|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Humanae Vitae - monstrous hubris
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
It shouldn't surprise many people that I find Humanae Vitae a morally bankrupt document - and one that makes the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to contraception about the equivalent of an opposition to homelessness from someone who's sent bulldozers through dozens of towerblocks and managed to get new housebuilding banned.
But I hadn't realised until Fred Clark posted in the last couple of days how much the root of Humanae Vitae is in what is sometimes called The Sin of Lucifer - Pride.
For those who aren't aware, Humanae Vitae was the document that bans The Pill and other modern forms of contraception. Pope John XXIII set up a six person study into the effects of birth control in 1963 and died later that year, so his successor Paul VI took it over and expanded the Commission from 6 to 72 people.
The report that was produced by the Commission, the "Majority report" was supported by just over 90% of the membership (including all six original members of the commission; there is a common theory that that's why it was expanded). There were, however, seven dissenters who produced the Minority Report which I had never before read. And which Fred Clark called "The stupidest thing I have ever read".
The Minority Report set forth a grand total of two arguments for why contraception should remain banned (although managed to dress that up for several sides):
- It is what the Roman Catholic Church has always taught
- To admit we were wrong would undermine our authority
Don't believe me on that second point? The following is a direct quote from the Report:
quote:
Minority Report of the Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate
E. Why Cannot the Church Change Her Answer to This Central Question?
(1) The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. Whatever may pertain to a more perfect formulation of the teaching or its possible genuine development, the teaching itself cannot be substantially true. It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even though one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose those burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, throughout so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ.
If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.
To quote the same document later "For if this doctrine is not substantially true, the magisterium itself will seem to be empty and useless in any moral matter." Well, yes. And pretending that the doctrine is true hasn't helped your authority.
I've seen Evil Speeches of Evil on Leverage I'm more sympathetic to. For that matter I've seen Evil Speeches of Evil offered by the villains on Saturday Morning Cartoons I'm more sympathetic to.
I suspect by now most of you know where this is going. The Pope ignored the recommendation of the overwhelming majority, instead going for the dissent of fewer than ten percent of its members. Thus we get Humanae Vitae - a document based on the fundamental idea that to admit either the teaching was wrong or methods had changed due to human progress and needed reassessing would undermine the authority of the Magisterium.
I knew that Humanae Vitae was a morally incoherent document leading to evil (yes, I have read it) - but I had no idea until yesterday that it was based on such transparent self-serving amorality.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Church does not make errors? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
And above the Moon's orbit, all is perfect, because it was not affected by the Fall.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There were, however, seven dissenters who produced the Minority Report which I had never before read.
I hadn't read that before either. Many thanks for pointing to it, it is a very nice reference with competent summaries and copious quotations. Excellent stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Minority Report set forth a grand total of two arguments for why contraception should remain banned (although managed to dress that up for several sides):
- It is what the Roman Catholic Church has always taught
- To admit we were wrong would undermine our authority
That's of course simply false. There is a lot of argument against the "pro" position throughout the text, including an entire long section "Philosophical Foundations and Arguments of Others and Critique" which does exactly what it says on the tin. What is true is that the authors are very concerned with the effect of reversing what they consider an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Thus we get Humanae Vitae - a document based on the fundamental idea that to admit either the teaching was wrong or methods had changed due to human progress and needed reassessing would undermine the authority of the Magisterium.
The document is not saying "we can't change this because it would undermine our authority". The document is saying "this is true as an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and if the magisterium nevertheless declared it as false now, then it would effectively undermine its own authority". The difference is quite simply that you insinuate that they lied against better knowledge in order to keep in power, whereas the document is suggesting that they would lie if they appeased the demands, and in doing so would destroy the basis of their power (which is that they teach the truth).
The problem is stated clearly enough in the Minority report:
"If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church as it is."
Or in other words, people will argue the toss out of this, and it will never end. The reason why they are saying what they are saying is also stated clearly:
"The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true."
But how do we know that what she says is true? And the answer to that is:
"It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even though one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose those burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, throughout so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ. If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters."
This is a nice summary of the reason for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC. If the RCC does fuck up on something as important like this, and forces it on her faithful for a significant length of time, then she is not what she claims for herself. Period.
This is basically an "All-In" move, and the RCC has always made it. By the lights of the RCC, if you think that the RCC has erred fundamentally and persistently in her teachings of faith and morals, then she is a false Church and should be abandoned. You can be a RC if, and only if, you believe that the RCC has kept the fundamentals of Christian faith and morals safe and sound throughout the centuries. Obviously, that's news to a heck of a lot of contemporary and past RCs, but I'm not talking about what her faithful do and think here. I'm talking about the RCC's official self-understanding. The RCC is saying that she speaks Christ to the world, truly. And she precisely does not weasel out of that. There is no "well, we said that very clearly for a few hundred years, but now we have changed our minds."
Whether you consider it right or wrong, Humanae Vitae was a gutsy move, and it showed just what the RCC means when she says that she is the Church of Christ. Take it or leave it, you cannot claim that you do not know what you are getting with her.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
Actually, the real problem is not that the church does make errors, the problem is that the church cannot be seen to have made an error.
Which means that nothing can ever change - the church can never say "this was wrong, we now understand that", or even "this was right then, but now things have changed, so it is wrong".
That is wrong. An inability to admit to change, or admit that mistakes have been made is dangerous. That seems to underlie a whole lot of the RC church problems.
A church that cannot change is fossilised. And that means dead.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
This touches on a whole lot of issues (some dead horses such as Biblical inerrancy) which would make joining the RCC a serious issue for me. No matter how much the Holy Spirit can guide someone, they are still human and subject to error--in this case, in understanding or interpretation. Planting yourself so firmly as IngoB suggests just exacerbates that issue.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Galileo
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether you consider it right or wrong, Humanae Vitae was a gutsy move, and it showed just what the RCC means when she says that she is the Church of Christ. Take it or leave it, you cannot claim that you do not know what you are getting with her.
And what you get with the RCC is disregard for reason and common sense which leads to terrible results for a lot of the people who do adhere to the teachings about birth control and terrible results for the church when a lot of people realize those teachings are nuts and therefore simply disregard them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
For starters I have a strong feeling that much of the "traditional" view on contraception comes from a lack of understanding that women are not fertile 3/4 of the time. We have a few days on either side of ovulation that we can conceive each month. That's it. Every sex act is not inherently procreative.
But the modern RCC at least does know women are not fertile for most of the time, which is why it allows for Natural Family Planning.
So how it is better for marital and conjugal love to avoid sex for 1 week per month using NFP, than it is to use a condom and engage in conjugal love all month long? Given that they have the same outcome?
The Orthodox Jewish system, which I imagine Jesus and his Apostles would have known well, is that a husband and wife must avoid each other during menses and then reunite for physical contact 12-14 days later - that is, when ovulation normally occurs. RCC on the other hand says it's OK for couples to avoid each other when ovulation occurs, but it's not OK to simply avoid the ovulation and share physical love during that time.
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Galileo
Yes--how does that square with the issue raised in the document pointed to by the OP? Dogma vs. Doctrine vs. ?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Yeah, right. My grandmother believed this and found herself pregnant with her second child when her first was only a few months old. Breastfeeding typically slows the return of ovulation after a pregnancy, but it is not a reliable form of birth control.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Yeah, right. My grandmother believed this and found herself pregnant with her second child when her first was only a few months old. Breastfeeding typically slows the return of ovulation after a pregnancy, but it is not a reliable form of birth control.
I've heard that called "Irish twins" - siblings who are less than a year apart in age. And what church do Irish people traditionally attend?
Maybe that's why it's licit - because it doesn't work!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Ah! Sorry, seekingsister -- I think I misread your tone!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
Pffft! Facts, schmacts.
EWTN - What does the Church teach about birth control?
quote:
CAN BREAST-FEEDING REALLY SPACE BABIES?
Yes. More pregnancies are postponed throughout the world through breast-feeding than through any of the methods that can be called conscious efforts at birth regulation. However, this is true only of "ecological" breast-feeding in which mothers are constantly with their babies who in turn suckle frequently. This natural form of pregnancy postponement is morally acceptable. (Further documentation may be found
in Does Breast-feeding Really Space Babies?[13]
The usual spacing of babies with ecological breast-feeding ranges between 18 and 24 months. Thus the Author of Nature seems to have designed Nature so that mothers should be with their babies, nurse, and enjoy a natural spacing between pregnancies.
They are actually advocating this as a method of contraception.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
Not to say anything about the [R]CC and birth control—I'll let you all hash that one out—but trusting EWTN to speak for the Magisterium and its beliefs is like trusting my high school civics teacher who taught us Kennedy assassination and 9/11 conspiracy theories as straight-up truth (among many, many, many other batshit things) to speak for the US government.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(Oh, and it's also OK to breastfeed your child until he or she is old enough to have a full conversation with you, because breastfeeding normally stops ovulation.)
Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
Pffft! Facts, schmacts.
EWTN - What does the Church teach about birth control?
quote:
CAN BREAST-FEEDING REALLY SPACE BABIES?
Yes. More pregnancies are postponed throughout the world through breast-feeding than through any of the methods that can be called conscious efforts at birth regulation. However, this is true only of "ecological" breast-feeding in which mothers are constantly with their babies who in turn suckle frequently. This natural form of pregnancy postponement is morally acceptable. (Further documentation may be found
in Does Breast-feeding Really Space Babies?[13]
The usual spacing of babies with ecological breast-feeding ranges between 18 and 24 months. Thus the Author of Nature seems to have designed Nature so that mothers should be with their babies, nurse, and enjoy a natural spacing between pregnancies.
They are actually advocating this as a method of contraception.
The RCC certainly doesn't advocate breast-feeding as contraception. It advocates natural family planning methods that involve charting temperature and quality of cervical mucus.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The church is a "she" IngoB?
Well that is some news to me
It is run by old men
most of them round the bend
So it looks a lot more like a "he"
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Erroneous Monk, here is a link from the Catholic Education Resource Center which has several priests on its advisory board.
CERC
quote:
Breast-feeding is an integral part of natural methods. Breast-feeding not only provides nutritional benefits to the baby and protection from infections, but also strengthens the bond between mother and child. Furthermore, when the mother breast feeds without giving any supplements fertility is suppressed. It has been estimated by experts worldwide that there is only a two percent chance of pregnancy in the first five to six months after birth if the mother is breast-feeding the infant "on demand." For many breast-feeding mothers the period of infertility lasts much longer. By observing her mucus the woman can monitor the return of her fertility.
Perhaps the Vatican has not formally opined on this matter but I think between EWTN (which was founded by a nun) and this organization it's safe to say at least that Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP and that it's consistent with church teachings.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
This touches on a whole lot of issues (some dead horses such as Biblical inerrancy) which would make joining the RCC a serious issue for me. No matter how much the Holy Spirit can guide someone, they are still human and subject to error--in this case, in understanding or interpretation. Planting yourself so firmly as IngoB suggests just exacerbates that issue.
They believe that they, as the legitimate heir to Jesus and the Apostles, would not have been permitted to make such an error. Therefore, what they are teaching, and certainly, what they have taught over many centuries, must perforce be true. Therefore, if they were to change their minds on this or any similar issue, then they would in effect be denying the whole basis of their teaching authority.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
I'm sorry, who has said here that she doesn't? I haven't. Nobody else here has. The Minority Report hasn't.
The Church teaches some infallible truths. The Minority Report claims that the condemnation of contraception is such an infallible truth, by virtue of the consistent teaching of the magisterium across centuries. Whether one believes that or not, it does not even remotely allow your conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which means that nothing can ever change - the church can never say "this was wrong, we now understand that", or even "this was right then, but now things have changed, so it is wrong".
Of course the Church can say such things, where they are applicable. JPII was sort of famous for apologising. What one can say is that prior to Vatican II the Church did not really make official apologies to the public, but if she acknowledged faults among her members then rather dealt with their wrongdoings internally. A famous exception to the rule is Pope Adrian VI's address to the 1522 Diet of Nuremberg. While lacking a proper "sorry", it was very candid about the state of the Church and the need of reforms. Of course, the German princes used this admission of grievous fault in the Church to justify a rejection of the papal demands concerning Luther. I don't know how much impact this negative result had, but it sure did not encourage any further candour.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
For starters I have a strong feeling that much of the "traditional" view on contraception comes from a lack of understanding that women are not fertile 3/4 of the time. We have a few days on either side of ovulation that we can conceive each month. That's it. Every sex act is not inherently procreative.
As it happens, the Minority Report discusses the claim that the Church's teaching was founded on a lack of understanding of female fertility. Perhaps you could read the document we are discussing? It's an idea...
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Galileo
Yes--how does that square with the issue raised in the document pointed to by the OP? Dogma vs. Doctrine vs. ?
Sigh. The Church did not declare dogma in the Galileo case. The Church did not even teach any official doctrine concerning this. The Church did however censor heliocentric writings, thereby de facto biasing further theological and scientific discourse in a manner that we now recognise as stupid and inappropriate. There are many causes for that, but a leading cause was certainly that Galileo exposed his foremost patron to public ridicule over sticking to geocentric ideas. That patron was no other than the pope himself, who at this time was after all an Italian Renaissance prince dealing with the Protestant challenge to papal authority.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Perhaps the Vatican has not formally opined on this matter but I think between EWTN (which was founded by a nun) and this organization it's safe to say at least that Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP and that it's consistent with church teachings.
This is baffling. Why are you people even talking about this? I can understand that people find confusing why Natural Family Planning should be allowed but artificial contraception should be forbidden (yes, I have written at length about this before, no, I don't want to repeat this). But whether breast feeding can be a viable part of NFP or not seems to me basically a practical / biological point, with basically zero relevance to a moral / philosophical discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
At least, that's how I understand it.
It's not the only thing the Minority Report is saying, but that is certainly one of its arguments.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think that at the time HV was being drawn up a cardinal privately advised Paul VI to be careful and, if necessary, publish nothing, warning that the RCC could not afford a second Galileo moment.
Shame he wasn't listened to.
In the UK Cardinal Heenan was appalled at HV and Bishop Christopher Butler went on record saying how damaging it was likely to be.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think that at the time HV was being drawn up a cardinal privately advised Paul VI to be careful and, if necessary, publish nothing, warning that the RCC could not afford a second Galileo moment. Shame he wasn't listened to.
Shame? It's an idiotic comparison. I'm not aware that anybody is claiming that Humanae Vitae contains significant scientific error. And it can be considered a "boundary transgression", like the Galileo case was if and only if one claims that sexual morals do not belong to the purview of religion. There is no chance in hell that the RCC will ever agree to that. And that's totally different from the Galileo case, where there certainly was some rudimentary understanding of astronomy as a separate academic domain even back then.
Whether the RCC is wrong or right on this issue is a moral question. And the RCC does indeed claim to teach Divine faith and morals.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The church is a "she" IngoB?
Well that is some news to me
It is run by old men
most of them round the bend
So it looks a lot more like a "he"
But of course She's a she: could a man's
Feckless pride ever work to God's plans?
Furthermore and beside,
She is Christ's spotless Bride
(And I win, cos my limerick scans).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc : ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
I'm sorry, who has said here that she doesn't? I haven't. Nobody else here has. The Minority Report hasn't.
Try here: IngoB posted this and he thinks it means something other than what it reads about the "he" who is the RCC.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
IngoB - I find it inconsistent to promote the putting up of physical barriers to conception and then point at other physical and chemical barriers and call them sinful. Telling women it's OK to breastfeed every 4-6 hours for 18 months to avoid pregnancy while saying the woman who uses condoms for a year before trying yo conceive again is violating God's plan is nothing short of absurd. The Western woman who engaged in so-called ecological breastfeeding is going FURTHER out of her way to avoid pregnancy than the one using condoms.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
It's not that I have any substantial disagreements with the OP on this subject; it's just that I wonder whether we really need another Catholic-bashing thread so soon after the last one. Those of us who aren't RC know why we aren't RC; so do we need to keep reminding ourselves all the time?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So, a long-standing teaching of the church is irrefutable dogma, unless the church after 1800 years decides to accept scientific proof against it, at which point it ceases to be irrefutable dogma and never was.
Ministry of Truth, eat your heart out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Tangent //
As a historian, I was familiar with the typical Victorian 25 month gap between breast fed babies and thought breastfeeding would be a good method of contraception. (We would not have been worried if it hadn't worked!). We have a 26 month gap. Going by historical texts, rather than medical ones, I gathered that the important thing was to have your baby sleep in the same room, which is what we did. Breastfeeding worked brilliantly as a contraceptive for us.
//End tangent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Tangent //
As a historian, I was familiar with the typical Victorian 25 month gap between breast fed babies and thought breastfeeding would be a good method of contraception. (We would not have been worried if it hadn't worked!). We have a 26 month gap. Going by historical texts, rather than medical ones, I gathered that the important thing was to have your baby sleep in the same room, which is what we did. Breastfeeding worked brilliantly as a contraceptive for us.
//End tangent.
A squalling baby is a functional versus biological contraceptive. As is a non-sleeping toddler who has figured out how to escape from the crib/cage. Just saying.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Tangent //
As a historian, I was familiar with the typical Victorian 25 month gap between breast fed babies and thought breastfeeding would be a good method of contraception. (We would not have been worried if it hadn't worked!). We have a 26 month gap. Going by historical texts, rather than medical ones, I gathered that the important thing was to have your baby sleep in the same room, which is what we did. Breastfeeding worked brilliantly as a contraceptive for us.
//End tangent.
A squalling baby is a functional versus biological contraceptive. As is a non-sleeping toddler who has figured out how to escape from the crib/cage. Just saying.
Indeed. But it was 15 months before my periods returned (or "period" as I only had one between the two pregnancies) so that was clearly biological.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That was what I heard, too,-- while there is somewhat of a drop in fertility with breastfeeding, it wasn't as effective as ( say)a condom as far as reliable birth control, and the actual day to day rigors of childrearing were the real contraceptive.
[ 12. June 2014, 22:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Those of us who aren't RC know why we aren't RC; so do we need to keep reminding ourselves all the time?
We don't.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The document is not saying "we can't change this because it would undermine our authority". The document is saying "this is true as an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and if the magisterium nevertheless declared it as false now, then it would effectively undermine its own authority". The difference is quite simply that you insinuate that they lied against better knowledge in order to keep in power, whereas the document is suggesting that they would lie if they appeased the demands, and in doing so would destroy the basis of their power (which is that they teach the truth).
The problem is stated clearly enough in the Minority report:
"If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church as it is."
You're spouting weapons grade bullshit here, IngoB.
First, and fundamentally although less importantly arguments based on reason alone should be taken with a pinch of salt because they might have nothing to do with this (or any other) world. Unless you then compare where you have reached by reason to the world (which they were explicitly saying not to do) you run the risk of producing entirely imaginary answers.
Second, and more importantly, sufficient evidence was presented that over 90% of the commission was convinced of the wrongness of Catholic teaching. 90% among a group heavily made up of theologians is more agreement than I would expect on the colour of an orange. It's third world dictator running a rigged election level of agreement. Except that it came down against the hierarchy, against the person running the election and that despite his attempts to slate pack. 100% of the original commission were pro-contraception and backed the majority report.
Thirdly, if the arguments were clear and supporting their side there would never have been the need for the Commission in the first place.
quote:
Or in other words, people will argue the toss out of this, and it will never end.
It's a theological question. Of course it will never end. Unless one side is declared heretical and at risk of excommunication. Oh wait, that's happened too. Banishment stopped Arius' supporters. It doesn't seem to work here.
quote:
The reason why they are saying what they are saying is also stated clearly:
"The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true."
But how do we know that what she says is true? And the answer to that is:
"It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history.
And this is nothing more than the sunk costs fallacy. It is not an argument from pure reason - it's one from pure pride.
And the argument is quite literally "We are right because we have said this is right."
quote:
This is a nice summary of the reason for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC. If the RCC does fuck up on something as important like this, and forces it on her faithful for a significant length of time, then she is not what she claims for herself. Period.
On that we agree.
quote:
This is basically an "All-In" move, and the RCC has always made it. By the lights of the RCC, if you think that the RCC has erred fundamentally and persistently in her teachings of faith and morals, then she is a false Church and should be abandoned. You can be a RC if, and only if, you believe that the RCC has kept the fundamentals of Christian faith and morals safe and sound throughout the centuries.
I wish it was seen as an all in move by the RCC. Because in the United States 87% of Catholic women are using a method other than NFP for contraception.
By the standards you are waving around, almost 90% of Catholic women in America think she's a false church and should leave. 82% of Catholics in the United States say that contraception is morally acceptable.
Even in the pews of the Roman Catholic Church the overwhelming majority of Catholics know that the official teachings are full of it.
quote:
Obviously, that's news to a heck of a lot of contemporary and past RCs, but I'm not talking about what her faithful do and think here.
How about what is actually taught?
quote:
I'm talking about the RCC's official self-understanding. The RCC is saying that she speaks Christ to the world, truly. And she precisely does not weasel out of that. There is no "well, we said that very clearly for a few hundred years, but now we have changed our minds."
It's at times like this you make it obvious you are a convert. You're giving the line spoken to converts rather than by second generation Catholics in my experience (that jokes about how change comes in three steps with the third being that "This is what the Church has always believed").
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The church is a "she" IngoB?
Well that is some news to me
It is run by old men
most of them round the bend
So it looks a lot more like a "he"
But of course She's a she: could a man's
Feckless pride ever work to God's plans?
Furthermore and beside,
She is Christ's spotless Bride
(And I win, cos my limerick scans).
Original too, which is a nice contrast to the lengthy quotes in this thread. Most folk are able to click on links you know.
Just sayin'
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, it's instructive to know that it was actually the minority position. That's a piece of news I hadn't heard.
I suppose there's something... refreshing... about setting up a commission and then not accepting the commission's recommendations. One can only speculate what could have happened if the Pope that set it up and the Pope that received the recommendations were one and the same.
Of course, the very notion that who your leader is could affect the doctrinal position rather goes against the whole infallibility notion. It's supposed to be a teaching of 'the church', not of its particular leader.
I find the very notion of human infallibility* massively problematic. It boils down to "what we said first was right, because it was first". It's pretty much the attitude I criticise on some other message boards where people don't like it if you pop up to point out any flaws in the first opinion expressed on a thread. There is absolutely no logical reason why the first opinion must be the right one - and yet, we all to some extent exhibit confirmation bias.
Infallibility completely ignores all the basic principles of revision. The possibility of new evidence, the possibility of changed circumstances, or just the possibility of 'road-testing' a policy and realising it doesn't actually work in practice.
And the whole 'it will undermine our authority if we change their mind' is precisely what leads to so many of the world's great fuck-ups and embarrassments. Just this morning I was told about a situation where a department didn't take our advice because it would have led to an in-house embarrassment with their Minister, and instead they were publicly embarrassed by a Parliamentary committee. Our political and corporate cultures are absolutely rife with people who try to hide their mistakes in the hope they'll go away, and time and again the mistakes instead grow.
It is just stupidly wrong to think that trying to deny the existence of a mistake works in the long term, or endears you to any observer.
*Yes, human. And no amount of claims about the Divine instituting of the church alter the fact that it's members, popes and cardinals all the way down, are human beings. Even if one claims that pronouncements come from God, the fact is that human beings are perfectly capable of (1) hearing divine pronouncements wrongly, (2) misinterpreting them, and (3) applying them incorrectly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Original too, which is a nice contrast to the lengthy quotes in this thread. Most folk are able to click on links you know.
Just sayin'
If that, sir, was a dig at my quoting large chunks of the articles I linked to - mea maxima culpa - you've got the wrong thread.
Just sayin'. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 13. June 2014, 08:42: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Original too, which is a nice contrast to the lengthy quotes in this thread. Most folk are able to click on links you know.
Just sayin'
If that, sir, was a dig at my quoting large chunks of the articles I linked to - mea maxima culpa - you've got the wrong thread.
Just sayin'.
Not at all, Chesterbelloc. I did substantially edit a quote of yours on another thread, but here I was contrasting the succinctness and originality of your verse with the everybloodythingelseness of too many other posts on this thread. It was those other posts that were the intended targets of my post.
Happy to clarify, for all concerned.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
It's important to remember that the church has an established procedure for changing its mind about infallible pronouncements. It did so when the Council of Chalcedon repudiated the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, and when the Second Council of Nicea repudiated the Council of Hieria.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's instructive to know that it was actually the minority position. That's a piece of news I hadn't heard.
I suppose there's something... refreshing... about setting up a commission and then not accepting the commission's recommendations.
This is a misrepresentation of events. The Pope who received the commission's recommendations wasn't the one who set it up.
If you're familiar with bureaucratic infighting, it's pretty clear that the Pope was trying to destroy the original commission; he increased its size by an order of magnitude before the commission he'd been handed could make its report. Because it had to report as it had been promised very publically by his predecessor. And even with his additional members numerically dominating (and I don't think any of the original commission members on the Executive Committee), the thing still went overwhelmingly against his position, so he grabbed a fig leaf, the size of which would make most politicians blush.
The whole thing is trivial to understand once you realise that the commission was set up by John XXIII to do what it intended to - but was taken over less than a year into its life by Paul VI who really did not want the thing to say what it was pretty obvious it was going to.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Happy to clarify, for all concerned.
Obliged to you, Sir.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This is a misrepresentation of events. The Pope who received the commission's recommendations wasn't the one who set it up.
Which, if you had actually kept on bloody reading instead of eagerly reaching for the bloody quote button, you would know that I know because it's what I bloody well said about two bloody lines later.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, a long-standing teaching of the church is irrefutable dogma, unless the church after 1800 years decides to accept scientific proof against it, at which point it ceases to be irrefutable dogma and never was. Ministry of Truth, eat your heart out.
What "long-standing teaching of the Church" are you talking about? The Church was never really involved in teaching astronomy. And unlike with your lot, what the RCC teaches is very well documented. So go ahead, show your sources. Where was the Church teaching geocentrism as a truth of faith for 1800 years? This is just stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Try here: IngoB posted this and he thinks it means something other than what it reads about the "he" who is the RCC.
Are you truly not getting the point that the RCC is claiming infallibility only for some of her teachings, not for all of them?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Second, and more importantly, sufficient evidence was presented that over 90% of the commission was convinced of the wrongness of Catholic teaching. 90% among a group heavily made up of theologians is more agreement than I would expect on the colour of an orange. It's third world dictator running a rigged election level of agreement. Except that it came down against the hierarchy, against the person running the election and that despite his attempts to slate pack. 100% of the original commission were pro-contraception and backed the majority report.
So what? Theologians have zero teaching authority in the RCC. Bishops, and in particular the bishop of Rome, have all the teaching authority. Likewise, while one would hope that theologians have some charism appropriate to their profession, the Divine guarantee of infallibility (under certain circumstances) is given to the hierarchical Church, not to her theologians. There is the reason why the Minority Report focused on showing that the ban on contraception was consistently taught by the ordinary magisterium throughout history. If this can be shown, then this simply is an infallible truth. If so, then all further argument about it may be interesting as an intellectual exercise, but cannot change the conclusion. Of course, you can look at counter-argument, find it compelling, and conclude that an organisation that claims the opposite as infallible cannot have the teaching authority that it claims. But that's simply a different process, that's why you are outside of the RCC, or perhaps why you leave the RCC if you are a RC. The Minority Report and the Encyclical are however an internal matter of the RCC, and it is entirely justified that it proceeds on RC terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Thirdly, if the arguments were clear and supporting their side there would never have been the need for the Commission in the first place.
Did you miss the fact that I just quoted this very assessment of the situation as a statement of the authors of the Minority Report? Yes, indeed, if the situation had been perfectly clear, then no commission would have been needed. Everybody acknowledged that back then. Now, of course, the situation has become perfectly clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's a theological question. Of course it will never end. Unless one side is declared heretical and at risk of excommunication. Oh wait, that's happened too. Banishment stopped Arius' supporters. It doesn't seem to work here.
As a theological question, it in fact has ended in the RC sphere. Of course, there are still rogue RC theologians aplenty, and many RC laypeople simply ignore the teaching. But that does not matter. It really doesn't. That's basically a matter of weak Church governance and discipline now, it is not longer a doctrinal issue. As a behavioural issue, it will never go away, quite simply because it is tied to the most common motivator of human sin, concupiscence. Consider adultery: there is not doubt that the Church teaches that this is wrong and sinful, and there is also no doubt that many people, including many faithful, will do it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And the argument is quite literally "We are right because we have said this is right."
Not quite. The argument is "We are right because we always have said this, and because this is an important piece of moral teaching. And where those conditions are fulfilled, we are protected by the Holy Spirit against error."
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By the standards you are waving around, almost 90% of Catholic women in America think she's a false church and should leave.
If this was the case, then I would be good with that. Do you think I care about big numbers? I do not care in the slightest. I would rather see a true Church of three people than a false Church of three billion. The only thing I would weep about if the Church shrivelled to a "pure" core of is the massive amount of cultural heritage and the many works of charity that would likely be lost. However, this simply is not the case, even if we accept your poll numbers as the truth. Because the same people that consider the Church's teaching on contraception as false or optional for the most part also see this as not a big deal as far as their membership in the Church is concerned. Error protects error. And it really does. There is in many people a lack of culpability here which means that also from the point of view of the Church they are not really beyond the pale. Furthermore, there is not really much of a "pure" core the Church could reduce to. The shiny ideals are a guide, they should not be assumed to be the reality. Many traditional Christians are naive about that, they appear to believe that if only the Church got her act together, all her faithful would fall into a lockstep of Catholic purity and integrity. Ignorance of history is bliss, I guess...
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How about what is actually taught?
Those among the RC clergy who are heretic on this point generally proceed by passive resistance rather than open disagreement. In over a decade, I have never in person heard any RC clergy preach or otherwise openly teach against Humanae Vitae.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's at times like this you make it obvious you are a convert. You're giving the line spoken to converts rather than by second generation Catholics in my experience (that jokes about how change comes in three steps with the third being that "This is what the Church has always believed").
This is just an argumentum ad hominem, if a rather mild one. To the best of my knowledge, there is no doctrinal change in the Church that cannot be defended as a continuation of the past. There are a few issues where that is surely stretched to the limit, for example concerning usury or "outside of the Church there is no salvation". But not quite to the point of breaking. And I see this mostly as an indication that things will move the other way again eventually, before settling down into the true equilibrium.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no amount of claims about the Divine instituting of the church alter the fact that it's members, popes and cardinals all the way down, are human beings. Even if one claims that pronouncements come from God, the fact is that human beings are perfectly capable of (1) hearing divine pronouncements wrongly, (2) misinterpreting them, and (3) applying them incorrectly.
The actual claim is that teachings under certain circumstances will be free of error all the way from reception to official promulgation. Basically, what will be written down officially is sufficiently free of error. That still means that it is possible to misinterpret or incorrectly apply what has been written down. But such falsehood then can be contested in terms of what has been said, it does not as such require something new to be said. At the worst, multiple interpretations of the same pronouncement can be defended with equal validity, and the truth is one of these possibilities. At the best, there is really only one way in which the pronouncement can be understood, and it is true. That's the claim of Divine protection here. So the "human element" has been removed further than you admit.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If you're familiar with bureaucratic infighting, it's pretty clear that the Pope was trying to destroy the original commission; he increased its size by an order of magnitude before the commission he'd been handed could make its report. Because it had to report as it had been promised very publically by his predecessor. And even with his additional members numerically dominating (and I don't think any of the original commission members on the Executive Committee), the thing still went overwhelmingly against his position, so he grabbed a fig leaf, the size of which would make most politicians blush.
Nice conspiracy theory... to bad it fails to take into account one simple fact: the commission was not intended to be a public body, and its recommendation were not intended to be made public. See here. The pro-contraception side leaked internal documents to the press. Is there any good reason for a pope to mess about with a commission that is basically just going to report to him in private? Of course not, if he doesn't like their results he can just ignore them. Most likely Paul VI genuinely wanted to hear from a large bases of people, and that's the reason why he enlarged the original commission. If this was done to include more people opposed, then that seems entirely fair. Why should he not have invited a fuller picture? The essential point here is that the popes never intended the work of this commission to be used as any kind of public support for their final decision. The commission was going to report to them alone, and then they would come to a decision, and teach to the faithful. This was in the mode of a king asking advisors, not in the mode of a modern politician asking a commission of experts. You are using the wrong political calculus.
[ 13. June 2014, 14:53: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Try here: IngoB posted this and he thinks it means something other than what it reads about the "he" who is the RCC.
Are you truly not getting the point that the RCC is claiming infallibility only for some of her teachings, not for all of them?
Oh gee sorry. The RCC doesn't claim infallibility for every one it his teachings. Though IngoB demonstrates inflatability.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The argument is "We are right because we always have said this, and because this is an important piece of moral teaching. And where those conditions are fulfilled, we are protected by the Holy Spirit against error."
Would it be possible for there to be something the RCC has always said, having to do with an important piece of moral teaching -- yet for the RCC to come to believe that the teaching they had always taught was wrong? Or, less drastically, to at least consider whether the teaching they had always taught was wrong?
Or does "we are protected by the Holy Spirit against error" in these circumstances mean that once the first two conditions are fulfilled, (being something always said by the RCC, and having to do with an important piece of moral teching) mean that all the RCC's reasoning is only applied to proving that the doctrine is right?
[ 13. June 2014, 15:11: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Would it be possible for there to be something the RCC has always said, having to do with an important piece of moral teaching -- yet for the RCC to come to believe that the teaching they had always taught was wrong? Or, less drastically, to at least consider whether the teaching they had always taught was wrong?
Do what the Soviets did: wait for the last lot to die and blame them for getting it wrong, in a way that lets the official dogma off the hook. Everyone can pretend to believe it and no one loses face.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a behavioural issue, it will never go away, quite simply because it is tied to the most common motivator of human sin, concupiscence. Consider adultery: there is not doubt that the Church teaches that this is wrong and sinful, and there is also no doubt that many people, including many faithful, will do it anyway.
Poor comparison, because it isn't concupiscence. Married Catholics use birth control despite the teachings of their church because they have rationally arrived at the conclusion that the church blew the call. Catholics don't take the same attitude toward adultery; there aren't a whole lot of otherwise faithful Catholics in the midst of adulterous affairs who sat down and thought about it and decided the church got it wrong when it said adultery is a sin.
It's not concupiscence. People use methods of birth control that aren't sanctioned by the church because they are straightforward and reliable. It's a rational choice.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
