19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe answer is obvious, Ivanhoe. You don't know what the RC's stance is on condom use? Condom's are artificial impediments to the procreative process, and constitute man's attempted usurpation of the natural law. In short, their use constitutes a violation of the natural order, and hence a violation of the eternal law, where 'natural law' refers to the eternal law as manifested in the natural order, and that which is normative for men.
No, the Church's stance.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrIt sounds very impressive, but who understand your words ?
The answer is obvious, Ivanhoe. You don't know what the RC's stance is on condom use? Condom's are artificial impediments to the procreative process, and constitute man's attempted usurpation of the natural law. In short, their use constitutes a violation of the natural order, and hence a violation of the eternal law, where 'natural law' refers to the eternal law as manifested in the natural order, and that which is normative for men.
You could have said the following, Bbarr. I have to be strict.
Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeApparently you don't understand my words, Ivanhoe. You see, the difference between you and me is that I can present the ethical theory behind the RC's stance on birth control, while you resort merely to parrotting encyclicals. Don't you remember back when you were a wee lad, and your teachers said "Joe, please tell us what this means in your own words...". Well, it is about time you learned that lesson. It is a good skill to have. Oh well, keep studyin' and sooner or later you'll be able to do more than copy and paste!
It sounds very impressive, but who understand your words ?
You could have said the following, Bbarr. I have to be strict.
Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process ...[text shortened]... .va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Cheers!
19 Apr 05
In the perspective of liberal demands directed at the Church to change her teachings it is very interesting to add the following quote from "Humanae Vitae" :
Concern of the Church.
18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
19 Apr 05
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr, please understand my humour. You are always so good in understanding your own.
Apparently you don't understand my words, Ivanhoe. You see, the difference between you and me is that I can present the ethical theory behind the RC's stance on birth control, while you resort merely to parrotting encyclicals. Don't you ...[text shortened]... r later you'll be able to do more than copy and paste!
Cheers!
If I would describe these stances in my own words certain people, you know who I'm talking about 😉, would immediately demand to reveal my sources. That's why I give them right away. It saves me a lot of trouble.
Cheers.
EDIT I: I considered your answers a bit too general. What you said more or less applies to everything the Church teaches in the ethical field. It was not specific enough to my liking, but no man overboard; you passed the test. Congratulations.
EDIT II: By the way Bbarr, you surely know the famous American expression
" **** 'm, if they can't take a joke." 😛
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOh, O.k. No harm done. The answers I provided were general because I was trying to explain the meta-ethical position of the RC; the foundational ethical views from whence their stances on particular ethical questions are derived. Sorry for being snippy, I thought you were goading me.
Bbarr, please understand my humour. You are always so good in understanding your own.
If I would describe these stances in my own words certain people, you know who I'm talking about 😉, would immediately demand to reveal my sources. That's why I give them right away. It saves me a lot of trouble.
Cheers.
EDIT: I considered your answers a bi ...[text shortened]... ou surely know the famous American expression
" **** 'm, if they can't take a joke." 😛
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWould you say the conservatives here also behave like their storied counterparts?
Well BDP, if I look at my experiences with certain people on RHP who call themselves liberal I must say that this description is frightfully correct ..... please don't take the pies to literal in this case.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's clear; at least it says that the Church interprets ...
In the perspective of liberal demands directed at the Church to change her teachings it is very interesting to add the following quote from "Humanae Vitae" :
Concern of the Church.
18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and ...[text shortened]... ican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAccording to Canon 915, the only people who are to be refused Holy Communion (ne admittantur)
I found an article that summarises a number of issues we have been discussing at RHP. It is about Freedom of Speech, the Separation of Church and State and the flawed way "liberals" interprete the latter to sqeeze religion out of the political debate and to silence the Church. It is a form of liberal censorship, a form of intolerance and liberal bigotry.
...[text shortened]... s been a rich integration of the religious and the public square in the history of this country.
are people who are in a 'state of grave sin.' While this would include people who have had an
abortion, I don't see how it could include people who, in the course of public servitude, legally
permit abortion (but who themselves frown upon it). The argument has been made that such
people 'enable' abortion, a crime against humanity in the eyes of the Church.
However, being 'Pro-War' is also a crime against humanity; the Church was staunchly Anti-War
and, given that the war has taken all manner of life, including a great number of innocents, it
seems inconsistent to deny Pro-Choice political figures Eucharist while permitting those who are
Pro-War to commune.
If the Church is going to take a stance on who should and shouldn't commune, then I feel She
should be consistent about it. Those who are 'Pro-Choice,' 'Pro-War,' 'Anti-Welfare,' 'Anti-Medicaid,'
'Pro-Big Business Tax Cuts,' 'Pro-Death Penalty,' among other stances.
Being 'Pro-Life' entails more than just protecting the unborn; it means all life. When the Church
only takes a ne admittantur stance on only one aspect of being Pro-Life, then it is doing so
not for moral reasons, but political ones.
Nemesio
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioSomeone who had an abortion is no more in a 'state of grave sin' then someone who had committed adultery. I think the greater sin is taking an active pro-abortion political position. The person who had an abortion can ask for forgiveness. The pro-abortionist is unrepentant, so their sin remains, and they are in a 'state of grave sin.' The RCC is right to deny them communion.
According to Canon 915, the only people who are to be refused Holy Communion (ne admittantur)
are people who are in a 'state of grave sin.' While this would include people who have had an
abortion, ...
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiMadness. As no one ever answered the central point I'll state it again: a politician who is pro-choice is merely adopting a position that there should be no criminal laws against abortion in this country. He may personally believe that abortion is wrong or sinful but not believe that that position must be codified in the criminal law. And the same logic would apply to those politicians who oppose laws against artificial contraception. AND those who vote for these politicians! Won't be very many people taking communion in RC churches in the US if these rules are followed.
Someone who had an abortion is no more in a 'state of grave sin' then someone who had committed adultery. I think the greater sin is taking an active pro-abortion political position. The person who had an abortion can ask for for ...[text shortened]... a 'state of grave sin.' The RCC is right to deny them communion.