|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Oct 15, 2022 16:25:05 GMT
I'm with the Church on how to evangelize about sin. Fire and brimstoning doesn't work. Spotlighting one sin doesn't work. Catholic teaching needs to be presented in a package that addresses the situations and cultures people live in. It's obvious that some people hate that idea and want to only focus on contraception. Do they even know that Humanae vitea, Theology of the Body and Amoris Laetitia are beautiful packages about Christian life? But no they think that is too touchy feely and wishy washy to factor in those things. I read a statistic recently that in Australia estimates are that 8% of boys and 20% of girls experience some kind of sexual abuse in childhood the majority of that happening in the home. And there are so many things that distort peoples view on sex. The Church has so much to offer as a model for loving family and healthy relationship life through the package of teaching. To many people, it offers nothing positive to focus on one aspect alone and think that fire and brimstoning it into them is going to resolve their larger issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 15, 2022 16:33:34 GMT
I don’t think it had a significant effect on me except as part of the broader landscape of Church teaching on sexuality. When you are single, sexual activity is a sin anyway, regardless of whether or not you use artificial or natural means of birth control. I wanted to marry a man whose main reasons for marrying me weren’t sexual but instead were that he cared about me as a person and wanted to make a life with me and vice versa. I didn’t have much respect for people who seemed driven by their loins so to speak, and that includes me not liking myself during a couple phases in my own life when I was like that. Maybe it’s a bigger issue for people with a different mindset or biology than myself. But not everybody finds this to be a big deal in their life. It is. For any couple of childbearing age or physical capability, when they contemplate marriage, one of the very first questions has to be "what are we going to do about having children, and how and when will we refrain from conceiving them at times when conception is not desirable?", with the next question being "and if we have them when we do not plan to, how is that going to work?". If they don't ask and satisfactorily address these questions, then they're just asking for problems. And as far as the "refraining" goes, there are only three options, NFP, contraception, or total (or near-total) abstinence. One of those options is mortally sinful. What then? |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 15, 2022 16:45:18 GMT
And as far as "spotlighting" is concerned, we are talking here about a mortal sin (in the objective order) that the vast majority of Catholics, at least in the developed Western countries, are resolved to commit on a serial basis in their lives, sometimes for years on end, sometimes, as in the case of sterilization, from the time of the operation until the wife's menopause. And unless it is coitus interruptus committed in a blind fit of panic at the last second, it's a sin that requires some degree of planning and premeditation. It would be awfully hard to commit a venial sin of contraception.
While it may be true that it is "part of a larger package", when a patient has Stage 4 cancer, does the doctor say "the cancer's only one thing, let's look at the overall picture --- do you eat a balanced diet? do you get enough of your vitamins and minerals? do you get enough exercise? are you taking care of your cholesterol and your blood sugar? do you have a healthy sex life? do your bowels move regularly? do you have good family support systems?". No, the patient is dying. If you don't address the cancer, through chemotherapy, surgery, whatever, the patient will die, regardless of how wholesome the rest of their health regime is.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 15, 2022 16:54:49 GMT
I don’t think it had a significant effect on me except as part of the broader landscape of Church teaching on sexuality. When you are single, sexual activity is a sin anyway, regardless of whether or not you use artificial or natural means of birth control. I wanted to marry a man whose main reasons for marrying me weren’t sexual but instead were that he cared about me as a person and wanted to make a life with me and vice versa. I didn’t have much respect for people who seemed driven by their loins so to speak, and that includes me not liking myself during a couple phases in my own life when I was like that. Maybe it’s a bigger issue for people with a different mindset or biology than myself. But not everybody finds this to be a big deal in their life. It is. For any couple of childbearing age or physical capability, when they contemplate marriage, one of the very first questions has to be "what are we going to do about having children, and how and when will we refrain from conceiving them at times when conception is not desirable?", with the next question being "and if we have them when we do not plan to, how is that going to work?". If they don't ask and satisfactorily address these questions, then they're just asking for problems. And as far as the "refraining" goes, there are only three options, NFP, contraception, or total (or near-total) abstinence. One of those options is mortally sinful. What then? With respect, I was married for 23 years. It wasn't a big deal. My parents were married for almost 30 years. It wasn't a big deal for them either, I know by talking to my mom. Some of us have lives and physical and mental and emotional stuff going on that makes something that is obviously a big deal to you and maybe to others, simply NOT A BIG DEAL to them. I don't mind you posting about this subject more or less endlessly over here because I'm free to not read it, but please accept that THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL TO SOME OF US MARRIED PEOPLE. I'm not going to give you my whole private life history with my family to explain to you why, but you insisting "It is" is rude and disrespectful to the opinions of others, and to their lufe situations, which may include all kinds of natural physical and mental health issues that are none of your business. If you still want to insist on it, I can't stop you, but you do come off as kind of obsessed with this issue and unwilling to accept that others may have different sins, different crosses, different challenges from God, that make contraception fall considerably down the ladder of importance. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 15, 2022 17:17:10 GMT
It is. For any couple of childbearing age or physical capability, when they contemplate marriage, one of the very first questions has to be "what are we going to do about having children, and how and when will we refrain from conceiving them at times when conception is not desirable?", with the next question being "and if we have them when we do not plan to, how is that going to work?". If they don't ask and satisfactorily address these questions, then they're just asking for problems. And as far as the "refraining" goes, there are only three options, NFP, contraception, or total (or near-total) abstinence. One of those options is mortally sinful. What then? With respect, I was married for 23 years. It wasn't a big deal. My parents were married for almost 30 years. It wasn't a big deal for them either, I know by talking to my mom. Some of us have lives and physical and mental and emotional stuff going on that makes something that is obviously a big deal to you and maybe to others, simply NOT A BIG DEAL to them. I don't mind you posting about this subject more or less endlessly over here because I'm free to not read it, but please accept that THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL TO SOME OF US MARRIED PEOPLE. I'm not going to give you my whole private life history with my family to explain to you why, but you insisting "It is" is rude and disrespectful to the opinions of others, and to their lufe situations, which may include all kinds of natural physical and mental health issues that are none of your business. If you still want to insist on it, I can't stop you, but you do come off as kind of obsessed with this issue and unwilling to accept that others may have different sins, different crosses, different challenges from God, that make contraception fall considerably down the ladder of importance. I meant "it is" to the vast majority of married people. I know and respect that it has not been a "big deal" in your life and the lives of some others, and my comments are not directed at you or at those people. Everybody is different. I am referring to people in the main. Most married people in the Catholic Church commit this sin because they have wants and desires that are more important to them than following the Church's teaching, and if their wants and desires were less urgent, they could more easily consider the NFP option. But as it stands, they commit the sin, live in that state, and make no effort to conform their lives to the Church's teaching in this regard. There are exceptions. Thank God for those exceptions. But, again, I refer to people in the main. Somewhere between 86 and 93 percent of American Catholics dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception, and just for the sake of argument, let's assume that this refers to anyone who calls themselves Catholic, not just Sunday Mass-goers. Okay, cut the figure in half, I'm probably being generous, but again just for the sake of argument. That's roughly 45 percent, almost half. That's a problem. And that's why I call attention to it where there is overwhelming silence otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 15, 2022 17:53:54 GMT
What is this mired in debt out of necessity? I don't grasp that. Debt is a conscious choice. It results from the choice of where to live geographically, what size house to have and the location, what type of transportation to use or own, what path one took to their career and how much debt they chose to accumulate getting there, how much stuff to have after all these other decisions are made. I have about 1,000 tax clients whom have incomes from poverty level to ones who earn in excess of a million dollars a year. That is pretty much the entire spectrum of 99 percent of American families. I see people making decent wages who can't rub two nickels together if they had to, and have had them tell me, we don't spend a bunch of money or blow it on things we don't need. I simply bite my tongue and try to help them figure out how they can pay their taxes, and not end up owing next year. One simply has to look at how our parents or grand parents lived, the size house they had, the number of cars they had, the amount of meals they cooked at home vs eating out, the number of trips they took for pleasure, and the list goes on, and compare it to what is common or expected now. Today, a kid gets out of college or into the workforce and think immediately they need a 3k sq ft house, 2 cars, a boat, a side by side, the latest I phone, and should be promoted to a management position within 6 months of getting the job. Greed and envy are rampant in todays society. I don't find it difficult to grasp at all. Not everyone has the forethought or the intelligence to plan a life that remains debt-free, or that has manageable amounts of debt. People live their lives, things happen, expenses come up, things have to be bought and paid for right now --- your HVAC system has to be replaced due to a problem that you didn't know existed, a couple ends up having an "oops baby" (regardless of their method of intended birth prevention or making-conception-highly-unlikely) and (rightly) doesn't view abortion as an option, your car dies and you have to buy a new one right now (and buy one that you know is going to be a good car, possibly even a new car instead of buying some cheaper, dodgy used car that is often "buying someone else's problems"), a family member incurs unforeseen medical expenses and even the co-pay is financially ruinous (assuming they have insurance to begin with), the list goes on. Life is complicated, and we do not have the luxury of living in an idealized society with cooperative economics, governed by social principles which ensure that everyone has a job that pays enough to allow them to live without debt that can sometime be large. Given the lack of such a scenario, sometimes what looks like "greed" is simply trying not to make a bad situation worse. Even back in the "good old days" of our financially responsible parents and grandparents, some people still ended up in poorhouses or in the predicament of Dust Bowl "Okies" (think The Grapes of Wrath) or hardscrabble farmers. My own grandmother was left a widow at age 48 during the height of WWII when my grandfather died with lungs full of dust from the coal mines and the brickyard. My father was nine years old and worked every odd job you can imagine. They did very well to have those two nickels to rub together, and, yes, they lived in debt more often than not. So if my father woke up many a morning thinking "how can I make more money today?", it was out of necessity, not greed. Look at the number of bankruptcies over the past 100 years. People don't file bankruptcy if they don't have excess debt. www.stlouisfed.org/publications/bridges/spring-2006/100-years-of-bankruptcy-why-more-americans-than-ever-are-filingHousehold debt has increased from just over 20% of GDP in 1950 to 80% of GDP currently. tradingeconomics.com/united-states/households-debt-to-gdpLook at the decrease in personal savings over the past decades. We should ignore the spike during the Covid free money period. fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERTUS home sizes are 75% larger than they were in 1910, all the while family size per unit has dropped. fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERTTo say that we as a society haven't changed drastically in our ability to consume at a rate that exceeds our needs, and our ability to fund that consumption is ignoring the reality of today. No one suggested that we are looking for an idealized society. I am simply pointing out that our parents, and grand parents and those before them, lived with what they needed, not what they wanted. Today we live with what we want at the cost of what we need. It is gluttony, pride and envy all rolled into one societal lifestyle and has become the norm. You often speak of the sexual sins, contraception, abortion, sex outside of marriage, etc. as having become the norm, and we need to focus on making changes to that. How does our demand for worldly things fit into that. I say it goes hand in hand, and it starts well before anyone thinks of sex. When children are 6 years old they aren't thinking of sex, they are thinking of getting the toy the other kids are talking about in school or which is being advertised on TV, and they want it. It is behavior learned from the parents, and may very well feed into the need at an older age of the sexual sins of which you speak. But people don't start the idea of instant gratification with sex itself. It starts much younger than that, and may at some time present itself in a sexual manner. Just food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Oct 15, 2022 17:56:02 GMT
And as far as "spotlighting" is concerned, we are talking here about a mortal sin (in the objective order) that the vast majority of Catholics, at least in the developed Western countries, are resolved to commit on a serial basis in their lives, sometimes for years on end, sometimes, as in the case of sterilization, from the time of the operation until the wife's menopause. And unless it is coitus interruptus committed in a blind fit of panic at the last second, it's a sin that requires some degree of planning and premeditation. It would be awfully hard to commit a venial sin of contraception. While it may be true that it is "part of a larger package", when a patient has Stage 4 cancer, does the doctor say "the cancer's only one thing, let's look at the overall picture --- do you eat a balanced diet? do you get enough of your vitamins and minerals? do you get enough exercise? are you taking care of your cholesterol and your blood sugar? do you have a healthy sex life? do your bowels move regularly? do you have good family support systems?". No, the patient is dying. If you don't address the cancer, through chemotherapy, surgery, whatever, the patient will die, regardless of how wholesome the rest of their health regime is. Heavens above! Your attitude towards sinners outside your 4 walls is macabre. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2022 2:55:15 GMT
Okay, let's back up and make things more clear.
There is a huge difference between acknowledging the sinfulness of something, but going ahead and doing it anyway, and denying that something sinful is sinful. If someone says “yes, I acknowledge that contraception is a mortal sin, but my spouse and I do not wish to refrain from it at this point in our lives because [fill in the blank], and we know that we lose the state of grace and make ourselves liable to eternal damnation, but we're willing to take that chance because [fill in the blank], we won't present ourselves for communion, nor will we seek absolution because we do not have a firm purpose of amendment, we'll take our chances until we are ready to renounce that sin”, then that's still a terrible thing, but it is nowhere near as bad as saying “this is no sin because [fill in the blank] and we have no intention of stopping it, and we will go to communion as we please, and we will go to confession and not mention it (and hope the priest doesn't ask), and get absolution as long as the matter doesn't come up”.
The former is human weakness, and at least has the germ of repentance one day, even if it does involve the sin of presumption, that the sinner will live long enough to repent and have the firm purpose of amendment, and that God will give them the grace of repentance. As St Augustine said, “Lord, give me chastity, but not yet”, or in this case, “Lord, give me the grace of repentance and firm purpose of amendment, but not yet”. The latter is falling for what the serpent told Eve, “you will not die”.
My comments on mortal sin being like a deadly cancer are mirrored almost word for word, minus the litany of aspects of wellness otherwise, in the book Catholicism for Dummies (unflattering title, but an attention-getter to be sure), that I skimmed at Barnes and Noble today when I was there for another reason and had some time to kill. I thought of taking a photo of the page and sharing it here, but I didn't think that was sporting of a potential customer (to think of it as "stealing" would border on scrupulosity), and I can't afford $20 just to prove a point, so I didn't do it. To the author's credit, he did acknowledge that mortal sin can consist of one particular act, and listed the classically-understood conditions of --- as even George Carlin shared in his comedy routine --- grave matter (which contraception surely is), sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will. So that teaching hasn't gone anywhere. Regardless of “entire packages”, it remains as true today as it ever was. And a mass-market paperback on sale at Barnes and Noble, that says nice things about Pope Francis, is a whole different critter than some mean old sclerotic book from a place like TAN or Angelus Press.
Not that I see myself as having anything to prove, but I am not the unfeeling ogre that I might come across as being sometimes. There are the two other conditions. WRT “sufficient reflection”, well, given the state of catechetics the past 50-odd years, many people just don't know. They may have some mistaken notion that “the Church has changed that”, especially in that it is a subject that you rarely hear about from the pulpit, and it's not asked about in the confessional --- I can't say what other people are asked about, but I never was during 14 years of using NFP. Both Jone and McHugh and Callan say that the confessor may ask, and this is echoed in the Vademecum for Confessors (emphases mine):
7. On the part of the penitent, the sacrament of Reconciliation requires sincere sorrow, a formally complete accusation of mortal sins, and the resolution, with the help of God, not to fall into sin again. In general, it is not necessary for the confessor to investigate concerning sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, however, to be an evil and a disorder. This also holds for the objective evil of contraception, which introduces a pernicious habit into the conjugal life of the couple. It is therefore necessary to strive in the most suitable way to free the moral conscience from those errors which contradict the nature of conjugal life as a total gift.
Though one must keep in mind that the formation of consciences is to be accomplished above all in catechesis for married couples, both general or specific, it is always necessary to assist the spouses, also in the moment of the sacrament of Reconciliation, to examine themselves on the specific duties of conjugal life. Whenever the confessor considers it necessary to question the penitent, he should do so with discretion and respect.
8. The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin. Nonetheless, in these cases, the confessor must try to bring such penitents ever closer to accepting God's plan in their own lives, even in these demands, by means of prayer, admonition and exhorting them to form their consciences, and by the teaching of the Church.
So there you have it.
WRT “full consent of the will”, I might --- might --- be a tad more liberal than the Church herself. Let's say there is a penitent (usually the woman, though I can't exclude a henpecked “Al Bundy” situation, farfetched, but still theoretically possible) who would be happy to use NFP, but the spouse won't consent to it, and forces the other spouse to use the contraceptive himself or herself. The victimized spouse may have no way to say “no”, they may have no choice, they might foresee that the demanding spouse would leave them and desert the family (assuming there is one), impoverish them, physically abuse them, or worse. That's basically glorified rape. I wouldn't call that a proper “marital act”. In such a situation, I don't think the spouse sins at all, in that they are more of a hostage than anything else. Let me be clear that I am not talking about the demanding spouse using contraception himself or herself, rather, the demanding spouse tells the victimized spouse “you'd better use this contraceptive!”. Again, it's difficult to see this as a “marital act”. Not everyone can leave their circumstances. (And the same could hold true for sterilization. Peggy could tell Al "you will give me sex, and you will get yourself a vasectomy so I won't get pregnant, or else I'll kick you out, take Kelly and Bud, take you for everything you've got, and you'll never see your kids again!". It might not be that drastic, but you get the idea, poetic license to prove the point, you might say.)
I might be able to add more to this, but I'll leave it at that for right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2022 23:19:44 GMT
We were at Books-A-Million tonight and I was able to get these pictures of the relevant passages in Catholicism For Dummies. Perhaps not word-for-word, but definitely thought-for-thought. This is no different than what is in the Baltimore Catechism or one of the better more recent catechisms such as Life In Christ. Is this vest-pocket, top-of-mind knowledge that everyone has, who has been through, let's say, Grade 6 of Catholic school, CCD, or even RCIA? I certainly hope so. Here they are: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Oct 17, 2022 23:35:23 GMT
This is stuff I'd have been aware of at say age 6 or 7. Very basic stuff, but Bear has noted that formation of Catholics was poor at points in the US in some places. Whereas in my case I was taught this sort of stuff at home and by my mother's cousin (who I regard as an aunt due to how close she and my mother were) who is a religous sister.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 17, 2022 23:41:18 GMT
This is stuff I'd have been aware of at say age 6 or 7. Very basic stuff, but Bear has noted that formation of Catholics was poor at points in the US in some places. Whereas in my case I was taught this sort of stuff at home and by my mother's cousin (who I regard as an aunt due to how close she and my mother were) who is a religous sister. Yes, this is pretty much Catholicism 101, but it's my understanding that many Catholics below a certain age do not know any of this, indeed, many do not even know what mortal sin is, nor what would constitute a mortal sin. For many, many Catholics, as a practical matter, it's a case of "not Hitler = heaven when you die". |
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Oct 17, 2022 23:57:57 GMT
That's me sorted the as I'm definitely not Hitler - although there are some Irish offshoots of the Hitler family. We get everywhere, the first man on Mars is going to meet a Jew and an Irishman who will have built two Synagogues and a Church. Why two Synagogues you ask? Well that's for when the Jewish guy decides the way Judaism is taught at one of those synagogues is not for him and when he changes his mind later he can go back to the first one and he can keep doing this throughout his life. The Irishman meanwhile will be going, 'this isn't how it was done when I was a boy' but will grumble and stay put.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 18, 2022 0:05:10 GMT
This is stuff I'd have been aware of at say age 6 or 7. Very basic stuff, but Bear has noted that formation of Catholics was poor at points in the US in some places. Whereas in my case I was taught this sort of stuff at home and by my mother's cousin (who I regard as an aunt due to how close she and my mother were) who is a religous sister. Yes, this is pretty much Catholicism 101, but it's my understanding that many Catholics below a certain age do not know any of this, indeed, many do not even know what mortal sin is, nor what would constitute a mortal sin. For many, many Catholics, as a practical matter, it's a case of "not Hitler = heaven when you die". I attended a 4-day mission about 2 weeks back preached by a member of a religious order that specializes in preaching missions in rural areas, and 90 percent of his talks consisted of basic catechesis on sin, salvation, the final judgment etc. I thought it was super-basic stuff myself, straight fron the Catechism, but there were likely people there who didn't know at least some of it, or who learned it decades ago as kids and forgot. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 18, 2022 0:55:58 GMT
Yes, this is pretty much Catholicism 101, but it's my understanding that many Catholics below a certain age do not know any of this, indeed, many do not even know what mortal sin is, nor what would constitute a mortal sin. For many, many Catholics, as a practical matter, it's a case of "not Hitler = heaven when you die". I attended a 4-day mission about 2 weeks back preached by a member of a religious order that specializes in preaching missions in rural areas, and 90 percent of his talks consisted of basic catechesis on sin, salvation, the final judgment etc. I thought it was super-basic stuff myself, straight fron the Catechism, but there were likely people there who didn't know at least some of it, or who learned it decades ago as kids and forgot. Anymore, I don't know who knows what, outside of TLM circles such as the parish which I normally attend. When I withdrew my son from our Catholic parish school after Grade 5, we started in the Baltimore Catechism #2 (the Father Bennet edition with the 1950's-style artwork of white kids living in a "Leave It To Beaver" universe), and after a few lessons, his knowledge gaps became apparent. I said "they didn't teach you any of this stuff, did they?". He replied they did not. He told me that the teachers left him with the impression that all sins were "grave", i.e., bad enough to go to hell for, with no distinctions made. I asked him if he wanted me to talk to the pastor (with whom I have an excellent relationship, he is respectful of my traditionalist sympathies even if he does not share them) and find out why he was taught such a thing, and he said no. We are now about one-third of the way through BC #3 (same structure, more content) and I told him today that if we finish it during Grade 10, fine, if not, it can just spill over into Grade 11. We study about five or six pages a week, two class sessions, with Scripture study (we're reading Matthew) one class per week. That was somewhat the way my Catholic school was set up, after a fashion, religion class Mondays and Tuesdays (half-credit course), Mass on Wednesdays, a secular half-credit elective Thursdays and Fridays. We take the BC #3 slow, as I'd rather cover less material more thoroughly, than more material less thoroughly. BTW, we're studying economics as the second half-credit course, two days a week. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 18, 2022 3:35:25 GMT
That's me sorted the as I'm definitely not Hitler - although there are some Irish offshoots of the Hitler family. We get everywhere, the first man on Mars is going to meet a Jew and an Irishman who will have built two Synagogues and a Church. Why two Synagogues you ask? Well that's for when the Jewish guy decides the way Judaism is taught at one of those synagogues is not for him and when he changes his mind later he can go back to the first one and he can keep doing this throughout his life. The Irishman meanwhile will be going, 'this isn't how it was done when I was a boy' but will grumble and stay put. I'm reminded here of the joke about the two Catholic priests, the two rabbis, and the two Baptist ministers who get shipwrecked on a desert island. The two priests start a Catholic church. The two rabbis start a synagogue. The two Baptist ministers start the First Baptist Church and the Second Baptist Church... |
|
