S
SpiritualAntiseptic
Guest
Because you seem only interested in the end result as the determination of morality.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Do you really believe that?
The end result is one easily understood determination, but I'll settle for an alternative - but it actually has to explain, that is, it has to take me from where I am to understanding. Keep saying "one is distorted and one is not" doesn't do that.Because you seem only interested in the end result as the determination of morality.
The end result is one easily understood determination, but I'll settle for an alternative - but it actually has to explain, that is, it has to take me from where I am to understanding. Keep saying "one is distorted and one is not" doesn't do that.
I'm looking for a way I can make sense of your position. So far I'm not getting that. Telling me "the problem is [my] philosophic outlook" doesn't really help.Then the problem is in your philosophical outlook.
If I accept or reject a particular premise, then I am going to reject any argument not in line with it.
I'm looking for a way I can make sense of your position. So far I'm not getting that. Telling me "the problem is [my] philosophic outlook" doesn't really help.
I don't hold that similar result necessarly means similar morality, but lacking a difference in result I'm looking to be shown a difference somewhere else. We certainly don't need to be working in a utilitarian framework.I am sure you are being genuine in your desire to understand the issue. I am not going to insult your intelligence by dancing around the fact that it comes down to what you accept about the universe.
for example, if a person believes the only truth that can be known is through empirical evidence, then there is no reason to try and prove God to them. It is impossible under their accept premises.
If you believe that if the result of different acts makes the morality of the means equal, then there is no use discussing it further.
Vatican II says: The Bishops proclaim Christs doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, they maintain the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, authentically teach matters of faith and morals, and are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
Lumen Gentium § 25b.
Five conditions are therefore required:
Collegial action.
It is clear that the bishops must be involved in an exercise of teaching authority as one body.
As judges.
The bishops must be free to express their own considered opinion.
In service of the faith of the whole Church.
The bishops must listen to the Word of God and the sensus fidelium.
Regarding faith and morals.
The teaching must concern matters relating to the object of faith.
In a teaching consciously imposed as definitive.
The bishops must want to impose the doctrine as definitely to be held.
I don't believe there has ever been a single infallible decision that would mee this criteria.
additionally, I need someone to define what "regarding faith and morals" truly encompasses, as It shifts around like a sapling in a windstorm when you try and pin it down.
I was a devout, practicing RC from 1969 to 1992. I did not believe nor did I hear anyone say that any RC teaching on birth control was infallible. Nor has there been any infallible pronouncement since (comparable to IC and the Assumption). What made it infallible since 1992?Your claim is unsubstantiated. What dispute there is, is not coming from the Magisterium but rather spear-headed by dissenting Catholics and people outside the formal boundaries Church who cannot alter the Church's teaching on morality. Perhaps they don't like the Church's teaching which goes against their sexual desires. Rather, Catholic magisterial documents consistently speak of the objective immorality of contraception, such as any USCCB doc on contraception, Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, the Catechism, not to mention the teaching of the historical Church affirmed by the Magisterial doc Vademecum for Confessors which clearly said, "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful."
The magisterium has spoken consistently. At a minimum, even the wiliest dissident is faced with the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium making this teaching infallible. Your watering down the certainty of this teaching from the Church is not accurate or realistic. Even if UB were to switch out "infallible" with "the highest certainty" the point he was trying to make would still stand. There is no indication that the Church's teaching on birth control resembles a pius theory like limbo which was always posited as a possibility rather than as a truth. UB is right to recognize contraception as evil in the eyes of the Church.
I was a devout, practicing RC from 1969 to 1992. I did not believe nor did I hear anyone say that any RC teaching on birth control was infallible. Nor has there been any infallible pronouncement since (comparable to IC and the Assumption). What made it infallible since 1992?
Nor during those 23 years did I ever hear the term, "Ordinary Magisterium". Is all this stuff just made up by EWTN types?
I was a devout, practicing RC from 1969 to 1992. I did not believe nor did I hear anyone say that any RC teaching on birth control was infallible. Nor has there been any infallible pronouncement since (comparable to IC and the Assumption). What made it infallible since 1992?
Nor during those 23 years did I ever hear the term, "Ordinary Magisterium". Is all this stuff just made up by EWTN types?
I know that's what you think of it.They are two different things. One is a series of different actions (sex) and inactions (abstaining). The other is a single action that has been changed from its normal state. Sex with contraception is giving oneself partially to their spouse during sex, thus objectifying and twisting the marital act. You have a specific action which has been made sinful by alteration. Sin is usually something which is good that is altered or improperly done in some way. Eating is good, gluttony is not. Sex is good, prostitution is not, etc.
NFP does not change any aspect of the act itself. Abstaining from sex is not a sin. Thus, NFP is a method of choosing when to have sex that in no way changes the sexual act. Abstaining from sex during certain periods is not a sin.
Hey, I was right!Catechesis had not been great for a few decades up until organizations like Catholic Answers stepped up to the task in the 90s. But ultimately your personal experience is irrelevant as to whether or not the Church has pronounced a teaching.
Search the word "birth" on this Q&A page at the Catholic Answers website. There might be other pages too, but this one gives the example you request. I don't have transcripts of the radio show to see if I can find you a radio episode echoing that sentiment.And I've never heard Catholic Answers claim that the teaching on birth control is infallible. Got a program number and speaker?
I came up first with almost the opposite to what you claim.Search the word "birth" on this Q&A page at the Catholic Answers website. There might be other pages too, but this one gives the example you request. I don't have transcripts of the radio show to see if I can find you a radio episode echoing that sentiment.
Sentient Catholics don't scruple about their own infallibility. Just because I'm not infallible, I'm not some psycho who breaks into a cold sweat at night wondering if the consistent Church teaching on birth control has met the criteria for infallibility via the Ordinary Magisterium. I think it's obvious that it has been taught definitively and infallibly, and I'm not going to worry about people who can't see the consistency of the teaching. Funny enough, I cited the infallibility of this teaching via the Ordinary Magisterium even before I saw the Catholic Answers page saying the same thing.So we're just dealing with the uninfallible opinion of some un-named person at Catholic Answers.
LOL,... it's the inconsistency attached to the fear that only attends what keeps me up at night,... or used to when I was a young RC.Sentient Catholics don't scruple about their own infallibility. Just because I'm not infallible, I'm not some psycho who breaks into a cold sweat at night wondering if the consistent Church teaching on birth control has met the criteria for infallibility via the Ordinary Magisterium. I think it's obvious that it has been taught definitively and infallibly, and I'm not going to worry about people who can't see the consistency of the teaching. Funny enough, I cited the infallibility of this teaching via the Ordinary Magisterium even before I saw the Catholic Answers page saying the same thing.
Plus, all of us must make reasoned decisions, including answering the question of whether there is a God, even though we are fallible. Despite that reality, there will always be non-Catholics who demand that Catholics scruple about their certainty of Church teaching. These critics will not hold their own view of Biblical infallibility, or that they could be fallible in saying there's a God, to the same standard. Will the honest critic admit that he is fallible and thus argue that we have no cause to trust the Bible or that we who say there is a God are saying it as fallible persons? Will the honest critic make sure you know that his very criticism is neither infallibile, and thus we should dismiss the critic's contra-Catholic rant as quickly as he wishes us to dismiss Catholicism for the same reason?
Ultimately, such critics have no effect on the Church's infallibility and they discredit their own belief system entirely.
Who here has implied you were a pscho*snip*
Sentient Catholics don't scruple about their own infallibility. Just because I'm not infallible, I'm not some psycho who breaks into a cold sweat at night wondering if the consistent Church teaching on birth control has met the criteria for infallibility via the Ordinary Magisterium.
Sentient Catholics don't scruple about their own infallibility. Just because I'm not infallible, I'm not some psycho who breaks into a cold sweat at night wondering if the consistent Church teaching on birth control has met the criteria for infallibility via the Ordinary Magisterium. I think it's obvious that it has been taught definitively and infallibly, and I'm not going to worry about people who can't see the consistency of the teaching. Funny enough, I cited the infallibility of this teaching via the Ordinary Magisterium even before I saw the Catholic Answers page saying the same thing.
Plus, all of us must make reasoned decisions, including answering the question of whether there is a God, even though we are fallible. Despite that reality, there will always be non-Catholics who demand that Catholics scruple about their certainty of Church teaching. These critics will not hold their own view of Biblical infallibility, or that they could be fallible in saying there's a God, to the same standard. Will the honest critic admit that he is fallible and thus argue that we have no cause to trust the Bible or that we who say there is a God are saying it as fallible persons? Will the honest critic make sure you know that his very criticism is neither infallibile, and thus we should dismiss the critic's contra-Catholic rant as quickly as he wishes us to dismiss Catholicism for the same reason?
Ultimately, such critics have no effect on the Church's infallibility and they discredit their own belief system entirely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?