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
  #21  
Old 16th February 2011, 07:11 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/212992/c...is-like-edsa-1

Read also :

A Woman's Letter to the Bishops:
Risa Hontiveros' response to the Pastoral Letter of the CBCP on the Reproductive Health Bill.


the house is pushing this bill with a new name responsible parenthood.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17th May 2011, 01:23 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default arguments and opinions on Rh bill

1.why did Pope John XXIII and later
expanded by Pope Paul VI created the Pontifical Commission on Birth
Control? A commission whose sole purpose is to study if the church can
change its stand on this issue without the Pope's Infallibility taking a hit.It
took the experts and clergy assigned in this commission two years from
1964 to 1966 of study and what was the majority's conclusion? In 1966,
majority of this commission basically concluded that "artificial birth
control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be
allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed".

The voting in this commission went 60 - 4 (laity)
for change, 9 - 6 (clergy) for change. The majority added that the
Pope's Infallibility will definitely take a hit but to change is the
right thing to do.

2.And below is the minority conclusion/report, co-authored by a Cardinal who would later on become Pope John Paul II:

"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself,
then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlIs address to the midwives),
and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists
in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that
for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a
large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.


This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be
sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by
the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at
least not approved."

3.here is another one: the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Roman Church is never primary nor more powerful than the very consience OF man itself! My conscience tells me that my bishops are WRONG on the issue of the RH Bill. The right of the State to ensure the health of its citizens and give them education and legally recognized options to plan the growth of their individual families should never be deemed evil nor damnable by the Church. I admonish the bishops to listen to the COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCES OF ITS MEMBERS - the Body of Christ - who suffer the effects of poor education on this subject matter.

4.on this passage: "You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from the truth"
some said:
The election of a pope is a fruit of a "majority opinion". When you use the Word of God to make a point, I suggest you contemplate on it first. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

5.Before the MAGISTERIUM, there is the HUMAN CONSCIENCE! And my conscience is already tired of seeing so many children born from parents who have not planned their future ahead of time. Authentic respect from human life begins with PROPER FAMILY PLANNING!

6.what is connection between abortion and contraception?

Ron, would you please help us answer this questions and opinions. thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17th May 2011, 11:51 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
1.why did Pope John XXIII and later
expanded by Pope Paul VI created the Pontifical Commission on Birth
Control? A commission whose sole purpose is to study if the church can
change its stand on this issue without the Pope's Infallibility taking a hit.It
took the experts and clergy assigned in this commission two years from
1964 to 1966 of study and what was the majority's conclusion? In 1966,
majority of this commission basically concluded that "artificial birth
control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be
allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed".

The voting in this commission went 60 - 4 (laity)
for change, 9 - 6 (clergy) for change. The majority added that the
Pope's Infallibility will definitely take a hit but to change is the
right thing to do.

The person quoted above is mistaken about the commission. See this article for accurate information:
http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

The claim that they were concerned that 'papal infallibility would take a hit' is false and absurd. The commission was studying the new form of birth control that had recently been invented, oral contraceptives. There was no prior magisterial teaching, infallible or non-infallible, specifically on oral contraceptives because it was a new invention. So there could not have been a prior use of papal infallibility on the subject.

The basic ethical question was: Are oral contraceptives morally the same as other forms of artificial birth control that had long been condemned by the Church.

Grisez: "But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned."

"Q. why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?

"Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.

"After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception."

Church teaching is not determined by a majority vote. What if the Jews of Jesus' time had voted as to whether or not He was the Messiah? Most Jews did not convert to Christianity, so we can conclude that most would vote, 'No.'
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 17th May 2011, 11:59 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
2."If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself,
then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlIs address to the midwives),
and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists
in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that
for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a
large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be
sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by
the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at
least not approved."

The above quote reasons that the Holy Spirit could not possibly have abandoned the teaching authority of the Church, and therefore, the teaching of the Church against contraception must be a true teaching. Since this [at the time] new form of contraception is morally still a type of contraception, it too must be immoral. So the reasoning of this quote (attributed to Pope John Paul II when he was a Cardinal, but I cannot confirm this) is sound.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17th May 2011, 12:04 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
3.here is another one: the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Roman Church is never primary nor more powerful than the very consience OF man itself! My conscience tells me that my bishops are WRONG on the issue of the RH Bill. The right of the State to ensure the health of its citizens and give them education and legally recognized options to plan the growth of their individual families should never be deemed evil nor damnable by the Church. I admonish the bishops to listen to the COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCES OF ITS MEMBERS - the Body of Christ - who suffer the effects of poor education on this subject matter.

The Magisterium teaches either infallibly (no possibility of error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). The Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in teaching on faith and morals. The Magisterium teaches from infallible Tradition and infallible Scripture. So the teaching of the Magisterium is above the conscience, which is unable to teach infallibly or even non-infallibly.

The expression 'the collective consciences of the faithful' is merely a way to suggest that the faithful could vote, and by a majority overrule the Holy Spirit teaching through the Magisterium. But the majority of the faithful can go astray, they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit as the Magisterium is.

Catholics are morally obligated to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For the teaching of the Magisterium is the teaching of Christ. Should the listeners of Christ preaching, during His ministry here on earth, have been able to vote to see if a majority agreed with him?
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 17th May 2011, 12:14 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
4.on this passage: "You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from the truth"
some said:
The election of a pope is a fruit of a "majority opinion". When you use the Word of God to make a point, I suggest you contemplate on it first. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

5.Before the MAGISTERIUM, there is the HUMAN CONSCIENCE! And my conscience is already tired of seeing so many children born from parents who have not planned their future ahead of time. Authentic respect from human life begins with PROPER FAMILY PLANNING!

4. When a Pope is elected, only Cardinals vote. Currently, all Cardinals are Bishops. Also they are not voting on what is moral and what is immoral. But if they were voting on questions of morality, they are Bishops, so they can exercise the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the same as having a majority of the laity determine what is or is not moral by a vote.

5. The Magisterium is above the human conscience, because the Magisterium has the guarantee from Jesus that His Spirit will guide the teaching of the Magisterium to avoid error.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good." (CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 38.)

The bad consequence that children are born in difficult situations cannot cause contraception to become moral, because contraception is intrinsically evil. It is a type of act that is wrong by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances.

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
[...]
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Casti Connubii, n. 54-56.)

Pope John Paul II: "Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church 'is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.' And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral 'every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.' " (Familiaris Consortio, 32; inner quote is from Humanae Vitae, n. 12, 14.)
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 17th May 2011, 12:17 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

Quote:
6.what is connection between abortion and contraception?

Many forms of contraception are abortifacient (able to cause an abortion). Perhaps more abortions occur from abortifacient contraception than from surgical abortions.

Contraception leads to abortion because both are based on a rejection of sound ethics in the area of sexuality and procreation.

Pope John Paul II: "It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

"But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

"The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 30th May 2011, 12:21 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

There is a debate about whether or not those legislators vote for the Filipino Reproductive Health Bill are excommunicated. Most Canon Lawyers say they are not:
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/201...that-isnt.html

But Pope John Paul II decided, in Evangelium Vitae:

"The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that 'a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication'. The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62).

Any legislators who vote for the legalization or spread (including specifically promoting the IUD), as well as any legislators who vote for the legalization or spread of other types of direct abortion, are accomplices. Without their help innumerable crimes of abortion would not have been committed. The above quoted determination by the Pope overrules the majority opinion of Canon lawyers.

We should also consider whether they are excommunicated in the eyes of God, not merely in the eyes of Canon Lawyers. Canon Law is like the Old Testament disciplines, it must be lived according to the will of God, sometimes dispensed for a just cause or a grave cause, but always interpreted in the light of the love of God and neighbor.

Is voting for an intrinsically unjust law that legalizes and abortifacient contraception formal cooperation with those sins, or perpetration? An accomplice to an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral sin can be either a co-perpetrator or a cooperator (e.g. Evangelium Vitae, n. 66 on euthanasia).

This question is similar to the question as to whether a women who signs a paper authorizing an abortion to be performed on her commits formal cooperation, or perpetration, of abortion. Although she does not perform the abortion, she has committed an act of perpetration, not merely cooperation, because she has procured an abortion. Her chosen act is inherently directed to the death of the innocent prenatal as its moral object. Similarly, if a legislator or citizen votes for a law that legalizes abortion or abortifacient contraception, the act of voting passes the law, thereby authorizing (or procuring) many abortions. Therefore, the act of voting for such a law is an act of perpetration, not merely formal cooperation.

All such legislators are excommunicated, regardless of whether we consider them to be co-perpetrators, who authorize innumerable abortions, or accomplices, without whose help these crimes would not have been committed.

The claim that these legislators are not excommunicated is a Pharisaical interpretation of the Canon on excommunication for abortion. This interpretation in effect says to those legislators who intend to make abortifacient contraception widely available, thereby causing many early abortions: "No, you are not excommunicated! We continue to welcome you as brothers in Christ! Feel free to continue receiving the Lord Jesus in Communion while you go about your work of arranging the killing of millions of prenatals!"

But here is what Christ said about excommunication:

[Matthew]
{18:14} Even so, it is not the will before your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should be lost.
{18:15} But if your brother has sinned against you, go and correct him, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you will have regained your brother.
{18:16} But if he will not listen you, invite with you one or two more, so that every word may stand by the mouth of two or three witnesses.
{18:17} And if he will not listen to them, tell the Church. But if he will not listen to the Church, let him be to you like the pagan and the tax collector.

Jesus says, about 'your brother', i.e. a fellow Christian, that if he sins, and will not accept correction from you, nor from a few persons, not even from the Church, then "let him be to you like the pagan and the tax collector". In other words, he is no longer to be treated as a brother in Christ, but as an outsider. This teaching is essentially on the topic of excommunication. Not only should the Church excommunicate, but the faithful should carry out the sentence by shunning such persons.

And what would Jesus say about abortion and abortifacient contraception? People give all manner of excuses as to why abortion and abortifacient contraception should be legal. But Christ says: "Even so, it is not the will before your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should be lost."
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 30th May 2011, 12:40 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,775
Default

When is the Excommunication Effective?

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

There is a question as to whether perpetrators or accomplices (in this case, the legislators) can be excommunicated prior to the completion of a direct abortion. Canon law refers to a completed abortion. The interior decision to commit the grave sin of abortion is itself a grave sin, prior to the exterior act. However, does the penalty apply to the woman who decides to procure an abortion, prior to the completion of the act? It does not, because she is excommunicated for procuring (authorizing) the abortion. Prior to her authorization, she is not excommunicated. However, once she procures the abortion, for example, by signing the paper at the abortion clinic that authorizes the act, she has procured a completed abortion and she is then excommunicated.

The Canon is based on procurement of a completed abortion, not on the completion of a procured abortion. Once she has acted to procure the abortion, she is excommunicated even if, by chance or unanticipated circumstances, the child lives. She is excommunicated for her sin in procuring the abortion, not for the outcome of the attempted procurement. Excommunication is always based on grave sin; it cannot be based on circumstances beyond the anticipation or control of the sinner (such as whether the child happens to live).

Similarly, the legislators who authorize direct abortions or abortifacient contraception are excommunicated once they authorize those grave sins. The same is true for all accomplices and co-perpetrators to abortion. Once their act as an accomplice or co-perpetrator is completed, they are excommunicated. There is no need to wait to see what the outcome may be. If the law is passed, but needs a signature of the President, and he unexpectedly vetoes the law, the legislators who voted for a law authorizing any form of direct abortion are still excommunicated.

If a person encourages a woman to get an abortion, gives her the money for the abortion, and drives her to the clinic to obtain the abortion, dropping her off at the door, that person is excommunicated, even if the woman subsequently decides not to obtain the abortion. Once the co-perpetrator or accomplices act is completed, so is their excommunication.

To say otherwise would be to base excommunication, not on grave sin, but on subsequent circumstances beyond the control of the sinner.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17th August 2011, 01:38 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default Catholic Church opposition to contraceptives 'outdated'

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/loc...utdated-170360

Speaking as author and co-sponsor of the Senate version of the RH bill, Senator Santiago said the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), which convened from 1962 to 1965, has changed Church doctrines.

"With Vatican II, the seeds of a democratic revolution were sown. In the past, Catholics simply obeyed the bishops. But now, many Catholics are no longer willing to give blind obedience to the Church," she said.

The senator said Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on which the Church bases its opposition to contraception, was based on the minority report. The majority report recognized that "in some cases, intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love" and not just for procreation.

She said the adoption of the minority report was opposed by some Catholic theologians. Santiago also cited a survey that found that 80 percent of Catholics in the United States do not follow Humanae Vitae.

"The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is one of the important reasons why the absolute authority of the Church has grown weaker over the years," Santiago added.

Santiago, who has a master's degree from the Maryhill School of Theology, said Humanae Vitae contradicts Vatican II, "which allowed for a wider basis for evaluating the morality of (sex)."

Santiago said contraception falls under liberation theology, which sees the Catholic Church as "an earthly community of human beings who have a mission that includes the struggle on behalf of justice, peace, and human rights."

"I humbly submit that the struggle for an RH bill to protect the health and quality of life of the mother and child in the context of unspeakable poverty is part of liberation theology," she said.

Santiago added that Vatican II taught the "primacy of conscience."

"Conscience is inviolable, and the individual Catholic has a right to follow her own conscience, even when it is erroneous, she said.

She said that other Christian churches and congregations have put their support behind the RH bill, including the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, National Council of Churches in the Philippines, Iglesia ni Cristo, and the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches.

She said the Assembly of Darul-Iftah of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, the highest authoritative body of Muslim clerics in the Philippines, gave Muslims the choice on what forms of contraception to use as early as 2003.

"In our country, the Catholic church is the only major religion that opposes the RH bill," she said.

Last edited by myLivingBread : 17th August 2011 at 02:25 AM.
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 02:46 PM.


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