|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 24, 2022 22:56:28 GMT
Then why in the sex ed courses do the Catholic authorities at the local high school teach children how to commit the sin of contraception? They don't show students how to kill their spouse either by poison or by gun shot? If they do that, they are very evil, and are not worthy to call themselves a Catholic school. Just because something happens at a Catholic school, doesn't make it right. Whoever had that idea, and taught that material, needs to be given a box to gather up their stuff, and be walked to their car in the parking lot, never to return. Then a responsible, faithful, orthodox Catholic teacher needs to meet with the class, repair the damage the best they can, and explain that they have been taught how to commit a mortal sin.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 24, 2022 23:06:02 GMT
Jone 757 is indeed problematical, and many have had an issue with it. I have an issue with it myself. Last time I heard, doing "that" was sodomy. I find Jone to be 99.5% percent reliable, but there are a few passages --- and this is one of them --- where I just have to blink, shake my head, and say "what was he thinking?". In those cases, I would cross-refer with another source. Jone is also not footnoted, and sources are omitted more often than not. It's intended merely to be a summary, a digest of the common opinions of moral theologians.
Leaving everybody ignorant about the immorality of contraception, and allowing people to think that silence means approval, is the truly "imprudent" thing here. I do think that, delicately phrased, contraception can and should be condemned from the pulpit. If children ask, the parents should simply tell them "that is something parents do to keep from having children, and it is very evil", and further explanation, if needed, can be given by the parent of the appropriate gender, fathers for boys, mothers for girls. Abortion is discussed from the pulpit quite often (thank God), and that is far more upsetting, as well as touching upon "where babies come from", information from which evidently some parents are still sheltering their children in the year 2022. (Lots of luck there!) And, yes, couples are taught NFP, but are they told in no uncertain terms that any other means is mortally sinful?
I taught my son everything about husband-wife issues --- including birth regulation and why artificial means are mortally sinful --- at an age when it was appropriate, and taught him about physiology at a point somewhat before when such things would become issues, so that he wouldn't be surprised when they did become issues. He has a healthy, orthodox Catholic view on all such matters, because that's what I've taught him.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 24, 2022 23:35:47 GMT
[ Please don't bring Jone into this conversation.... Jone, you can stick your advice where you advise your men to stick theirs. I don't know who Jone is. I never heard of him.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 24, 2022 23:39:54 GMT
[ Please don't bring Jone into this conversation.... Jone, you can stick your advice where you advise your men to stick theirs. I don't know who Jone is. I never heard of him. Father Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, originally written in German. It is a digest of moral theology and, aside from a few matters such as the infamous "757", is totally reliable, traditional, and orthodox. Right and wrong never change. Here's a link: www.homeschooldad.info/jone.pdf
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 24, 2022 23:50:22 GMT
Jone 757 is indeed problematical, I find that there is a push to accept SS marriage. For example, the New Ways Ministry and the news about the letters of Pope Francis. A Catholic college sends out a journal every so often advertising the accomplishments and achievements of alumni. In previous issues they congratulate with photos those who have gotten married. And that includes SS Catholic couples.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 25, 2022 0:05:47 GMT
Right and wrong never change. I am not so sure. At one time it was wrong to charge interest on a loan. today it is not a sin to charge interest provided it is not excessive. I read in the local Catholic newspaper that a Catholic may not support capital punishment. But people were burned alive in the past. People were tortured in the Inquisition but today torture is against human dignity. in the past it was wrong to grant marriage annulments on the basis of flimsy reasons. Only solid reasons such as the spouse was already married and hid that fact. Today it is OK to grant an annulment for flimsy reasons. The statistics show the enormous change in reasoning about what is right and what is wrong or what reason is accepted and what reason is not accepted in the granting of marriage annulments. Previously it was wrong for women to attend church with their head uncovered, it was wrong for women to teach or to read the Scriptures or to distribute Holy Communion in church. Now it is right for them to do so. Previously it was wrong to clap or to dance in church; today it is perfectly appropriate under certain conditions. Previously, it was taught that St. Michael slayed the dragon as the dragon represents Satan. Today during the Chinese New Year celebrations at Mass, the congregation is instructed that you will get good luck if you touch the Chinese dragon as it zig zags through the church aisles. Quite honestly, it does look to me like right and wrong have changed.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 25, 2022 0:28:04 GMT
Jone 757 is indeed problematical, I find that there is a push to accept SS marriage. For example, the New Ways Ministry and the news about the letters of Pope Francis. A Catholic college sends out a journal every so often advertising the accomplishments and achievements of alumni. In previous issues they congratulate with photos those who have gotten married. And that includes SS Catholic couples. None of these things represent Church teaching. It should be no secret to any one by now, that some institutions that call themselves "Catholic" engage in practices that are antithetical to the Catholic Faith. A lot is tolerated, or even encouraged, that in the past would not have been. That doesn't mean that the teaching has changed, or that the truth has changed. It's an overall collapse in the system.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 25, 2022 0:48:42 GMT
Right and wrong never change. I am not so sure. At one time it was wrong to charge interest on a loan. today it is not a sin to charge interest provided it is not excessive.The whole question of usury is more complicated than that. A recent correspondent here provided some much-needed background. Turns out, it was never a black-and-white matter. I read in the local Catholic newspaper that a Catholic may not support capital punishment. But people were burned alive in the past.We do not support capital punishment, based upon there being measures in place today, that make it never necessary in practice. Those measures and conditions did not exist at one time. Now they do. The morality of CP has not changed, but there has to be a justification for it, a justification that doesn't exist anymore. WRT people being burned alive, I would need to see Church teaching --- not just actual practice which, then as now (cf. my previous comments about the shenanigans going on today in Catholic schools), did not always line up with Catholic morality --- stating that it is absolutely to be believed by all Catholics, that execution by burning at the stake is acceptable. People were tortured in the Inquisition but today torture is against human dignity.It always was. But today, we understand the entire concept of "human dignity" better than we did at one time. For what it's worth, there are also psychological methods that some would call "torture" and others would not. in the past it was wrong to grant marriage annulments on the basis of flimsy reasons. Only solid reasons such as the spouse was already married and hid that fact. Today it is OK to grant an annulment for flimsy reasons. The statistics show the enormous change in reasoning about what is right and what is wrong or what reason is accepted and what reason is not accepted in the granting of marriage annulments. No, there is no change in "what is right and what is wrong", just deeper insights into human psychology that have led us to understand that full willful consent can be more easily impaired than was once thought. Valid marriages remain valid, and it is mortally sinful to seek a second invalid "remarriage" unless that first marriage has been found to be invalid. Previously it was wrong for women to attend church with their head uncovered, it was wrong for women to teach or to read the Scriptures or to distribute Holy Communion in church. Now it is right for them to do so. Previously it was wrong to clap or to dance in church; today it is perfectly appropriate under certain conditions. Previously, it was taught that St. Michael slayed the dragon as the dragon represents Satan. Today during the Chinese New Year celebrations at Mass, the congregation is instructed that you will get good luck if you touch the Chinese dragon as it zig zags through the church aisles. All of these things are culturally conditioned, and the Church has chosen not to take the relevant Scripture passages literally as referring to something malum in se. WRT the dragon imagery, just because St Michael is depicted as slaying a dragon representing Satan (Satan is not a dragon), does not make the image of a dragon in and of itself evil. Pigs are referred to in Scripture as having been possessed by demons (in one incident), yet we do not view pigs as evil. Lovers of bacon and sausage can be thankful for that. Quite honestly, it does look to me like right and wrong have changed.
Moral theology is more nuanced than that, hence the need for manuals dealing with it, which themselves are just digests and summaries. Many moral questions do not admit of easy, tidy answers, and moral theologians have been disagreeing among themselves for centuries, often upon fine points and distinctions. From the tenor of your questions, I think you would benefit from reading Radio Replies. It is both very informative and very enjoyable to read, it's not really a "catechism", it's a critter all unto itself. Hard to describe unless you've read it.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 25, 2022 5:58:45 GMT
; WRT people being burned alive, I would need to see Church teaching - Have you read Exsurge Domine prop 33 and compared it with Dignitatis Humanae ? One condemns the idea that it is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned. The other says that no one is to be forced to act contrary to his beliefs.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 25, 2022 6:07:56 GMT
For what it's worth, there are also psychological methods that some would call "torture" and others would not. A description of the tortures used by the inquisition is found in: A History of the inquisition of Spain vol. 1,2,3,4. by Henry Charles Lea A History of the Inquisition of the middle Ages (Vol. 1-3) by Henry Charles Lea He also names the people who were excommunicated for protesting against burning someone at the stake. Pope Innocent IV issued the papal bull Ad extirpanda on Wednesday May 15, 1252. This bull authorized the use of torture (under certain conditions) by the inquisition.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 25, 2022 6:21:12 GMT
Right and wrong never change. In the Holy Scriptures we read that religious figures such as Esau, Jacob, Elkanah, David, and Solomon practiced polygamy. I don't see where anyone in the Old Testament said polygamy was wrong for Solomon. It was OK for Solomon 2900 years ago, but polygamy is now not OK. Polygamy was right then, but wrong now. BTW, Jesus was the Son of David, no? and David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacha, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and a few others, no?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 25, 2022 14:08:20 GMT
Right and wrong never change. In the Holy Scriptures we read that religious figures such as Esau, Jacob, Elkanah, David, and Solomon practiced polygamy. I don't see where anyone in the Old Testament said polygamy was wrong for Solomon. It was OK for Solomon 2900 years ago, but polygamy is now not OK. Polygamy was right then, but wrong now. BTW, Jesus was the Son of David, no? and David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacha, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and a few others, no? The Jews were under a different law. Almighty God most certainly can change what is right and wrong, but the Church cannot. And then there is the natural law itself. That, too, can never change. Please don't take this as a personal affront --- I appreciate the fact that our discussions can always remain cordial and respectful --- but would I be correct in inferring that you are either not a Catholic, or are a Catholic who wants to see a Church where morality can change with the times and circumstances? What, then, of the Ten Commandments?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 25, 2022 14:28:04 GMT
; WRT people being burned alive, I would need to see Church teaching - Have you read Exsurge Domine prop 33 and compared it with Dignitatis Humanae ? One condemns the idea that it is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned. The other says that no one is to be forced to act contrary to his beliefs. www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/identifying-infallible-statementsThere is also the defense that heretics were seen as a kind of "spiritual serial killer" and had to be executed before they dragged even more souls into heresy, this coupled with the hope that, in their last moments, they would come to see how horrible the fires of hell would be, and would repent of their heresy even if it is too late to save their life. WRT contraception, Jone is probably not the best source, his treatment of the matter is rather cursory. McHugh and Callam treat the matter in far more depth: www.homeschooldad.info/contraception.htmlTo my knowledge, they do not engage in the troubling parsing of unnatural acts engaged in as (pardon me) foreplay, or in the suggestion that a woman must acquiesce to the perverted desires of her husband. More I could say about that.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 25, 2022 21:40:06 GMT
Then why in the sex ed courses do the Catholic authorities at the local high school teach children how to commit the sin of contraception? They don't show students how to kill their spouse either by poison or by gun shot? Good question. Catholic schools should not teach children to commit mortal sin. Presumably they may be teaching them how to commit fornication as well as contraception
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 26, 2022 0:17:38 GMT
Good question. Catholic schools should not teach children to commit mortal sin. Presumably they may be teaching them how to commit fornication as well as contraception The priest in our Catholic high school in the late 1970s taught our religion class that you did not have to follow Humanae vitae if your "conscience" told you it was okay not to. He no longer functions as a priest. The story is not pretty. The only thing I can say, is that at least it was a female instead of a male. Thank God for that, at least. I would like to think that, in light of the bad end he met with --- the story was very public, front-page news --- at least some of my classmates have had to second-guess what he taught us in class. Knowing them, though, I have to suspect that the vast majority of them never gave it a second thought, "but Father said it was okay". People rarely disregard advice that conforms to what they want to hear in the first place.
|
|