are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

[ebia]

are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

I think we should forget about roman catholicism and concentrate on our own church from now on. The RC's are way too out there, they're in a different world than our own.

I disagree complete. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm exploring this issue with our Roman brothers-in-Christ as a critical friend.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I disagree complete. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm exploring this issue with our Roman brothers-in-Christ as a critical friend.

Just don't let 'em "take ya away"

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him.
And shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation
[Reve 6:6/14:8]

Revelation 6:6 And I hear a voice in midst of the four living-ones saying: "choinex of grain/wheat a denari and three choinex of barleys a denari, and the oil and the wine no you should be injuring".
[John 11:48]

 

[MrPolo]

Nobody seems to be able to give a consistent unflawed reason why "contraception is a perverted use of a human gift" and timing one's sex with the aim of achieving the same is not beyond "because we say so".

Perhaps because UB's two threads have both gone into the direction of contraception, I should just link to my explanations over there. But I'll also post some of the briefer comments I think may summate Catholic teaching on the matter. I think accusing the Church of "because we say so" does zero respect to the fact that the Catholic Church has rationale for teaching as She does. That's really an impoverished "James White" type of an argument that he would never use against, say, St. Paul for teaching something authoritatively.

But in short, contraception is wrong, not just because God said so (ahem, cough, through the Catholic Church as we understand) but because of its very nature against the gift. Also, I think I gave you a very reasoned answer as to why it is wrong vs. abstinence in post 51, too.

In the other thread I wrote this: "It is sinful because it is a violation of the natural law and an affront to the gift of sexuality, frustrating a part of the giving of the self which sex is."

I think if you read through the links I gave in post 47 in this thread of various Magisterial documents, especially Humanae Vitae or JP2's Theology of the Body, you will find much more scholarly and in depth discussion on the very meaning of being human and the gift of sexuality we have been given, over and above even the angels.

Be assured, no one is attempting a "because we say so" attitude with no merit for the teaching. The Apostles, even with their authority to do so, did not have that attitude. There really is a theology behind it not pulled out of thin air despite the flippant comments by some in this thread and elsewhere in the contra-Catholic world.

 

[MrPolo]

But abstinence acheives the same "perversion of God's plan" so
what difference does it make

I think I answered this in post 51.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps because UB's two threads have both gone into the direction of contraception, I should just link to my explanations over there. But I'll also post some of the briefer comments I think may summate Catholic teaching on the matter. I think accusing the Church of "because we say so" does zero respect to the fact that the Catholic Church has rationale for teaching as She does.

I'm trying to draw out the rational...

But in short, contraception is wrong, not just because God said so (ahem, cough, through the Catholic Church as we understand) but because of its very nature against the gift.

"It is sinful because it is a violation of the natural law and an affront to the gift of sexuality, frustrating a part of the giving of the self which sex is."

That's really no more than saying the same thing in more words. It does nothing to explain why/how one sort of contraception is that and another is not.

 

[ebia]

I think I answered this in post 51.

Not in a way that makes any sense for someone who isn't coming at it as axiomatically true, I'm afraid.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Choosing to have the act at infertile moments is contraception.
How is choosing to abstain during fertile time not contraceptive?

Having sex with someone that is infertile is not contraception. Contraception is the deliberate addition of something to render a sexual act unfruitful.

An elderly couple that has sex is not contraception. There is no sin in that. There is no sin in a couple having sex for whom it is impossible to have children.

There is a sin when the couple want to have sex and decide to deliberate make that act unfruitful.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But abstinence acheives the same "perversion of God's plan" so
what difference does it make on how you acheive that means?
Just seems sort of silly.. is there something ebia and I are missing
that you know about?

mother of 8
#justsayin

Not having sex with someone does not pervert any act. There is no sin in a couple deciding not to have sex at a given moment.

 

[ebia]

Let's step back for a moment, because what we are trying to discuss is not whether RCC teaching on contraception is correct or not, but whether RCC teaching on infallibility is correct or not.

So sticking with this particular teaching as an example:
1 is it just this teaching that is infallible or is it also the reasoning that produced it?
2 exactly what is the teaching that is supposed to be infallible on contraception (since over in OBOB there seems to be dispute about whether NFP is or is not acceptable if the aim is contraception
3 what documents/proclamations/whatever show this to be an infallible teaching?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Nobody seems to be able to give a consistent unflawed reason why "contraception is a perverted use of a human gift" and timing one's sex with the aim of achieving the same is not beyond "because we say so".

I believe I did.

The problem is that most people reading this topic have a utilitarian view of morality, even if they don't realize it. That is why they don't understand why it is morally permissible to abstain from sex to avoid children versus using contraception to make a sexual act unfruitful.

 

[ebia]

Not having sex with someone does not pervert any act. There is no sin in a couple deciding not to have sex at a given moment.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption here that one looks at, and only at, each discreet instance and not the overall pattern. A consistent choice to only have sex at certain times and not at others is as much a deliberate act to make a couple's sex-life "unfruitful" as any other method. You cannot completely evaluate something by looking at each atomic component in isolation.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

If it's intention is a concious decision to avoid conception it's as much a change to sex as using a condom.
"Abstence is not a sin, therefore NPF is not sinful" is seriously flawed logic. If that's the level of thinking going on the point has been made.

You need to approach the issue logically. Like I said, everyone seems to be taking a utilitarian approach- that the means are of no moral consequence, only the ends. That is why you say there is something wrong in saying that using NFP to lessen the chances of childhood is permissible, but contraception is not.

If you follow through your logic, then any attempt to avoid bearing children is a sin.

So let's look at this logically:
Abstaining from sex cannot be a sin. There is no way you can argue this. A couple does not have to give themselves to each other in a sexual act at every moment of existence. In a classical sense, this would be lust.

Having sex with a person that is infertile is not a sin. Elderly couples and infertile couples want to give themselves to each other fully, even if by no fault of their own they can not give their fertility.

Therefore, there is no sin in abstaining from sex when there are no selfish intentions for it. There is no sin in engaging in sex when one's spouse is infertile.

Contraception is the deliberate withholding of ones fertility during a sexual act. Abstaining is not this, nor is sex with an infertile person.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

There seems to be an unspoken assumption here that one looks at, and only at, each discreet instance and not the overall pattern. A consistent choice to only have sex at certain times and not at others is as much a deliberate act to make a couple's sex-life "unfruitful" as any other method. You cannot completely evaluate something by looking at each atomic component in isolation.

Human beings act in linear time. That means that we act only at one particular moment with factors including free will, knowledge, consent and intention.

A pattern of behavior cannot be immoral since we are incapable of acting over multiple periods of time from the same instant. You can only sin from a single decision.

 

[MrPolo]

It does nothing to explain why/how one sort of contraception is that and another is not.

I don't know how I can state it any clearer than I already have. If you actually want to label both methods as "contraception" (which itself is debatable) one perverts the sexual act, the other doesn't. So if all the posts I've already made do not include an acceptable answer to some here, I'll walk away without regret. And we can bid our "good day"'s as always.

 

[ebia]

Human beings act in linear time. That means that we act only at one particular moment with factors including free will, knowledge, consent and intention.

A pattern of behavior cannot be immoral since we are incapable of acting over multiple periods of time from the same instant. You can only sin from a single decision.

Do you really believe that?

 

[ebia]

I don't know how I can state it any clearer than I already have. If you actually want to label both methods as "contraception" (which itself is debatable) one perverts the sexual act, the other doesn't. So if all the posts I've already made do not include an acceptable answer to some here, I'll walk away without regret. And we can bid our "good day"'s as always.

You keep saying "one perverts the sexual act and one doesn't" but you haven't given any cohesive reason for saying that beyond repeating it in different words; it's obviously self-evidently true to you and not at all to me.

One last question to you though - would you agree with what SpiritualAntiseptic just said?

 

[MrPolo]

You keep saying "one perverts the sexual act and one doesn't" but you haven't given any cohesive reason for saying that beyond repeating it in different words; it's obviously self-evidently true to you and not at all to me.

Those words are the explanation. And you obviously can't even consider abstinence to pervert the sexual act because in abstinence there is no sexual act to be perverted. Now you're right, that part is self-evident. What did you think also about my reference in the other thread to Christ giving Himself entirely as bridegroom to His bride? Marriage is God's revealed figure of Christ to His Church and Christ gives Himself entirely to His bride. In contraception, which occurs in the summation of marital union, fertility is withheld by one party or other contrary to Christ's example of the marital covenant.

 

[ebia]

Those words are the explanation.

They don't explain anything to me - they just restate that the claim there is a difference, they don't show me how that is true.

 

[MrPolo]

One last question to you though - would you agree with what SpiritualAntiseptic just said?

I'm not sure I understand it.

 

[MrPolo]

They don't explain anything to me

Yes, you've made that clear.