Conforming Your Beliefs To Church Teaching

[puellapaschalis]

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. 

 

And then there are atheists and agnostics who treat science as a religion too.
 

[CrossCuT]

Thank you ladies!

 

I guess your example Puella doesnt strike me as a very difficult one of catholics because I dont think there would be any moral or faith based implications to landing on mars. I guess the ones that I am considering would be science surrounding things like evolution or homosexuality. 

[veritasluxmea]

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. 

Meh. Really the only point to the Church is to preach the gospel and work for the salvation of souls. Everything else is kind of arbitrary- Church is full of different groups and flavors and crazies who think everyone else is crazy and disagreements. Comes from our Jewish heritage. 

[CrossCuT]

Meh. Really the only point to the Church is to preach the gospel and work for the salvation of souls. Everything else is kind of arbitrary- Church is full of different groups and flavors and crazies who think everyone else is crazy and disagreements. Comes from our Jewish heritage. 

 

I agree! Although I feel like a lot of catholics might not be able to swallow your thoughts on the arbitrary parts of the faith haha!

[veritasluxmea]

I agree! Although I feel like a lot of catholics might not be able to swallow your thoughts on the arbitrary parts of the faith haha!

LOL- To clarify before I get kicked off of phatmass, I meant some practices and matters of opinion were arbitrary- not matters of faith and morals, official doctrines and teachings of the Church. 

[CrossCuT]

LOL- To clarify before I get kicked off of phatmass, I meant some practices and matters of opinion were arbitrary- not matters of faith and morals, official doctrines and teachings of the Church. 

 

Haha! Safe!!!!!!!!

Youre cool in my book though...although my book is filled with madness. :evil:

[Socrates]

Many people use NFP as a form of contraception, including non-Catholics. I have a pagan friend who wanted a natural contraceptive because they dislike modern medicine and she used NFP. If you're using it to be lie with your spouse and avoid a baby I think it falls under the definition of a contraception. 

 

 

I disagree with both of you.  As FP pointed out - contrary to conception.  Obviously, if NFP is used to help conceive, then there is no issue.  If it's used in order to not conceive, then it is indeed contrary to conception.  It's just not artificial.

 

People make the excuse that with NFP, you are having sex, which is in itself not contraception.  That's a copout.  The truth is that many people, including people I know, use or have used NFP in order to avoid conception.  Obviously, trying to avoid conception is contrary to conception.  Ergo: contraception.

 

Edit 1: I'll admit, Socrates, that perhaps NFP was not intended to be contraception, but it's been my experience that the majority of the time that's what it is, or perhaps more accurately what it becomes.

 

Edit 2: FP, I think what you meant to say was that the Church teaches that the use of NFP with a contraceptive mindset is sinful when it's not sincerely needed.  That I do agree with.

 

 

Contraception means actively doing something to deliberately thwart the procreative potential of the sexual act, whether by physical barriers such as condoms, or by spermicides, drugs, etc.

 

NFP does not involve actual contraception, but simply abstaining during more fertile periods.  

 

The big difference is that contraception during the conjugal act is inherently sinful in itself, while abstaining, or not having sex, is not.

Married persons are not morally required to have sex whenever they are fertile.

 

 

As others have said here, a couple can have sinful intentions behind practicing NFP, if they are avoiding having children for selfish or trivial reasons, but it is still not contraception.  

 

I'd also be extremely careful before judging other persons of having selfish or sinful motives.

[Socrates]

 

For example, I think when prostitutes or fornicating couples use contraception it's a step in the right direction. Or put more frankly, I think in those situations contraception should be used. Or I don't know, am I wrong?

 

You are wrong.  (Pardon my bluntness.)

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Church clearly teaches that an inherently immoral act (such as contraception) cannot be used because one has "good intentions."  Or, more simply, the ends don't justify the means.

 

The truth is that the introduction of the pill and widespread contraceptive use helped create the "sexual revolution" with its greater acceptance of fornication and promiscuity,and decline in committed marriage, as it enabled commitment free, consequence free sex.  (You don't have to worry about getting pregnant.)

Ironically, this contraceptive mindset also led to an increase in acceptance of abortion, as consequence-free sex begins to be seen as a right, so if contraception fails (or you forget it), there's always abortion as a back-up.

 

So for those fornicating, contraception is not a step in the right direction, but the wrong direction.

[Socrates]

Thank you ladies!

 

I guess your example Puella doesnt strike me as a very difficult one of catholics because I dont think there would be any moral or faith based implications to landing on mars. I guess the ones that I am considering would be science surrounding things like evolution or homosexuality. 

 

While it's debated, the Church has not actually definitively condemned the idea of physical evolution of species, so long as one does not deny God as Creator or believe the human soul evolved.

 

Regarding homosexual activity (and other matters of sexual morality), that has nothing to do with science.  Science can collect data and test and hypotheses about the physical world, but cannot give us morality.

The physical sciences cannot tell us whether it is actually right or wrong to do anything.

 

For instance, science can give us the knowledge to build an atomic bomb, but can't tell us whether or not it is right to drop it.

[veritasluxmea]

Science can collect data and test and hypotheses about the physical world, but cannot give us morality.

The physical sciences cannot tell us whether it is actually right or wrong to do anything.

 

For instance, science can give us the knowledge to build an atomic bomb, but can't tell us whether or not it is right to drop it.

I actually disagree with you on that- I think the idea that there is a split between facts (science) and values (morality) is at the root of almost all the problems in our time. For example, science has shown that life begins at conception. Even Peter Singer acknowledges this. This is a scientific fact. However, you can not find a scientific fact on when someone should be considered a person, so it's in the value realm. Once it's detached from science, it becomes arbitrary and relative. Now that being human, a scientific fact, and person-hood, a value, are separated into two different areas, we can't agree on when to define personhood.

 

And that's as far as I've gotten in my thinking. I grew up believing that science can not give us morality but I think the belief that the two are completely separate is incorrect somehow, I just haven't figured it out yet. idk.

 

You are wrong.  (Pardon my bluntness.)

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Church clearly teaches that an inherently immoral act (such as contraception) cannot be used because one has "good intentions."  Or, more simply, the ends don't justify the means.

 

The truth is that the introduction of the pill and widespread contraceptive use helped create the "sexual revolution" with its greater acceptance of fornication and promiscuity,and decline in committed marriage, as it enabled commitment free, consequence free sex.  (You don't have to worry about getting pregnant.)

Ironically, this contraceptive mindset also led to an increase in acceptance of abortion, as consequence-free sex begins to be seen as a right, so if contraception fails (or you forget it), there's always abortion as a back-up.

 

So for those fornicating, contraception is not a step in the right direction, but the wrong direction.

I think you're right- but I also think I'm not explaining myself accurately. I'm not proposing that the ends justify the means, I'm proposing that good can come out of evil. I agree with Pope Benedict when he stated:  

 

 

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798

 

When someone uses contraception because they are trying to alleviate their conscious or they genuinely do want to help their partner- that can be used as a first step towards understanding and conversion. A little crack lets Christ in, and all that. 

[Socrates]

I actually disagree with you on that- I think the idea that there is a split between facts (science) and values (morality) is at the root of almost all the problems in our time. For example, science has shown that life begins at conception. Even Peter Singer acknowledges this. This is a scientific fact. However, you can not find a scientific fact on when someone should be considered a person, so it's in the value realm. Once it's detached from science, it becomes arbitrary and relative. Now that being human, a scientific fact, and person-hood, a value, are separated into two different areas, we can't agree on when to define personhood.

 

And that's as far as I've gotten in my thinking. I grew up believing that science can not give us morality but I think the belief that the two are completely separate is incorrect somehow, I just haven't figured it out yet. idk.

 

I didn't mean to imply that scientific knowledge can have nothing to do whatever with morality - knowledge of facts (such as whether an act takes a human life) can aid in moral decision making.

 

However, the physical sciences cannot give us actual moral principles themselves.

 

Science can tell us when human life begins, but not whether it is ever right to take innocent human life.  The principle that it is always wrong to deliberately take innocent human life is a moral one, not a scientific one.  (Singer disagrees on that moral principle).

 

 

The issue over the morality of homosexual acts is not scientific.  There's no real scientific disagreement over what physically goes on in such acts.  Whether or not it is moral to perform such acts is not a scientific question, but moral.  Thus the claim that the Church's teachings on sexual morality are "unscientific" or "anti-science" is nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

I think you're right- but I also think I'm not explaining myself accurately. I'm not proposing that the ends justify the means, I'm proposing that good can come out of evil. I agree with Pope Benedict when he stated:  

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798

 

When someone uses contraception because they are trying to alleviate their conscious or they genuinely do want to help their partner- that can be used as a first step towards understanding and conversion. A little crack lets Christ in, and all that. 

 

 

That quote, unfortunately, is often misunderstood and misused.  Pope Benedict was giving an example of how a person living an immoral life can first begin to move towards moral awareness; this statement was never intended to encourage or justify contraceptive use for certain persons.

 

I don't remember the exact context, but if he was talking about homosexual prostitutes, the condom would not even be a contraceptive.  But in any case, he didn't say that using a condom itself was good, but the desire to protect others from diseases like HIV. 

 

Your statement that "I think in those situations contraception should be used" is problematic and wrong.  Something objectively immoral (such as contraception) should not be done.  As Pope Benedict said, "But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."  

 

What prostitutes should do is not use condoms, but stop being prostitutes.

 

For most unmarried couples living together, there is no reason why using condoms or other contraceptives would be a "step in the right direction" morally.  It's simply adding another sin.  They should not use contraception, but stop fornicating, and if they really love each other and it's in their best interest, get married.

 

The fact that sometimes good can come out of evil does not mean that evil should be done.

[veritasluxmea]

So to clarify the Benedict quote once and for all is that contraception is intrinsically evil so it should never be done- but its presence could possibly with someone indicate a step towards moral awareness. I agree that the methods in and of themselves don't directly discover morality. It's funny how people are quick to distance values and morality from science but then when the Church says something about morality they don't agree with they call it unscientific. So science can determine morality? hum. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

How can people separate life and personhood?

 

the same say someone can acknowledge that a snowball is not a snowman. when do many snow balls become a snowman? i dont know, but that doesn't mean the snowball is a snowman.

 

there's something to the idea that no snowball ive ever seen is self replicating to turn itself into a snowman. but still, you could realistically make the snowball v snowman distinction.

Edited August 25, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

the same say someone can acknowledge that a snowball is not a snowman. when do many snow balls become a snowman? i dont know, but that doesn't mean the snowball is a snowman.

 

there's something to the idea that no snowball ive ever seen is self replicating to turn itself into a snowman. but still, you could realistically make the snowball v snowman distinction.

 

Nope it's more like how someone can acknowledge that a black male (or any other group of humans denied person-hood through out time) is not a person, but acknowledge a white male is a person. All human beings are persons, a fertilized human embryo is a person because a fertilized human embryo is a human being, anyone that claims otherwise is backward and primitive.

Edited August 25, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Credo in Deum]

the same say someone can acknowledge that a snowball is not a snowman. when do many snow balls become a snowman? i dont know, but that doesn't mean the snowball is a snowman.

 

there's something to the idea that no snowball ive ever seen is self replicating to turn itself into a snowman. but still, you could realistically make the snowball v snowman distinction.

 

No you couldn't.  Human beings are not snowballs.  They are made with a body and soul.  I human being becomes a human person when they're conceived.  A human being also receives their own unique DNA finger print at the time of conception.