OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 06:18:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: JP II saved the RCC from from going the way of the Anglican Communion  (Read 6404 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #90 on: May 05, 2011, 01:23:04 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church's stance on contraception is the butt of one of the most well known jokes in this country, if not the world.  While I will concede there may be some who are ignorant of the matter, the vast majority of baptised Catholics who use contraception know they are doing it against the explicit teaching of their church.  You are either being obtuse, naive, or downright deceitful if you say otherwise.

I will agree with you that most Roman Catholics know that their church teaches against contraception, and that they are going against the teaching by doing it anyway, but I disagree that everyone understands that it is a mortal sin and what that means.

Most of the younger Catholics don't even understand the mortal/venial distinction anymore, so for them to understand the gravity of this would be impossible. My mother has been Roman Catholic all her 64 years on this earth, and while she understands the gravity of a mortal sin and what it means, earlier this year she was shocked and completely disagreed that it was a mortal sin to miss church on Sunday for no good reason, the "Sunday obligation".
Logged
quester
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #91 on: May 05, 2011, 01:35:29 PM »

Now, such an occurrence, if it does not involve the willful entertainment of lascivious thoughts during the day (which can lead to nocturnal emissions), is not considered a sin, as such, but a manifestation of our fallen state (see the fourth Canon of St. Dionysios of Alexandria).

Interesting read. I have no problem with the belief that nocturnal emissions are a manifestation of our fallen state. That position makes a lot more sense to me than to say having nocturnal emissions makes you guilty of sin, whatever the circumstances may be.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #92 on: May 05, 2011, 01:41:07 PM »

It's a sad fact today that many people think that Catholic teaching is negotiable based on "extenuating circumstances" or the primacy of their "conscience." This they get from the surrounding society and from wishy-washy boomer priests.

Contraception is grave matter, and with full knowledge and consent of the will, it can  be a mortal sin. But I am not in the business of saying who is going to hell or not. I do not have window into their souls and cannot judge the level of their culpability.

Perhaps IrishHermit likes to do that, but I will not. I will say that no matter what percentage of people allegedly practice it, that is not a reasonable argument for changing an immemorial teaching about the divine plan for human sexuality.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 01:41:46 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #93 on: May 05, 2011, 01:53:17 PM »

I was really happy to hear that B XVI was thinking about loosening the rules for the use of contraception in the RCC towards the end of last year.  I thought to myself "finally", but then he had to go and retract his statements (Or did he, I think the retraction was made only by the CDF, but correct me if I'm wrong). 

He was considering no such thing. He was speculating in an interview about the use of condoms for purposes other than contraception. He stated that condoms are not a solution but suggested that a male prostitute putting a condom on before sex with a male client so as to reduce the risk of the client contracting HIV could be the beginning of a moral awareness in the midst of what is entirely an immoral and disordered act. In other words, the consideration of the health of the client he is penetrating is the first fleeting sign of a moral awareness, the deepening of which would involve the disavowal of all homosexual and prostitution acts.

Contraception was not addressed in this part of the informal interview. And even if the Pope said in this interview that married couples could contracept all they like, it would raise doubts about Benedict's state of mind, but it wouldn't change the teaching. He's only the pope, not a direct oracle of God whenever he opens his mouth.  Wink

Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,407


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 05, 2011, 01:56:12 PM »

Again, when it comes to this thread, why does it always seem to devolve into a discussion among Catholics as to what their Church does or doesn't teach about sex and apparently, related guilt? Can someone out there provide a cogent answer?
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #95 on: May 05, 2011, 04:30:52 PM »

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=11084

Benedict on contraception, circa 1996
November 23, 2010, 5:46 pm Posted by Peter Steinfels



When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, I read Salt of the Earth, one of the previous volumes of interviews with Peter Seewald, and was very struck by what Ratzinger, circa 1996, had to say about contraception.  You can find it on pp. 200-203 of the English-language edition published by Ignatius Press.  Perhaps one of the more than a hundred commenters on the previous post on Benedict’s statement on condoms in the new Seewald volume of interviews has already pointed this out.  If so, it’s worth bringing to the fore anyway. 

In Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger was sympathetic to the difficulty that many Catholics had in understanding the church’s teaching on contraception.  “We ought to look less at the casuistry of individual cases,” he said, “and more at the major objectives that the Church has in mind.”

He described those objectives as three.  “The first and most fundamental is to insist on the value of the child in society. . . . to recover the original, true view that the child, the new human being, is a blessing,”  in contrast to a contemporary view of children as threats and burdens.

The second was to oppose a separation of sexuality from procreation, which he illustrated with a reference to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World  “in which sexuality is something completely detached from procreation.”   Children become products, quite apart from the relationships of men and women.

The third was the concern that humans not imagine they can “resolve great moral problems simply with techniques, with chemistry” rather than by how we live.

When I read this back in 2005, I was struck by the fact that none of these concerns bears on what for many Catholics was the crucial difficulty of Humana Vitae, its insistence that each and every act of sexual intercourse had to be open to the transmission of life or at least not deliberately prevent it, and that to do the latter would be seriously sinful.  Openness to children as blessings,  refusal of a drastic separation of sexuality from procreation, recognition that moral problems cannot be resolved by technique or technological manipulation — all of these “major objectives” are compatible with using contraception under some circumstances and to some extent.  Certainly they do not imply the never-ever of Humanae Vitae.

My impression that Ratzinger had a more flexible view on the matter than did the encyclical (or John Paul II) was confirmed by the closing exchange between Seewald and the then-head of the Holy office;

Seewald:  “The question remains whether you can reproach someone, say a couple who already have several children, for not having a positive attitude toward children.”

Ratzinger: “No, of course not, and that shouldn’t happen either.”

Seewald: “But must these people neverthless have the idea that they are living in some sort of sin if they . . . ”

Ratzinger: “I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one’s spiritual director, with one’s priest, because they can’t be projected into the abstract.”   

Is it possible that Benedict’s statement on condoms now getting such publicity is rooted in convictions that the pope has long had, convictions that look more to the general standards and orientation by which people and societies live and less to absolute principles regarding individual acts?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
quester
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #96 on: May 05, 2011, 04:39:04 PM »

Well, if I understand correctly, the Orthodox view of contraception is that it is wrong for materialistic and selfish reasons, but permissible in cases where circumstances are such that raising children would be extremely difficult, although the overall use of contraception is to be limited and for a short period only. Do correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Perhaps this is also the view of Benedict XVI on the matter?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 05, 2011, 07:44:38 PM »

Nocturnal emissions are male business. I've had them along with vivid dreams at times when I was not indulging in self-abuse and did not have lustful feelings at all. Did I sin because I dreamed of having sex? I'd be willing to consider that such dreams can be brought about by demons but who's to say that has to be the case? Moreover, you don't have a strong libido by choice, unless you take testosterone perhaps, and that's not advisable unless you suffer from testosterone deficiency. I agree with the poster who said that to consider nocturnal emissions a sin is reprehensible, and I'm not Roman Catholic but an Orthodox catechumen. And yes, I have talked about the issue to my priest.

Some of this discussion depends upon how one views sin and confession.  I raised a son alone so I have some idea of what goes on both in a man's mind and with his body.  He was very open with me for many years, and had an exceptionally active libido.  We often talked about ways that he could bring all that surging under control.  One of the things I suggested that he do was to confess all lustful thoughts and ask for the grace of the sacraments to help control those unanticipated times of fluid release...whenever they occurred.  We also worked with diet to try to help keep things humming along at a dull roar.

When he managed to take things seriously and keep a conscious and prayerful rein on himself, those involuntary moments decreased in frequency and in intensity.  He did not restrain himself into his early manhood, however, and left the Church and now pursues a very different kind of life.  We don't talk any longer about what belongs in the confessional and what does not.

The sexual struggles that we have are part of the post-lapsarian world and were it not for that we'd not be discussing the spiritual struggle to keep lusts and sexual urgings of any kind under control.  So it is in that light that we should take our struggles into the confessional...not always to ask forgiveness but to ask for grace to keep unruly urgings under better control...with the end goal of stilling all inordinate passions.   When we achieve custody of our senses, then the kinds of involuntary release that we are discussing here also diminish. 

Women have similar kinds of involuntary sexual release during sleep.  That too can be mastered...to a greater or lesser degree depending on the person, and the struggle, and the grace....

M.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: May 05, 2011, 07:51:37 PM »

I consider it a miracle that the constant teaching on contraception was not jettisoned during this chaotic time.


Jettisoned by the Catholic faithful.  In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church.  That's an enormous number of Catholics on their way to hell.

So during the long pontificate of Pope John Paul more Catholics went to hell than any other period of history.
That is assuming that 100% of those who artificially contracepted had full knowledge that what they were doing is wrong. Full knowledge is one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal.

And then there's the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  We also don't know how many availed themselves of that after using artificial contraception with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.

We're always on dangerous ground when we pronounce who is or isn't going to hell.

The Roman Catholic teaching used to be (is it still?) that mortal sin removes sanctifying grace from the soul.  It is dead.   The consequence of that is that it must go to hell. 

There are then two ways to avoid hell:

1.  Confession and sacramental absolution from a priest
2.  An act of perfect contrition.


Is this still the teaching?


This was rock solid Roman Catholic teaching in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Nobody has answered the question if it still is?  Do Catholics not know?

Lying, stealing, gossiping over the back fence and fornicating are all grave matter...Most of us do one of those things regularly in one form or another and we justify it as well...taking our behaviors right off the sin-map.

IF your logic were to rule then there would be no point in keeping the Decalogue up and running either.

So you are just a puff of bluster here as far as the reality of sin is concerned.


How amazing!   Instead of answering a very simple question you resort to huffing and puffing and denigrating the questioner.   Looking through your posts we see that you very often refuse to offer answers but instead make denigratory comments about the persons asking the questions.

I must admit that I did not expect this treatment over this question.  It is such a simple question and capable of being given a simple answer. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 05, 2011, 07:55:20 PM »

I consider it a miracle that the constant teaching on contraception was not jettisoned during this chaotic time.


Jettisoned by the Catholic faithful.  In the States the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Family Planning estimates that 97% of Catholic marrieds are using forms of contraception considered mortally sinful by their Church.  That's an enormous number of Catholics on their way to hell.

So during the long pontificate of Pope John Paul more Catholics went to hell than any other period of history.
That is assuming that 100% of those who artificially contracepted had full knowledge that what they were doing is wrong. Full knowledge is one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal.

And then there's the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  We also don't know how many availed themselves of that after using artificial contraception with full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.

We're always on dangerous ground when we pronounce who is or isn't going to hell.

The Roman Catholic teaching used to be (is it still?) that mortal sin removes sanctifying grace from the soul.  It is dead.   The consequence of that is that it must go to hell. 

There are then two ways to avoid hell:

1.  Confession and sacramental absolution from a priest
2.  An act of perfect contrition.


Is this still the teaching?


This was rock solid Roman Catholic teaching in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Nobody has answered the question if it still is?  Do Catholics not know?

Lying, stealing, gossiping over the back fence and fornicating are all grave matter...Most of us do one of those things regularly in one form or another and we justify it as well...taking our behaviors right off the sin-map.

IF your logic were to rule then there would be no point in keeping the Decalogue up and running either.

So you are just a puff of bluster here as far as the reality of sin is concerned.


How amazing!   Instead of answering a very simple question you resort to huffing and puffing and denigrating the questioner.   Looking through your posts we see that you very often refuse to offer answers but instead make denigratory comments about the persons asking the questions.

I must admit that I did not expect this treatment over this question.  It is such a simple question and capable of being given a simple answer. 

Poor you!!....
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 05, 2011, 08:03:13 PM »

This topic has meandered FAR from the OP and, as such, I'm closing it.  If you want to continue the discussion on sex and the RCC, search for any number of threads on it.  If you want to continue to discuss contraception, we have a number of threads on that topic, as well.  Mortal/venial sin distinction?  There's a thread for that, too.  Indeed, the pet topics re: the RCC is like the Apple store: there's already an app for it.

Thank you for your continued participation here at OC.net.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.074 seconds with 38 queries.