Conforming Your Beliefs To Church Teaching

[CrossCuT]

Like cake! Oh lawd how wonderful it is but it makes me fat.

[Ice_nine]

I dont really care much for tearing the contraception word apart. Who cares, its a word.

 

Just use whatever means fits best for your personal circumstances that doesnt involve killing people if you can help it. The rest of it is just water under the bridge.

 

A basic part of Catholic moral philosophy is that both the ends and the means matter. You may get to the same place but it matters very much how you get there.

[CrossCuT]

A basic part of Catholic moral philosophy is that both the ends and the means matter. You may get to the same place but it matters very much how you get there.

 

fosho.

But the way I get there might not be the way you get there.

[superblue]

That is the anti-catholic twisting of the Church's teaching on NFP.

 It isn't an anti-Catholic twisting , it is a simple fact, don't get your undies in a bunch over it.

[PhuturePriest]

 It isn't an anti-Catholic twisting , it is a simple fact, don't get your undies in a bunch over it.

 

You should read the link by the USCCB I posted earlier that explains why NFP isn't contraception. For your convenience, I'll just post the link again: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/awareness-week/upload/Why-NFP-Differs-from-Contraception-JPII.pdf

[superblue]

You should read the link by the USCCB I posted earlier that explains why NFP isn't contraception. For your convenience, I'll just post the link again: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/awareness-week/upload/Why-NFP-Differs-from-Contraception-JPII.pdf

 

 

I am not a fan of the USCCB, they are not what they are cracked up to be.

 

 and all it is in this instance is a biological loop hole, doesn't mean it has to come with a negative connotation to it.

 

 

 Just because others want to throw a negative connotation to it doesn't mean It is, it is a biological fact is all it is,  and a natural loop hole,

 

http://nfpandmore.org/

simple link with a quick definition , a way to achieve or AVOID pregnancy, 

 

so if that is true, and it is natural, and the Church with all their brilliance and unquestionable knowledge says it is okay, why turn around and scream about something else or gripe about it being a loop hole ? who cares.

 

and I just realized I no longer care about this topic.

[CrossCuT]

Anyone else think the the poll (even if the numbers are low) show that people are abandoning their rational to be faithful Catholics?

Is this a positive or a negative?

Is it both?

 

Do devout Catholics find this virtuous? 

[CrossCuT]

Thats very positive! :)

If people find peace in a decision, that is always good. I am not here to judge it, I was just curious. 

[puellapaschalis]

It's a positive thing if the rationale abandoned was faulty.

 

Strictly speaking, because Truth does not contradict Truth, it is not possible to abandon a completely well-reasoned standpoint in favour of the Church's teaching, because that would imply the two are somehow not already aligned. But reality is much more nuanced than that, as is human understanding.

 

In many cases (that I've seen or heard about) it's simply a case of growing in maturity.

[CrossCuT]

I disagree simply on the fact that I dont believe the church possesses absolute truth in every aspect of what we can rationally conclude. 

But Im not saying that my way is the way everyone should take. I simply believe that if you can find peace in your choice and it makes you a better person, then you made the right choice. 

 

[puellapaschalis]

Oh, hm. I understood this to be about Church teaching regarding matters about which the Church teaches.

 

I mean, I know (roughly) the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem; the logic in that is iron-clad. If 'the Church' came up with some kind of reasoning and pronunciation resulting in FLT not being true, then I'd be looking at the relevant part of Vatican bureaucracy with caterpillar eyebrows and bitemarks in my tongue.

 

But then Maths enjoys an almost unique position in this scenario because of its extensive use of deductive reasoning. With other parts of human knowledge, especially those with some kind of moral aspect, the discussion could be significantly more colourful.

[CrossCuT]

Do you feel the church has the ability to dictate the physical laws of math, physics and what not? If they did such a thing as you described, would you go along with it, albeit, unwillingly? 

[veritasluxmea]

Do you feel the church has the ability to dictate the physical laws of math, physics and what not? If they did such a thing as you described, would you go along with it, albeit, unwillingly? 

I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but I just wanted to jump in with what I thought for a post- Ha ha, absolutely not. Neither does the Church claim such a thing. She claims only to be infallible on doctrinal/Faith teaching, and nothing else. She doesn't even make claims on what is a mental illness or not. That why it's fine to support evolution as a Catholic, or think that homosexuality is not a mental illness- if science finds something to be true, then it's true. Truth doesn't contradict truth. 

[CrossCuT]

That why it's fine to support evolution as a Catholic, or think that homosexuality is not a mental illness- if science finds something to be true, then it's true. Truth doesn't contradict truth. 

 

Thank you for your post! I agree with you of course, but your sentiments dont seem to be shared with some of the faithful I have encountered. Most of them fear science or view it as a religion itself. 

[puellapaschalis]

(I took way too long to type this, sorry)

 

I'm a mathmo, not a physicist or anything else. I understand the Church's authority to be about Faith and morals, which aspects take priority over other parts of human lifestyle because they are necessary for happiness. Now because Maths results don't talk about F&m, the Church doesn't talk about them.

 

I suppose if you're looking for an example in the world of applied sciences (*spit*), then if some guy in red said that the folks at NASA should use these equations rather than those (well-reasoned, tried, tested, and so on) equations in order to get that probe to meet up with Mars at exactly this point in time, with no other reasoning than something like, 'St. Jerome's dream journal has a footnote about it, referencing Origen, and this question was clearly wrapped up by Aquinas and Pope Paul III,' then the entire control room would be justified in at least a small giggle.

 

But then - and this is the point - meeting up with Mars isn't in itself something upon which one's eternal happiness hinges. Neither is measuring the size of the Virgo Supercluster, or how many types of subatomic particles there are.

 

This does not make theology/philosophy a partner with other realms of human knowledge, as if on the same level, because theology deals with supernatural truths and our eternal destiny, whereas other sciences deal with temporal and temporary matters (Maths is different because Maths is awesome, and FLT is true even in eternity, because number theory is eternal happiness).