CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > ProLife and Natural Family Planning
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10th October 2010, 11:14 PM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

Ron,

catholic Professors and apologist are divided on this issue:

"He was writing to benefit a wide audience, catholic and non-catholic, and I don't think Fr. Barcelon wrote anything heretical. He correctly revalidated Church doctrine. He was very circumspect on the aspect of change of the doctrine. In fact he stated clearly: "The Church is the guide for Catholics in moral matters. "

This is an misquote. He did not say this as his personal opinion, but that of SOME moral theologians.

He writes: "You will certainly be disobeying the ruling of the hierarchical church but conscience is the ultimate decision maker."

the broader quote:

"Although it is declared morally wrong or a sin, some moral theologians opine that artificial contraception is not seriously wrong in itself. Therefore some theologians say you can follow the dictates of your conscience, i.e., if you have more children than you can bring up as children of God, can your conscience allow the use of artificial contraceptives? You will certainly be disobeying the ruling of the hierarchical church but conscience is the ultimate decision maker. Disobeying might not be such a serious sin if other circumstances mitigate the fault."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10th October 2010, 11:48 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,566
Default

My criticisms of that priest's comments still stand.
See my detailed post above.

Anyone who agrees with Fr. Barcelon on those heretical points (mentioned above) also commits the sin of heresy.

"The Church is the guide for Catholics in moral matters."

Not accurate. The Church teaches absolute moral truths from Divine Revelation and natural law. When her teachings are not merely guidance, but the teaching of Christ on eternal moral truths. And the Church has authority over the whole world, as the only ark of salvation. She is not merely a guide, but an authoritative teacher, and She is appointed by God to teach not only Catholics but the whole world.

"some moral theologians opine that artificial contraception is not seriously wrong in itself."

All persons who opine or believe that artificial contraception is not gravely immoral, or is not 'wrong in itself' (intrinsically evil) are guilty of the objective mortal sin of heresy. One cannot cite an heretical opinion in order to establish a theological conclusion.

Conscience is not supreme. The definitive teaching of the Catholic Church on any matter of morals is not subject to nullification by the conscience of an individual. Rather, when there is a conflict between the teaching of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and the conscience of an individual, the individual must change, not the Church's teaching.

Whether or not an act is objectively sinful is independent of conscience. The conscience of any sinner frequently errs. But the infallible teaching of the one true Church never fails.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11th October 2010, 11:21 PM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default Papal Commission Second Vatican

...during the the Second Vatican Council, the pope established an advisory body, the Papal Commission on Population. The huge majority of bishops in that commission ended up supporting contraception. But because of Mt. 16:18, the pope merely ignored his commission and issued Humanae Vitae. But the bishops have full teaching and guiding commissions from Christ as well (Mt. 18:18 ), so the American and European bishops, when back to their area of influence, maintained their liberal views on contraception. Here's a quote from a Catholic site:

http://catholicinsight.com/online/ch...icle_129.shtml


The papal commission
A commission to consider problems of the family, population, and birth rate was established by Pope John XXIII in 1963 during the Second Vatican Council, and continued under the papacy of Paul VI. It came to consist of cardinals, bishops, population experts and the like, physicians, and married couples. It was supposed to be advisory, rather than definitive or authoritative. As Janet Smith shows, its composition and complexion changed over the period of its existence; from being strongly opposed to birth control it became strongly in favour of it. Its proceedings were supposed to be confidential; but after its reports were written in 1966, they were leaked to the Tablet in England and the National Catholic Reporter in the U.S. and published in the spring of 1967. The Tablet published the documents on three successive weeks, as the Majority Report, the Conservative Case, and the Argument for Reform.

This is the so called the Majority Report. It was never released by the Vatican.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12th October 2010, 11:42 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
...during the the Second Vatican Council, the pope established an advisory body, the Papal Commission on Population. The huge majority of bishops in that commission ended up supporting contraception. But because of Mt. 16:18, the pope merely ignored his commission and issued Humanae Vitae. But the bishops have full teaching and guiding commissions from Christ as well (Mt. 18:18 ), so the American and European bishops, when back to their area of influence, maintained their liberal views on contraception. Here's a quote from a Catholic site:

http://catholicinsight.com/online/ch...icle_129.shtml

The papal commission
A commission to consider problems of the family, population, and birth rate was established by Pope John XXIII in 1963 during the Second Vatican Council, and continued under the papacy of Paul VI. It came to consist of cardinals, bishops, population experts and the like, physicians, and married couples. It was supposed to be advisory, rather than definitive or authoritative. As Janet Smith shows, its composition and complexion changed over the period of its existence; from being strongly opposed to birth control it became strongly in favour of it. Its proceedings were supposed to be confidential; but after its reports were written in 1966, they were leaked to the Tablet in England and the National Catholic Reporter in the U.S. and published in the spring of 1967. The Tablet published the documents on three successive weeks, as the Majority Report, the Conservative Case, and the Argument for Reform.

This is the so called the Majority Report. It was never released by the Vatican.

Not true. See this interview with Germain Grisez:
http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

Grisez: The final report of the commission was not one of the documents that were leaked to the press, and, so far as I know, it has never been published. The leaked documents, which were misleadingly labeled, were among the appendices to the final report, and none of them was agreed upon by the majority of the 16 cardinals and bishops who made up the commission after it was restructured in February 1966, although they did approve sending those documents along to Paul VI.

I add that there were only 16 Bishops/Cardinals on the committee, and this is not sufficient to establish the majority opinion of the body of Bishops. Furthermore, even if the body of Bishops were in the majority, they cannot teach infallibly without the Pope teaching one and the same doctrine. The body without the head cannot teach.

Grisez: With "Humanae Vitae," Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium -- that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter. Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in "Lumen Gentium," 25.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12th October 2010, 11:47 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,566
Default

Fr. Abe has posted a paper published by a group of Jesuits about the RH bill. This paper uses spurious arguments from conscience and from (what we in the U.S. call) separation of Church and State to undermine Catholic teaching. See his comments and mine at the end of the post.

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogsp...alth-bill.html
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12th October 2010, 09:22 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post

2. Sex is exclusively procreative.

Every sexual act does not equal a child, so that sentence is wrongly expressed. Even a married couple who can't have children because of natural reasons can have moral sexual acts. The conjugal act is three-fold: marital, unitive, procreative.

Last edited by Brother : 12th October 2010 at 09:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13th October 2010, 10:59 PM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Fr. Abe has posted a paper published by a group of Jesuits about the RH bill. This paper uses spurious arguments from conscience and from (what we in the U.S. call) separation of Church and State to undermine Catholic teaching. See his comments and mine at the end of the post.

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogsp...alth-bill.html

Ron,
this bill must really not pass in our country, frequently asked is why is the church messing with this bill, this is political and why is the church not helping in some matters like killing, kidnapping and other crimes. why are the priest so opposed in this bill.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14th October 2010, 12:50 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
Ron,
this bill must really not pass in our country, frequently asked is why is the church messing with this bill, this is political and why is the church not helping in some matters like killing, kidnapping and other crimes. why are the priest so opposed in this bill.

The Church has a duty to oppose serious sin, including abortion, contraception, etc. because the Church has been entrusted with the care of all the souls of the world, not only Catholic souls.

Jesus has all authority in Heaven and on earth, and He has appointed the Church to teach His teaching and to exercise His authority.

[Matthew]
{28:18} And Jesus, drawing near, spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
{28:19} Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
{28:20} teaching them to observe all that I have ever commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age.”

"9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation." Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, n. 9.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Un...commentary.htm
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15th October 2010, 12:08 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

Ron,
there is one who calls the challenge, I'm not sure if he is good on this as he side with the semicalvinist a little, before here is the reply of the atheist.

This debate will shine light on the following murky issues:

1. Is the RCC current stand on RH consistent with the practice in the Bible and in religious Tradition?


2. Is it logically sound to assume that a fertilized zygote has the full rights of a human being and interfering with its development is murder?


3. Do available researches point out to the fact that avaialability of contraceptives and sex education will make people more promiscuous and less responsble in their sex lives?
(An easier version of the question: Do religiously conservative areas have lesser RH problems -- unwanted pregnancy, sexual diseases, and abortion -- than known liberal areas?)


4. Is the Roman Catholic Church -- with emphasis on the term "church" in its correct meaning -- solid and unanimous in its rejection of RH?


5. RH has been legislated in an overwhelming number of countries in the world, except the Philippines OF COURSE. Do you understand how the principles of privacy and human rights were used effectively to support RH over the RCC's assertion of being the proponents of morality?


IF YOU ARE SURE OF THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS BUT DON'T QUITE KNOW THE FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR SURE ANSWER, THEN YOU NEED THIS DEBATE WITH FATHER ABE , KAPATAS TO GO ON. THE FUTURE OF YOUR COUNTRY DEPENDS ON YOUR KNOWING THE FACTS.

the reply:

1. Yes.

2. Full right to life- Yes
Interfering withs its development? Not necessarily. An interference can be curative or can help its development. But an inteference with an intention of its death is murderous.

3.This we have to know, but Im inclined to be affirmative.

4. Of course not. Do the US citizens unanimous on its war on Iraq?

5.Oh yes, reminds me of Roe v. Wade which give the right for women in the U.S. to MURDER their OWN CHILD INSIDE THEIR OWN BODY.

Now, they want to impose a mitigated version of it in this country?

Talk about Satan masquerading as an Angel of light.

"THE FUTURE OF YOUR COUNTRY DEPENDS ON YOUR KNOWING THE FACTS."

Waiting for it. The future of our country depends on TRUTH.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15th October 2010, 02:22 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,566
Default

3. Do available researches point out to the fact that avaialability of contraceptives and sex education will make people more promiscuous and less responsble in their sex lives?

Intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and contraception, are immoral regardless of consequences and intentions. So it does not matter if the law has beneficial effects. Whatever is intrinsically evil in the law is not justified by good effects; it is inherently wrong.

4. Is the Roman Catholic Church -- with emphasis on the term "church" in its correct meaning -- solid and unanimous in its rejection of RH?

The Church is not a democracy. The teaching of the Church is not majority opinion, but truth from Divine Revelation. So a unanimous opinion is not needed.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.