Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Justinian:
There were, however, seven dissenters who produced the Minority Report which I had never before read.
quote: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.
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
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes--how does that square with the issue raised in the document pointed to by the OP? Dogma vs. Doctrine vs. ?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Galileo
quote: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.
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.)
quote:Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
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.)
quote: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?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote: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.
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.)
quote:Pffft! Facts, schmacts.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
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.)
quote:They are actually advocating this as a method of contraception.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Pffft! Facts, schmacts.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:Actually, it looks from a quick googling, that you only have about 6 months post-birth.
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.)
EWTN - What does the Church teach about birth control?
quote:They are actually advocating this as a method of contraception.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I'm sorry, who has said here that she doesn't? I haven't. Nobody else here has. The Minority Report hasn't.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
quote: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.
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".
quote: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...
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:Yes--how does that square with the issue raised in the document pointed to by the OP? Dogma vs. Doctrine vs. ?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Galileo
quote: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.
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.
quote:It's not the only thing the Minority Report is saying, but that is certainly one of its arguments.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
At least, that's how I understand it.
quote: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.
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.
quote:But of course She's a she: could a man's
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"
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Try here: IngoB posted this and he thinks it means something other than what it reads about the "he" who is the RCC.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm sorry, who has said here that she doesn't? I haven't. Nobody else here has. The Minority Report hasn't.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Church does not make errors?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote: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.
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.
quote:We don't.
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?
quote:You're spouting weapons grade bullshit here, IngoB.
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."
quote: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.
Or in other words, people will argue the toss out of this, and it will never end.
quote:And this is nothing more than the sunk costs fallacy. It is not an argument from pure reason - it's one from pure pride.
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.
quote:On that we agree.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:How about what is actually taught?
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.
quote: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").
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."
quote:Original too, which is a nice contrast to the lengthy quotes in this thread. Most folk are able to click on links you know.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:But of course She's a she: could a man's
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"
Feckless pride ever work to God's plans?
Furthermore and beside,
She is Christ's spotless Bride
(And I win, cos my limerick scans).
quote: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.
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'
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
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'
Just sayin'.
quote:This is a misrepresentation of events. The Pope who received the commission's recommendations wasn't the one who set it up.
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.
quote:Obliged to you, Sir.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Happy to clarify, for all concerned.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Are you truly not getting the point that the RCC is claiming infallibility only for some of her teachings, not for all of them?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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."
Originally posted by Justinian:
And the argument is quite literally "We are right because we have said this is right."
quote: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...
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Justinian:
How about what is actually taught?
quote: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.
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").
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Oh gee sorry. The RCC doesn't claim infallibility for every one it his teachings. Though IngoB demonstrates inflatability.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Are you truly not getting the point that the RCC is claiming infallibility only for some of her teachings, not for all of them?
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.
quote: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?
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."
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:So they persecuted this guy, and many others, over things that weren't actually truths of the faith? And this is supposed to make them look GOOD? They're a bunch of vindictive assholes.
Originally posted by IngoB:
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:Then why the fuck did they ask them, especially if they were intending to ignore them anyway if they came up with the "wrong" answer? Indeed, why have theologians at all, especially if you're prepared to go against them even when they vote 9-to-1? If they had voted the other way, you can be sure the pope would have displayed their vote as showing something about the church and her teachings. But if he disagrees with them, then their vote DOESN'T show something about the church and her teachings. It's a sham. It's a show. It's theology theatre.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Theologians have zero teaching authority in the RCC.
quote:This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
This was in the mode of a king asking advisors,
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:No, that would not be possible. In theory. In practice, there is generally quite a bit of wiggle room concerning just what has been "always" said, and what is "important". But there is an actual point of no return there somewhere. Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
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?
quote:Apologetics would mostly concentrate on that. Heresy as well, from the other side. Actual RCC reasoning (theological inquiry) would simply move on to some other, not yet settled domain.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
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?
quote:That people find adultery harder to rationalise than contraception has other reasons. The main difference is simply that contraception is usually a "victimless crime", whereas adultery usually isn't. In adultery, the cheated spouse is the advocate of the Church's morals, if virtually (i.e., the adulterers will fear being discovered). He or she will complain loudly about the injustice, sinfulness, etc. In contraception, it's pretty much a pure test of the convictions of the couple. By and large, no outsider will ever challenge them. And even if somebody did, he would still not challenge as a direct victim but for a moral principle. That sort of things simply does not have the same psychological bite. In contraception, the rationalisation is obvious: "we are ok with it, so it must be ok." In adultery, the victim won't let the adulterers do that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
quote:No, this is not supposed to make them look good. It shows that the principles underlying the Church remained sound there, even if the actions of some of her representatives were plain wrong.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So they persecuted this guy, and many others, over things that weren't actually truths of the faith? And this is supposed to make them look GOOD? They're a bunch of vindictive assholes.
quote:Once more, there was apparently no intention originally to publish any of these findings anyhow. So you are simply wrong about the motivations. If you would have read the link that I have provided (here it is again), then you would have read that
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then why the fuck did they ask them, especially if they were intending to ignore them anyway if they came up with the "wrong" answer? Indeed, why have theologians at all, especially if you're prepared to go against them even when they vote 9-to-1? If they had voted the other way, you can be sure the pope would have displayed their vote as showing something about the church and her teachings. But if he disagrees with them, then their vote DOESN'T show something about the church and her teachings. It's a sham. It's a show. It's theology theatre.
quote:So basically, the pro-contracpetion camp tried to pull a publicity stunt and furthermore abandoned their attempt to argue that the new contraceptive methods allowed for new moral judgements, instead basically requiring a full reversal.
... the new documents shows that the Pope took both sides of the issue seriously, and gave advocates of artificial contraception every chance to make their case. ... Grisez noted that the Pope, rather than ignoring the pro-contraception arguments, was legitimately interested in considering the questions raised by new methods. “He was perfectly happy to have a lot of people on the commission who thought that change was possible. He wanted to see what kind of case they could make for that view.” ... Some proponents of a change in teaching ... initially argued that the contraceptive pill was different from older methods, and could be accepted without contradicting prior teaching. Pope Paul encouraged the commission to pursue this line of inquiry – not expecting that the commission's work, after being leaked to the public, would be set on the same plane as his judgment. ... “When the documents were leaked in 1967, Paul VI was extremely upset about it. He sent a letter to all the bishops and cardinals who were on the commission, about the documents. It wasn't what he had in mind at all.” In the end, the majority of commission members actually lost interest in attempting to argue that contraceptive pills could be squared with “Casti Connubii.” Instead, they simply advocated the acceptance of contraception, without attempting to reconcile this prospect with the previous teaching of the Church.
quote:That's unlikely.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
quote:...I think that stage has come and gone.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
quote:That you were intentionally slagging the pope seems quite unlikely. I have to go with my interpretation, that you didn't realize you were slagging the pope.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's unlikely.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
quote:So here is the part I don't understand.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
quote:They aren't compliant with the Church's teaching anymore than a couple using artificial methods of contraception. What makes you think they are?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:So here is the part I don't understand.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
An RC couple doesn't want another child but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
How are they not compliant with the church's teaching? (Genuinely puzzled.)
quote:Can you respond to this version of the question?
seekingsister's question, lightly edited (I've italicized the change):
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple has well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
quote:Let me see if I am understanding this. Suppose we have an issue where it's generally agreed that the church has always said X, and that X is an important piece of moral teaching.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, that would not be possible. In theory. In practice, there is generally quite a bit of wiggle room concerning just what has been "always" said, and what is "important". But there is an actual point of no return there somewhere. Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
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?
quote:Apologetics would mostly concentrate on that. Heresy as well, from the other side. Actual RCC reasoning (theological inquiry) would simply move on to some other, not yet settled domain.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
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?
quote:Yes, of course - although Pope Paul VI spells it our pretty clearly.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Trisagion, OK, let's edit seekingsister's question lightly to comply with at least the first part of your quote from HV:
quote:Can you respond to this version of the question?
seekingsister's question, lightly edited (I've italicized the change):
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple has well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
quote:I've pointed out before that there's a glaring problem with this proposition, which is that everybody knows women are only fertile for a few days at a particular point in the menstrual cycle. And I'm pretty sure God knows it too, seeing as how He designed the system.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
1. It is not true to say "God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex". It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life.
quote:Taken literally, this would seem to imply that:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life. An act - abstinence - which is, by definition, not an act of sexual intercourse, cannot be open to the transmission of life;
quote:So what if the rational, responsible humans' judgment leads them to decide they should not have more children? Or, if is allowed to space births, how about spacing them, oh, say, 40 years apart?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... 3. Human beings are rational creatures, whose appetites are be subject to our reason and will. If that reason gives us cause to believe that the demands of responsible parenthood suggest that it would, by our judgement, be in opportune for us to have another child at a particular time ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
quote:Isn't this saying that man can develop a contraceptive device/medication/technique more powerful than God?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The mistakes are in the final paragraph. They are, I think:
1. It is not true to say "God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex". It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life. An act - abstinence - which is, by definition, not an act of sexual intercourse, cannot be open to the transmission of life;
quote:That church leaders always knew and did what the Holy Spirit wanted is not the claim. They're not claiming that church leaders never make mistakes; I daresay Trisagion, IngoB and Triple Tiara can recite the sins of the Renaissance popes in greater detail than you or I.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And as for "the Holy Spirit wouldn't have let us get it wrong"? Really? That's the argument? That despite the fact that we're all disobedient, rebellious, sinful humans, church leaders throughout history always knew and did exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted?
quote:A bit like Abraham and Sarah you mean?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or is it an act of faith? You know, there might be a miraculous conception?
quote:Eh...One response to Rome is this:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Martin, I think you're onto something. The same thought as crossed my mind before, actually.
I figure I can keep having gay sex knowing that God could make one of the men pregnant if he really wanted to.
quote:Because that's a fundamentally stupid argument, which I've labelled a fundamentally stupid argument every time it's turned up on the Ship in whatever form.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Children in Syria are dying, the planet is warming up, and countries are in economic crisis.
Given this, why exactly would God care particularly about the details of our sex lives?
quote:Exactly - which means that God does not have a problem with sex that is not procreative. Why God all of a sudden cares that you are using a small bit of latex as opposed to sleeping in separate bedrooms to avoid having a child, I honestly cannot even begin to understand. If anything contraception allows married couples to bond more closely physically even at times when they need to space pregnancies for legitimate reasons.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yet Catholic doctrine has never been, as far as I'm aware, that you may only have intercourse during the relevant period.
In short, Catholics can avoid any prospect of the transmission of life by having sexual intercourse at the times of the month in which there is no egg in a position to be fertilised.
quote:Of course the Roman Catholic church is a she.
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"
quote:Regardless of whether the Roman Catholic church actually teaches that, I've come across several fellow R.C.'s who actually preach -and presumably practice- that.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So shouldn't sex stop in marriage after the menopause?
quote:I think you’re conflating two different but related moral issues here, and therefore don’t get what the Catholics are saying. I’m sure you’ll disagree with it when you do understand it (I certainly disagree with it) but I think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position at the moment.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Exactly - which means that God does not have a problem with sex that is not procreative. Why God all of a sudden cares that you are using a small bit of latex as opposed to sleeping in separate bedrooms to avoid having a child, I honestly cannot even begin to understand.
quote:Well he at least has an intellectually consistent position.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know of an RC priest who asks incredibly invasive questions of a couple enquiring about a wedding if the bride could be described as of mature years. I'm told that he will move heaven and earth not to take weddings where the bride is over 50...
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
quote:It's a great quote. But the 3rd option, as detailed by Trisagion above, is that married couples have rather less sex, that we submit our passions to our rational brains. That strikes me as miserly to say the least (personally speaking, I like sex very much, and it's also been a major part of maintaining my remaining cheerfulness over the recent couple of years, which have been very tough indeed). But it's consistent at least.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I came across a great Dave Allen quote: The Church offers women either perpetual virginity (with or without pregnancy) or perpetual pregnancy.
quote:When I was at school there were some boys who'd have burst the football rather than let anyone else play with it, if they couldn't.
Originally posted by L'organist:
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
quote:I think you’re misreading the minority report here. There are other arguments presented against contraception than that.
Originally posted by Justinian:
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:I love it when the RCC gives me a definitive answer on something that's been on my mind - well, on and off - for years. I'll sleep better in my frail old age now.
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
quote:So you think that it's detrimental to the health of a married couple to have sex every day or even once a week, which would be often enough to keep that perpetual pregnancy thing going?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily: I'm sure my three-year old would be very happy if I gave him a bag of sweets every day, but it wouldn't be very loving of me to do it.
quote:Sadly, at least here in The Netherlands, he is not a very rare aberration but pretty standard for a newly consecrated priest.
Originally posted by L'organist:
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
quote:Because that much sweets is bad for you. Are you saying frequent or regular sexual relations are bad for a married couple? Do you have theology or science to back you up on that? Or is this an irrelevant and decidedly disanalogous straw man?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily: I'm sure my three-year old would be very happy if I gave him a bag of sweets every day, but it wouldn't be very loving of me to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
As an older woman who has been married for over 25 years sex becomes less about hot and bothered and more about clinging tenaciously to one another with deep love amidst a chaotic life. To reduce it to a base animal impulse is an insult to loving people. It's not a bag of candy; it's a lifeboat.
quote:Nope to both of you: I disagree with the RCC on this issue; I was pointing out that there are however exceptions to Marvin's 'rule' that it is not loving to say no to people on occasions; however, I don't think this example is one of them.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:So you think that it's detrimental to the health of a married couple to have sex every day or even once a week, which would be often enough to keep that perpetual pregnancy thing going?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily: I'm sure my three-year old would be very happy if I gave him a bag of sweets every day, but it wouldn't be very loving of me to do it.
quote:Fair enough; thanks for clarifying.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nope to both of you: I disagree with the RCC on this issue; I was pointing out that there are however exceptions to Marvin's 'rule' that it is not loving to say no to people on occasions; however, I don't think this example is one of them.
quote:Strangely under represented in the RC priesthood.
Originally posted by art dunce:
The majority of medical students are now woman, half of engineering students, the majority of primary teachers , etc .
quote:This smells so bad to me on so many counts that I'm off to buy my fallible old bullshit detector a drink to celebrate its sniffing it out. I don't doubt for a second, L'O, that you believe this account to be unquestionable, and you're in a much better position that I am to check it out, but I'm so not buying it that my credit card is taking a nice long holiday.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know of an RC priest who asks incredibly invasive questions of a couple enquiring about a wedding if the bride could be described as of mature years. I'm told that he will move heaven and earth not to take weddings where the bride is over 50...
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
