|
Post by jimg on Jan 17, 2022 19:28:03 GMT
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 17, 2022 20:13:59 GMT
According to the article: "Has Canada’s increasing “soft immorality” – based in its cultural permissions to pursue any impulse whatsoever – produced a culture echoed in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans (I, 26-27)? “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”" How does one explain the letters of Pope Francis praising the work of New Ways Ministry? The work of New Ways Ministry is to promote SS marriage.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Jan 17, 2022 20:51:31 GMT
According to the article: "Has Canada’s increasing “soft immorality” – based in its cultural permissions to pursue any impulse whatsoever – produced a culture echoed in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans (I, 26-27)? “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”" How does one explain the letters of Pope Francis praising the work of New Ways Ministry? The work of New Ways Ministry is to promote SS marriage. Is the full text of the letters which are referred to available anywhere? Or just phrases which were pulled from them?
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 17, 2022 22:08:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 17, 2022 23:56:06 GMT
Or it could be the way Paul VI was basically forced to file it down to the finest point possible, "ABC is immoral and here is precisely why", with natural law and the intrinsic ordering of the marital act perhaps not having been hitherto as closely considered. I understand that this teaching of Pope Paul VI was not covered by infallibility? It is not ex cathedra infallible, but it enjoys the ordinary infallibility of the perennial magisterium. Put another way, nothing has ever been taught to the contrary, and until the modern dissent and unrest beginning in the 1960s, it never even occurred to anyone, that deliberate separation of the marital act from its natural end, could be anything other than gravely immoral. In a nutshell, the Anglicans caved in 1928 and afterwards, and practically all non-Catholics followed suit in due time. As I said above, in the Catholic Church, it came down to a question of "we now have this, so can we use it?". And to be perfectly fair about it, when Dr Rock created the "pill", he first sought to ascertain whether it could be considered "natural", i.e., that it regulated an aspect of the woman's cycle, rather than introducing a barrier. That was an honest question, and in the years immediately before Humanae vitae, there was no consensus as to whether it was immoral. During that time, if a priest had counseled his penitents according to the principle of in dubio libertas, that is hard to find fault with. But once Paul VI delineated the teaching in no uncertain terms, and gave the reasons for it, the matter was no longer up for debate. Remember when all this happened, the year 1968, every social revolution was boiling to the surface all at once, sexual mores in society were coming unraveled in a big way, people were getting used to the idea that sex and procreation could be separated (and were pretty happy about it!), and even in the Church, it seemed as though the only constant was "change". People weren't minded to listen to the Church on the matter then, and they are hardly any more minded to do so today. The idea of an even somewhat involuntarily restrained marital sexuality, when people know that the means exist to do otherwise, and the larger society has no issue with it, takes on a power of its own. Put another way, "everybody else does it and we want to also".
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 17, 2022 23:56:38 GMT
Thank you for this. I agree wholeheartedly with the entire content of this article.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 18, 2022 0:12:56 GMT
The "lines to the confessional" are not nearly as long as the communion lines. Yes, I know, we're supposed to suspend disbelief, and say "maybe all of those people go to confession on Saturdays when you're not there, or they go to the twice-annually communal penance services, or they make appointments and go during the week". If I ever started that orthodox Catholic polling firm that I've discussed here before under the category of "Walter Mitty dreams of winning the big lottery", I'd want to see a distribution of several hundred (or more) Catholics who are regular communicants, and how that correlates with how often they go to confession, and when they last went. Contraception (and by this I mean artificial birth control or ABC) is a pretty hard sin to commit in any fashion other than with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. Aside from "spur of the moment" methods such as coitus interruptus and, pardon me, various other means of gratification, to commit the sin of contraception requires, at the very least, a visit to a doctor's office and/or a visit to the pharmacy. People don't do this at 10 pm in a fit of paroxysms of passion. No, it is a fully deliberate, coldly calculated act, that takes time to contemplate, plan, and seek enablement. It's not something you can do by accident. It requires planning, deliberation, and organizing one's style of life, to accommodate the preferred method of ABC. Actually, I have to think sterilization, after "our family is complete", would be more of a temptation, in that, strictly speaking, the sin is only committed once, and unless the male or female "tubes" grow back together, it is permanent. Reversal is difficult and might or might not be mandatory once the sterilized person has repented. I have heard of priests prescribing abstinence during what would otherwise be the fertile period as a means of repentance and penance, though I have to think that would vary with the circumstances of the couple and the factors that drove them to do this in the first place. For some, the sorrow of knowing they could never again have children, knowing that, remote as one hopes the possibility would be, if their child or children died, they would have to stay childless, might be quite enough. I myself, having sinfully used NFP in a selfish fashion without excuse, know the sorrow of looking at my one son and having to say to myself "he's all I've got, and due to my age and financial circumstances (not to mention the possibility that I will never be free to remarry validly), he's all I'll ever have, and if something would happen to him, I'd be childless". How many sins do folks really do by accident? When they covet, or lust, or lie, or cheat, or steal, or pretty much anything we do as humans, it requires us to think about what we are doing first. We don't just happen into circumstances which give us occasion for sin. Ok, so when the neighbor comes home with the new fancy car and we immediately covet the car, that might just happen, but our mental attitude which leaves us to covet doesn't just instantly form. Our mental attitude is built gradually from our desires over time. The same holds true for lust or the lies we tell, or pretty much anything else. We develop those flaws over time by our daily lives and how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. We control what we expose ourselves to, whether it be family, friends, media, the internet, or any of the other factors which affect our willingness to sin. As far as the sterilization, yes it would only be committed once, but the end result is permanent, so there is no going back and correcting the sin. Based on the same line of thinking, folks should just resort to abortion if they become pregnant instead of taking birth control, since the abortion is a single sin, and the birth control would be a sin each time it is taken or used. I am thinking there isn't going to be a lot of support for justifying the single sin of abortion vs multiple sins of birth control since the result is so terminal. Maybe I am wrong on that Again, if it is so easy for folks to simply not sin, why do they keep doing it? Why did Christ even need to die for us? All he had to do was say, sin no more. You raise a very good point here, as you often do. I am pleased that our discussions can always remain charitable and fair-minded, even when we do not come to a meeting of the minds. You correctly note that sin is a perennial, and people are going to keep doing it and doing it. That's what the sacrament of penance is for. Where the present issue of contraception veers away from this, though, is not so much that people see it as a sin they just have to commit, their "white rabbit" sin that they can't live without, and fear the potential (and eternal) consequences of that sin, as they attempt to tell themselves it is no sin at all. If someone were to say "I accept the Church's teaching that contraception is mortally sinful, but I just can't live up to that right now, I can't face the thought of extended abstinence, the desire to be conjugal with my spouse is so strong, that I just can't resist it, and the only way we can keep from having a child, is to use contraceptives", that would be a problem, but at least they would be being honest about it, and they would remain an orthodox believing Catholic --- just one who chooses to live in mortal sin as long as their life circumstances are like that. Or course, they cannot go to communion, and they cannot go to confession and receive absolution, so I suppose the only thing they can do, is to beg God's mercy, and pray that they don't die suddenly, as with an unknown heart problem or brain aneurysm, or in a motoring accident. Bad as that is, though, it is not as bad as making up one's mind that this is no sin, going ahead and receiving communion, either not going to confession at all --- "don't want to confess it, but don't want not to confess it" --- or going to confession and just not bringing it up. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but priests really need to be asking, gently, along the lines of "contraception's not a problem, is it? --- you know, many people these days, married couples of childbearing age, resort to it". I've been asked before whether I had committed sins I hadn't confessed (though never this particular sin), and I wasn't offended in the least. I don't think anybody else should be either. And, yes, it needs to be brought up from the pulpit, and people need to be reminded, again, gently, charitably, that this is a mortal sin, and they must not go to communion unless they have gone to confession and have resolved to stop the practice. This is an "elephant in the parlor" that needs to be acknowledged.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 18, 2022 0:35:36 GMT
Put another way, nothing has ever been taught to the contrary, and until the modern dissent and unrest beginning in the 1960s, ... Nothing was taught to the contrary concerning the grounds for a marriage annulment up until that time either. For example, in 1929, there were 9 marriage annulments in the US. It was taught up until then that divorce followed by marriage was intrinsically evil. This was based on Holy Scripture: Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,..." What happens in a marriage annulment. The tribunal demands that the couple get a divorce before hearing the case. The tribunal goes through a procedure and after the annulment is granted the man can marry another woman. These procedures allowing annulments for flimsy reasons are justified on the theory that modern psychology has shed new light on this situation. Well, similarly, I don't see why it cannot be asserted in view of development of teaching, that modern psychology has now shed new light on marital and family issues. In view of the scientific developments in modern psychology and in modern sociological concepts, it is seen that the stability of the family and the unitive aspects of marriage are of paramount importance and must be factored in to any moral issue involving artificial contraception. Further in view of the developments in the environmental sciences and the green movement it has become clear that the earth is reaching its capacity and cannot sustain further population growth. There are areas today where it is difficult for the population to find clean and safe drinking water. As the theologians in their scholarly wisdom factor in these and other social conditions, it is possible that it now becomes clear to them that a development of teaching in artificial birth control is necessary as they ponder the new knowledge given to us by the experts in human sociology.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Jan 18, 2022 0:42:52 GMT
Again, if it is so easy for folks to simply not sin, why do they keep doing it? Why did Christ even need to die for us? All he had to do was say, sin no more. You raise a very good point here, as you often do. I am pleased that our discussions can always remain charitable and fair-minded, even when we do not come to a meeting of the minds. You correctly note that sin is a perennial, and people are going to keep doing it and doing it. That's what the sacrament of penance is for. Where the present issue of contraception veers away from this, though, is not so much that people see it as a sin they just have to commit, their "white rabbit" sin that they can't live without, and fear the potential (and eternal) consequences of that sin, as they attempt to tell themselves it is no sin at all. If someone were to say "I accept the Church's teaching that contraception is mortally sinful, but I just can't live up to that right now, I can't face the thought of extended abstinence, the desire to be conjugal with my spouse is so strong, that I just can't resist it, and the only way we can keep from having a child, is to use contraceptives", that would be a problem, but at least they would be being honest about it, and they would remain an orthodox believing Catholic --- just one who chooses to live in mortal sin as long as their life circumstances are like that. Or course, they cannot go to communion, and they cannot go to confession and receive absolution, so I suppose the only thing they can do, is to beg God's mercy, and pray that they don't die suddenly, as with an unknown heart problem or brain aneurysm, or in a motoring accident. Bad as that is, though, it is not as bad as making up one's mind that this is no sin, going ahead and receiving communion, either not going to confession at all --- "don't want to confess it, but don't want not to confess it" --- or going to confession and just not bringing it up. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but priests really need to be asking, gently, along the lines of "contraception's not a problem, is it? --- you know, many people these days, married couples of childbearing age, resort to it". I've been asked before whether I had committed sins I hadn't confessed (though never this particular sin), and I wasn't offended in the least. I don't think anybody else should be either. And, yes, it needs to be brought up from the pulpit, and people need to be reminded, again, gently, charitably, that this is a mortal sin, and they must not go to communion unless they have gone to confession and have resolved to stop the practice. This is an "elephant in the parlor" that needs to be acknowledged. Again, how is birth control any different than any other sins that are repeated by people? If someone has a problem with lustful thoughts, or pornography, or being uncharitable towards their neighbors, or lying, or any other sins which are so easily repeatable, they are no different than those who choose to use birth control knowing it is sinful. They know these other actions are sinful. They know they must repeatedly go to confession to be absolved from those sins prior to receiving Communion, and they know they must truely change their behavior in order to be absolved of their sins. I don't see any difference between repeatable sins of any nature and those who knowingly use birth control. Are these people agreeing that yes, they are sinning, know they are sinning and simply continue to sin, or have they also said, well, this really isn't a sin so I will continue to engage in this behavior. Maybe the order of the Mass needs to include a brief section before the Eucharist in which the Priest says, if you are not free from sin, please remain in your seat. I have not seen many of you in the confessional in a while and the pain of mortal sin and hell will be on your soul if you present yourself for communion and are not worthy. Maybe the priest would need to tell the congregation that he himself must refrain from communion this week due to the state of his conscience presently. Oh how many wish this took place during the past century. Or maybe because of the scandal it would have created, things were just overlooked in order not raise any eyebrows.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Jan 18, 2022 0:52:54 GMT
So without knowing the entire letter contents, these simple passages could be taken out of context or could relate to entirely different subjects altogether. You know, kind of like pulling a little snip it out of the Bible an saying, look, look it says it is ok to do X because this is from the Bible, when in many instances, the Bible likely says the exact opposite of what is being quoted. One would think a group of Common Sense Catholics would have a little more scepticism about things which they can't verify fully. Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 18, 2022 1:06:31 GMT
Put another way, nothing has ever been taught to the contrary, and until the modern dissent and unrest beginning in the 1960s, ... Nothing was taught to the contrary concerning the grounds for a marriage annulment up until that time either. For example, in 1929, there were 9 marriage annulments in the US. It was taught up until then that divorce followed by marriage was intrinsically evil. This was based on Holy Scripture: Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,..." What happens in a marriage annulment. The tribunal demands that the couple get a divorce before hearing the case. The tribunal goes through a procedure and after the annulment is granted the man can marry another woman. These procedures allowing annulments for flimsy reasons are justified on the theory that modern psychology has shed new light on this situation. Well, similarly, I don't see why it cannot be asserted in view of development of teaching, that modern psychology has now shed new light on marital and family issues. In view of the scientific developments in modern psychology and in modern sociological concepts, it is seen that the stability of the family and the unitive aspects of marriage are of paramount importance and must be factored in to any moral issue involving artificial contraception. Further in view of the developments in the environmental sciences and the green movement it has become clear that the earth is reaching its capacity and cannot sustain further population growth. There are areas today where it is difficult for the population to find clean and safe drinking water. As the theologians in their scholarly wisdom factor in these and other social conditions, it is possible that it now becomes clear to them that a development of teaching in artificial birth control is necessary as they ponder the new knowledge given to us by the experts in human sociology. And it still is taught that attempted marriage, if one is in a prior marriage that is in fact valid, is evil, I suppose one could say "intrinsically", even though it's just not possible, you cannot be married to two people at the same time. Whether there is a divorce is, by itself, beside the point, and only preserves the situation from any charges of bigamy in the civil law. An annulment is a finding in Church law, before the keys of the Church, that there is moral certainty the prior marriage was invalid and was never a marriage at all. The Church is perfectly competent to make such a judgment. Modern psychology does shed valuable light upon factors that impede the ability to consent to a valid marriage. Those factors always existed among people, quite frankly, a lot of people suffered in invalid marriages that they didn't know were invalid. Incidentally, at least in this country, a divorce is required before the tribunal will entertain a question of nullity, very possibly because the Church just wants to be sure there can be no reconciliation, and that they will not run the risk of breaking up a marriage, a family, and a home. I would like to see this policy (and that's all it is, a policy) reconsidered --- a troubled couple could then go to the Church and say "we're still together, but our marriage just isn't working and it never has, we're toxic to each other, if we're not validly married, that would be good to know, then we could decide whether to go our separate ways, not bound in the Eyes of God, or work harder to resolve our issues, and then seek to validate our marriage if that is possible". If I am hearing you right, you are proposing that contraception need not be seen as intrinsically evil, and that the question of deliberately separating conception from the marital act is just one of several "sticks in the bundle", the others being family stability, the unitive aspect of marriage, and social conditions that make further pregnancies difficult to consider. But the Church does not see it this way. When something is intrinsically evil, "a sin no matter what", it stands on its own, is never morally permitted, and does not become just one of the "sticks in the bundle" I noted above. I am not suggesting that you favor this, but that is the same type of reasoning that said "refraining from aborting a child, while perhaps preferable, is just one of many factors, those being (but perhaps not limited to) the welfare of the mother, the other children the mother may have, social conditions, and the difficulties involved in raising that child who may or may not be aborted".
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 18, 2022 1:26:09 GMT
You raise a very good point here, as you often do. I am pleased that our discussions can always remain charitable and fair-minded, even when we do not come to a meeting of the minds. You correctly note that sin is a perennial, and people are going to keep doing it and doing it. That's what the sacrament of penance is for. Where the present issue of contraception veers away from this, though, is not so much that people see it as a sin they just have to commit, their "white rabbit" sin that they can't live without, and fear the potential (and eternal) consequences of that sin, as they attempt to tell themselves it is no sin at all. If someone were to say "I accept the Church's teaching that contraception is mortally sinful, but I just can't live up to that right now, I can't face the thought of extended abstinence, the desire to be conjugal with my spouse is so strong, that I just can't resist it, and the only way we can keep from having a child, is to use contraceptives", that would be a problem, but at least they would be being honest about it, and they would remain an orthodox believing Catholic --- just one who chooses to live in mortal sin as long as their life circumstances are like that. Or course, they cannot go to communion, and they cannot go to confession and receive absolution, so I suppose the only thing they can do, is to beg God's mercy, and pray that they don't die suddenly, as with an unknown heart problem or brain aneurysm, or in a motoring accident. Bad as that is, though, it is not as bad as making up one's mind that this is no sin, going ahead and receiving communion, either not going to confession at all --- "don't want to confess it, but don't want not to confess it" --- or going to confession and just not bringing it up. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but priests really need to be asking, gently, along the lines of "contraception's not a problem, is it? --- you know, many people these days, married couples of childbearing age, resort to it". I've been asked before whether I had committed sins I hadn't confessed (though never this particular sin), and I wasn't offended in the least. I don't think anybody else should be either. And, yes, it needs to be brought up from the pulpit, and people need to be reminded, again, gently, charitably, that this is a mortal sin, and they must not go to communion unless they have gone to confession and have resolved to stop the practice. This is an "elephant in the parlor" that needs to be acknowledged. Again, how is birth control any different than any other sins that are repeated by people? If someone has a problem with lustful thoughts, or pornography, or being uncharitable towards their neighbors, or lying, or any other sins which are so easily repeatable, they are no different than those who choose to use birth control knowing it is sinful. They know these other actions are sinful. They know they must repeatedly go to confession to be absolved from those sins prior to receiving Communion, and they know they must truely change their behavior in order to be absolved of their sins. I don't see any difference between repeatable sins of any nature and those who knowingly use birth control. Are these people agreeing that yes, they are sinning, know they are sinning and simply continue to sin, or have they also said, well, this really isn't a sin so I will continue to engage in this behavior. Maybe the order of the Mass needs to include a brief section before the Eucharist in which the Priest says, if you are not free from sin, please remain in your seat. I have not seen many of you in the confessional in a while and the pain of mortal sin and hell will be on your soul if you present yourself for communion and are not worthy. Maybe the priest would need to tell the congregation that he himself must refrain from communion this week due to the state of his conscience presently. Oh how many wish this took place during the past century. Or maybe because of the scandal it would have created, things were just overlooked in order not raise any eyebrows. You are quite right, it is not any different from other mortal sins --- in fact, due to human frailty, it is probably among the most forgivable of mortal sins (it is, after all, a sin of the flesh) --- as long as the person committing it acknowledges it is a sin. When they tell themselves "this really isn't a sin", that is where the problem lies. But as I noted above, this is really not a sin that you can commit with anything other than sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, exceptions being impulsive behaviors in the throes of passion such as coitus interruptus or other acts of gratification where the temptation to them, by a couple who seeks to follow God's will, is just too strong that particular evening. Things like that happen. But that is quite different from planning out how you are going to commit this sin, making the doctor's appointment, getting in the car, going to the doctor, getting a prescription, going to the pharmacy, picking it up, and then driving back home. There's nothing spontaneous about that, and it is outlandish to claim that such a course of action could be committed with blurred passions or an impaired will. I would have no problem whatsoever with the priest at Mass admonishing those in mortal sin to stay away from communion. 1 Corinthians 11:27-31 comes immediately to mind. And I assume you are aware that a priest who has been so unfortunate as to commit a mortal sin, must make an act of perfect contrition if he cannot get to confession before he celebrates Mass. And if he cannot break with mortal sin, he needs to let his bishop know, quit offering Mass, and seek spiritual direction to reform his life. I may be wrong to make this observation, but I'm a pretty good judge of people, and I have noticed that some priests I've met have seemed kind of nervous, "on edge", and as my father would have said, "they just didn't act right". I've had to wonder if they were involved in something they shouldn't have been, and were in a state of incessant cognitive dissonance. Hard to say. That stuff will run you crazy.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 18, 2022 1:42:30 GMT
Maybe the order of the Mass needs to include a brief section before the Eucharist in which the Priest says, if you are not free from sin, please remain in your seat... I attended Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Orthodox Church and the priest said just that: You may come up for Holy Communion if you are properly prepared.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 18, 2022 1:50:51 GMT
Whether there is a divorce is, by itself, beside the point, I don't see that at all. Take a look at Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,..." The tribunal directs you to divorce your spouse (if you want your case heard). After the annulment is approved, you then can marry another. What could be clearer ? As far as intrinsic evil is concerned, isn't SS marriage intrinsically evil? then why is the Holy Father Pope Francis writing comments praising the work of the New Ways Ministry, when their work is to promote and support SS marriage? So there has been a development there. Since there have been so many developments in teaching, I don't see it being impossible for there to be a development in the teaching in contraception as is already indicated by Winnipeg.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 18, 2022 2:46:27 GMT
Maybe the order of the Mass needs to include a brief section before the Eucharist in which the Priest says, if you are not free from sin, please remain in your seat... I attended Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Orthodox Church and the priest said just that: You may come up for Holy Communion if you are properly prepared. That works for me. If one wishes to speak of potential "changes in the Mass", I would be wholeheartedly in favor of a reminder, right before the faithful receive communion, that if you are not properly disposed to receive, in spite of the penitential rite earlier in the Mass, do not receive, do not eat and drink your own damnation, with a gentle invitation to make things right in the sacrament of penance --- and then have a priest available to hear confessions!
|
|