII. The view than any use of NFP was against Catholic teaching was widespread until the 1960’s and still insisted upon by some of the more extreme Catholics.
http://wikidoc.org/index.php/Rhythm_Method
http://theologyofthebody.us/node/164
God Bless
Dei,
I think we should teach the harmfulness of contraception and promote NFP.
I do think we need to be pastorally very understanding as this is often a very difficult area for couples.
I do think contraception is a lesser evil compared to poverty and divorce and both the New Testament and the Torah seem to agree, placing a lot of emphasis on poverty and divorce and none on contraception. Although the story of Onan has contraceptive overtones, a ban on contraception never seemed to make it into the Jewish Law and neither did the writers of the New Testament seem to consider contraception as sufficiently serious a matter as to mention it explicitly in the cannon. I’m not implying that contraception is OK but I am arguing that scripture indicated that both the Torah and the Gospel, the Jewish community and the early Church, did not consider contraception as serious an issue as divorce and poverty.
Some things are mortal sins and others only venial.
God Bless
Only venial?
As we can all observe…
The following quote is from a July 2008 American article on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae:
And receieving communion while in a state of deliberate, chosen venial sin – a sin that one intends to continue – is in itself a mortal sin.
Christopher;
but be clear least anyone be confused artificial contraception is a mortal sin.
Can you say this?
and dont give me your sulivanism that the extreme exception proves the rule.
Dei,
Of course artificial contraception per se is not a mortal sin.
God Bless
DtK,
It was a joke, hence HUGE smiley at the end! Get a life bro!
KA
To be a mortal sin, it needs to meet the three tests:
Is it a grave matter? Yes; it is a desecration of the sacrament of marriage. It is also a direct violation of obedience to the teaching authority of the Church.
Is it committed with full consent? Usually, though the consent is not always evenly divided between the spouses.
Is it committed with full knowledge? Often not; because of poor catechisis.
Hi everyone,
in relation to the post and many of the comments, discussing it all on here is great, but we need action more than repetitive arguments.
I would suggest one thing we can do is support the upcoming March for Life in Christchurch next month. Looks like it is going to be a great opportunity for people to come together and stand up for the dignity of the human person, not yet born.
Here is the link http://www.marchforlife.org.nz/index.html
I hope everyone here can match their healthy discussion with some solid action. In America people travel hundreds of miles to support the March for Life in Washington, maybe those not living in Christchurch could do the same for this one.
If you cannot make it, spread the word!!!
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that contraception is grave matter.
It teaches this :-
Rather than getting bogged down as to whether or not committing contraception will result in an eternity of torture in hell, a better approach, and the one adopted by the Catholic prolife movement and the Church, is to teach why contraception is harmful and to promote NFP.
Lighting a candle will always do more good then merely cursing the darkness.
God Bless
Chris, what a thing to say – you don’t even believe in eternal torture in hell!
JP
ignorance is no defense and the responsibility on those poor formators millstone territory!
Christopher you are wrong
and dont be ingenuous of course I mean the use of contraception is a mortal sin.
CCC 2370 “…contraception whether as an end or as a means to render procreation impossible is intrisically evil.”
how can you reconcle an intrisically evil act as not being a mortal sin?
and contraception is a sin against the the 6th commandmnt “you shall not commit adultery”
Using contraception definitely is grave matter, as it a violation of the marriage covenant.
Dei,
Intrinsically evil speaks to the nature of moral object chosen, not to how grave a sin it is.
Lots of intrinsically evil things are not necessarily grave matter eg lying, masturbation.
Not all uses of contraception actually meet that definition as they do not propose to render procreation impossible.
If you think that contraception is as grave a sin as adultery then you are not thinking with the mind of the Church.
God Bless
Lots of intrinsically evil things are not necessarily grave matter
And here we go again. Can I say abortion is not necessarily gave matter? What about torture? What about deliberate pollution of the atmosphere?
Once you start saying things like “Lots of intrinsically evil things are not necessarily grave matter”, how can we say with certainty which things Mother Church says are intrinsically evil are evil always and everywhere?
Your table’s ready at the cafeteria.
JP,
Re 82.
That’s a classic example of very confusing and ambiguous language.
Lots of uses of contraception do not deprive the act of its power to procreate as is readily seen by the number of pregnancies following contraceptive failure.
The words “though human effort” could equally apply to NFP.
And “stained with the guilt of grave sin” does not actually define such a use as grave matter.
God Bless
To return to the topic of the thread, Catholic sexuality education should be teaching our young people the impact on society, the couple, the individual and the Church of contraception and the contraceptive mentality. If this is done well, then teaching them what contraceptives are actually available is – to my mind – simply sensible; they’re going to have to live in a society that worships these things.
Our issue is that those who should be teaching see contraceptives as benign or at worst as ‘the lesser of two evils’. Why good people should tolerate something that destroys people and society is utterly beyond me. But this is the reality. What can we do about it?
Scribe,
Perhaps reading up on the definition of “intrinsic evil” and “grave matter” would help ?
God Bless
Why good people should tolerate something that destroys people and society is utterly beyond me.
Maybe studying Aquinas would help. He taught that society ought to tolerate evils such as brothels, and developed a set of principles for under what conditions he thought such evils could be tolerated.
The principle of the toleration of lesser evils has a long and noble history in Catholic moral theology.
What we can do is to patiently explain to people why contraception is harmful to the human person and why NFP is a much better way to plan families.
That’s a much better approach than telling people that contraception is a mortal sin.
God Bless
Chris we all know that contraception is both intrinsically evil and grave matter.
Even if you convince one of us it isn’t, you still would not have convinced yourself.
even Martin Luther said:
“Contraception is a sin graver than adultery”
Aquinas’ argument would apply to a discussion of whether there should be a law against contraception. It does not apply to a discussion of whether or not contraception is a grave sin.
His argument related to the civil law tolerating a private evil for the sake of a civil good.
Chris, I’ve just realised that you’re arguing about what should be taught to existing married couples, while I’m talking about what should be taught in schools as part of a sex education programme.
This is the topic of the post.
Rosjier,
It was only about 1820 that medical science discovered that conception involved an egg from the woman and a sperm from the man.
Before then the female egg was unknown and it was thought that the sperm was a seed planted in the ground of the womb which then grew.
One sees this in scripture where the male sperm is described as seed. That is not just colorful language but reflects the understanding that the sperm was a real seed.
Much of the theology on onanism and other contraceptive methods was coloured by that mistaken notion.
Thinking the sperm was a seed, ie a fully constituted but undeveloped human person, the prohibitions on masturbation, onanism and other forms of contraception followed.
One strand of modern Judaism still follows this idea – thinking that onanism is wrong as it involves spilling the seed but the contraceptive pill is ok as no seed is spilled.
Contraception per se cannot be grave matter or intrinsically evil as the Church has allowed its use in nuns subject to rape and in Catholic hospitals after rape. And not just by so called liberal radicals but by very conservative leaders like Cdl Ottaviani (who approved the pill’s use by nuns in the Congo) and Bishop Anthony Fisher OP (who approved the medical directives to Catholic Hospitals in Australia).
God Bless
Chris, you keep sliding off the point.
Contraception in marriage is a grave sin and intrinsically evil. This is the teaching of the universal Magisterium.
Except it was The Holy Spirit that wrote the Bible.
Every word, including ’seed,’ is there because The Holy Spirit wants it there.
And not one word is not there that The Holy Spirit wants there.
Anyways,
It is also ‘colourful’ for example:
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:29
But fine,
If you want to use Science to justify contracepting and masturbating
Then that is up to you and your imagination, we can’t stop you.
However,
You need to learn something about Catholic Doctrine and Philosophy in general:
And that is you can not use extreme exceptions as an example for forming what is the norm.
So when you next have a point to make instead of saying “Before you were born Nuns in Congo…”
Start a sentence with “In ordinary everyday life…”
(which will end with “contraception and masturbation is gravely immoral”)
Here’s one:
In ordinary everyday life I would prefer to die than to use contraception.
John Kippley:
Catholic teaching regards marriage as a covenant which has as one of its constituent elements an openness to new life and the procreative good. Sexual intercourse involves a renewal of the marriage covenant. Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it acts directly against procreation, one of the basic goods of marriage.
JP,
Very well said. You are getting a lot closer.
Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it acts directly against procreation, one of the basic goods of marriage.
If that was true than NFP would also be a violation of the marriage covenant and so would perpetual abstinence because they also act against directly procreation.
(It would also make Mary and Joseph’s marriage a violation of the covenant.)
I think it would be better to say something like:
“Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it damages the spouses and their marriage relationship.”
Strictly speaking the covenant the spouses make are the marriage vows, and they do not preclude contraception.
God Bless
Christopher #91
“Thinking the sperm was a seed, ie a fully constituted but undeveloped human person, the prohibitions on masturbation, onanism and other forms of contraception followed”
gen 38;9 oh now I see….. so Yahweh didnt understand this either!
wow! didnt God know about sulivanism either?
perhaps this puts it better http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt
Utter nonsense, Chris.
Humanae Vitae dealt with this very issue:
So anyone interested in the March to defend the LIFE you are all talking about?
Dei,
Fr Hardon, whom you link to, really is rather quaint in his single minded obsession with contraception, isn’t he ? He sums up his absurd position this:
The single most crucial need ? What a joke !
God Bless
JB,
I would but I live in Auckland. Best wishes for the march. We will pray for its success as we do against abortion and for the prolife movement everyday.
Your focus on doing something good and useful, rather than arguing trivialities, is commendable.
God Bless
The marriage covenant is not the marriage vows.
This covenant has two parts – both are essential.
The consecration is the vows, made in the eyes of God. The couple are not married, however, until after the consumation.
Each act of sex after the initial consumation bears the same relationship to the covenant as each use of holy water does to baptism – it is not the sacrament, but it is a reminder of and (in a deeper sense) a renewal of the sacrament.
“The single most crucial need ? What a joke ”
…………..so when the truth eludes you, you attack the writer?
Are you seriously considering putting yourself forward as an ordained preacher (permanent deacon) in this diocese? (as has been alluded to by another on BF)?
JB 98;
is there one planned for Auckland?
Chris,
I find it hard to understand how, after having completed two years of study towards being ordained a permanent deacon here in Auckland, you can offer so many contributions that are contrary in content to what the Magesterium states …. the Magesterium that , as a deacon you would be expected to uphold.
Shallom
Hi Joyful Papist,
That’s not my understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and it’s not how the Church treats marriage in annulment cases – have you got Church sources teaching that?
Dei,
not really at present, as there is a lack of people who want to take charge and organise it I think. Are you keen?
El wardo, non-consummation is one of the standard grounds for annulment.
Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)
Other grounds are:
Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one’s will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
Illegal “Form of Marriage” (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.
By the consent of the parties, the contract of marriage comes into being.
If both parties are baptized, the contract is also a sacrament and obtains a “special firmness” as a result of sacramental grace (can. 1055 §2). If the parties proceed from there to consummation, their sacramental union becomes, by the act of consummation, absolutely indissoluble – a permanent and lasting bond which can only be destroyed by the power of death.
The Church can and does dissolve marriages which have never been consummated, but only at the request of one of the parties and only after incontrovertible proof of the lack of consummation has been supplied. (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith handles such requests.)
The Code of Canon Law reflects the importance of both these elements in saying: “Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring.
To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh. “§2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.”
The couple are not married, however, until after the consumation.
Tell that to Our Lady !
If the parties proceed from there to consummation, their sacramental union becomes, by the act of consummation, absolutely indissoluble – a permanent and lasting bond which can only be destroyed by the power of death.
It does ? What about annulments ?
God Bless
So el wardo, you’re right. What I said was inaccurate.
The marriage comes into being with the vows, but is not indissoluble until after the consummation.
So it is the convenant that requires both – since the covenant is the forming of an indissoluble family relationship between the spouses.
Chris, for there to be an annulment, there has to be evidence of no true vows (most of the cases) or no consummation.
If the vows are valid and the marriage is consummated it is indissoluble.
bamac,
If you read what I said you will find it fully in line with Magisterial teaching.
How do you think Dei Verbum’s line that contraception is a mortal sin would go down pastorally if preached in your parish ? I expect a good number would just walk out.
God Bless
Hi Joyful Papist.
Thanks for that. I took the canon law papers at Good Shepherd College last year and a fair bit was on marriage.
But it was stressed that non consummation is not a ground for an annulment, as the marriage was either validly entered into or not at the time of the vows, which is not when the marriage is consummated, that would (and should) take place later.
The reasons behind the non consummation can point to one of the defects you listed above, which can show that the marriage was not a valid one, but non consummation itself is not a ground for an annulment.
Hi Chris,
Re your post #112, what immediately came to my mind form reading it was when Jesus told his disciples that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood to enter into Heaven. A lot of them thought the teaching was too hard and they began to leave. Jesus didn’t downplay the teaching but he repeated it for them.
Just some food for thought.
Not true.
Both adultery and contraception involve a violation of the marriage covenant.
The mind of the Church is very clear on this issue – both contraception and adultery are sins which involve grave matter, intrinsically evil acts, and both acts can be mortal sins.
Some would actually suggest that contraception is a more serious sin than adultery because it is an act that could possibly prevent the creation of a new human person who God had intended to come in to existence.
el,
I thought the Church could dissolve a non consummated marriage (although I’m not sure this is technically an annulment).
Wasn’t that pretty central in the Henry VIII case ?
God Bless
bonjourno!
chris, read el wardo’s #114
christianity is too easy in this country
we need a good shake up from time to time
if our priest’s truly loved their people, they would feed them the truth – lovingly, gently, but courageously
instead, for homilies, we get fluffy stories from father about what he did last week, and how he has managed to be nice to somebody, then some vague reference to the gospel
how about preaching from the Word of God father
how about teaching and feeding your people something really solid
how about ceasing to treat them like children, and ceasing to give them luke-warm milk
peace
I think good preaching ought to be faithful to the mind of the Church and also challenging.
There is a constant temptation to water everything down to avoid offending anyone.
One the other hand, the teaching on contraception is often difficult to understand and live, as the papal encyclicals readily admit, so a pastorally sensitive approach is imperative.
God Bless
Hey Chris,
Yes that’s true, and Joyful Papist sets that out in #108.
But a disseverment of a non consummated marriage recognises that the marriage was valid but has been dissolved by the authority of the Church. The Church can grant this if the couple request it under very certain conditions.
An annulment is a declaration from the Church, that as far as She can ascertain, that the marriage was never valid, so there was never really a marriage in place hence there is nothing to dissolve.
So:
Valid Sacramental consummated marriage = valid + indissolvable
Valid Sacramental non-consummated marriage = valid + technically dissolvable
Non valid marriage either consummated or not = can be annulled (ie no actual marriage ever took place)
Chris,
As you know my parish is your parish too. Maybe some would walk out as you say and maybe even more would walk out and/ or complain if you preached your ideas on women priests, validity of Anglican orders, the doubtful existance of hell, to name others
This is not meant as a personal criticism Chris, just that I find it hard to equate your strong ideas with those of someone training to be an ordained deacon.
Maybe I am wrong?
God bless you anyway,
Shallom
Christopher #112 (BTW your sidestep could get yo in the AB’s)
incredible!
John 6:66………………. and 67
so Christopher do you go or do you stay?
Dei,
As you well know, I’m staying.
I’m not just idly speculating. Parishioners have walked out many times when a hard line was preached on contraception.
On the other hand when one of our parish priests expressed his support for ordaining women, no one walked out.
God Bless
On the other hand when one of our parish priests expressed his support for ordaining women, no one walked out.
That’s probably because the people who were disappointed in such a homily realised that despite that priest’s erroneous views, he would still validly consecrate and they could do what they came to Mass for — to receive Jesus, not listen to a (dissenting) homily.
I started going to Mass with my (then) fiance in 1969. I’ve been every Sunday since, except when prevented by illhealth (mine or a child’s). I’ve never heard a sermon on contraception.
I’d need to know a lot more about the context of the walkouts Chris knows about to decide what caused them.
JP,
We had one once. A priest mentioned in passing that Paul VI’s encyclical merely repeated the Church’s traditional teaching.
I was so pleasantly surprised that I made a point of congratulating him for saying that.
I think there are pastorally appropriate ways to raise the matter in homilies but Dei’s “contraception is mortal sin” approach is not one of them.
God Bless
What about in Catholic schools during sex education, Chris? Is that time to give the Church’s undiluted teaching?
We had one once. A priest mentioned in passing that Paul VI’s encyclical merely repeated the Church’s traditional teaching.
And a great band of people got up and walked out over that? Or did you make up your story?
I’m not just idly speculating. Parishioners have walked out many times when a hard line was preached on contraception.
Something doesn’t add up here.
In all the years I have been going to St Marks, Chris ( some thirty odd ) I have never seen or heard of members of the congregation walking out of Holy Mass thanks to any homily … must have been Fr Brian that you were refering to re women priests for he did have some rather liberal ideas after his return from a stay in America.
You make it sound as though we have had a number of homilies on contraception… really ? I can remember one homily that refered to the subject but no one left durung Mass or do you mean that they gave up going to church altogeth as a result/excuse?
Shallom
Christopher;
This is protestant/sulivanist/denominationalism nonsence, since when does populist feet placement dictate what Truth is!
John 6:66
You insult our Lord and redeemer who suffered and died that we would know the truth and have the courage to proclaim it.
It is the truth that sets us free not false charity!
getting back to this thread and NCR letter
if our parishes cant proclaim the truth then what hope is there for our schools!
I didn’t mean parishioners in our parish walked out but I have read of walkouts in other parishes when a hard line was taken – even heckling of pastors, verbal abuse and threats. I have also read of premarriage course instructors getting a hard time from couples when raising contraception.
The intimate and personal marital relations are holy ground and those entering upon them need to take off their sandals and tread sensitively.
God Bless
Christopher,
I hope you’re being honest here.
You need to be clear about what you are saying, because your ambiguity in discussing walkouts/sermons is a little ‘iffy’, if I may use the term.
Where did these ‘walkouts’, as you put them, you know, the ones you’ve read about, occur?
Or, if that’s too hard to remember, could you tell us where you read of them (not location, but publication, just to be clear)?
USA.
God Bless
Thanks for your specificity, Christopher.
Any examples from New Zealand?
I was pleasantly surprised when the couple taking our pre-marriage course mentioned the church’s teaching on Contraception (that it was wrong) especially because my wife and I were the only couple that were not living together already, and the only couple where both spouses (to-be) were Catholic.
All the couples turned up the following week.
My husband and I co-ordinated marriage preparation courses for Wellington archdiocese for several years – about 10 courses in total. We never had any heckling or abuse, and I’ve not met any marriage course co-ordinator who has. On most courses we had some challenging questions, which we and the presenter were prepared for and answered. From memory, this was raised in the third of five sessions. No one ever walked out, and everyone always turned up for the remaining sessions.
I agree with Chris that it depends how its done. Presenters need to be knowledgable, well prepared, and (in my view) non-confrontational. People can get quite excited if they feel threatened.
rosjier
did you mean they dissented?
DV,
I think Rosjier means that the couple leading the course said that contraception is wrong, which is why he was pleasantly surprised. (It is an ambiguous comment).
thanks scribe and apoligies R for not reading more carefully
back to thread
is there such a thing as a court were these matters (of teaching contrary to Church authority) can be heard or do we need another inquisition?