Posted on 06/06/2006 5:43:16 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The Vatican today issued a sweeping condemnation of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilisation and same-sex marriage, declaring that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today’s world.
The document was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, whose head, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, is a strong opponent of the use of condoms under any circumstances.
However, the document did not mention an ongoing debate within the Vatican on whether the Roman Catholic Church could permit condoms to battle Aids when one partner in a marriage had the virus.
It reaffirmed the famous 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” that stated the Vatican’s opposition to contraception.
Since then, it said, couples “have been limiting themselves to one, or maximum two children”.
“Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today’s culture,” said the 57-page document.
We all sin, and are under a duty to get up, repent, dust ourselves off, and work on changing/resisting temptation.
No, it's not.
Yes, we really don't have free-will, we just were designed to think we have, but not capable of proving or dis-proving it.
You didn't post this to me, but I disagree with it. If God says He loves us, and leaves us free to return that love, then He would be betraying Himself if he "fooled" us into thinking we have free will when we don't.
Why do you think it is impossible to go against God's will?
Urban legend. To the AIDS virus a condom is nothing but a colander.
I'm sorry but here they are terribly wrong.
You're the one who is terribly wrong and I'm not sorry for pointing it out.
You don't know him, evidently. He was defending it.
He has mastered the art of couching evil in palatable terms.
I have references.
You are a moron.
mark
Splitting hairs a little thin aren't we?
I don' see how you can possibly say that knowing something is going to happen and creating everything that makes it happen, doesn't make it happen, but that is you.
I do not know that God says He loves us, so I don't know why you would think it is fooling us. I think it's just the way He made us.
I do not understand why God would make us, knowing that we would go against His will. I think He just made us, as we are.
Besides, it comes down to no one being able to prove we have free-will or not.
No, he was explaining current pastoral practice. Human beings are imperfect, and will always struggle against weakness.
Well, there's a great big book out there, available everywhere, that is God's long love letter to us. You will know that He loves us if you read that book, or even read parts of it.
I do not understand why God would make us, knowing that we would go against His will.
For the same reason you might have children who will hurt you deeply at some point. You don't stop loving them, no matter what they do.
I have read it. Not all though, and I cannot quote scripture. While it says all that you say it does, it certainly isn't any kind of proof that it is the infallible word of God.
I cannot equate God, with a human parent.
Well, in that book, God equates Himself with a parent.
For my part, I am grateful that the Church does not listen to the peanut gallery and stays true to her One Lord and Master. Because had She done so early on, I guarantee you She would not have survived. Do you want to see what modernism does to a church? I give you the Episcopal Church and other mainline churches sliding into the morass of moral abyss. No, thank you. I'd rather set my mind on the things above. Meanwhile, the Church will continue to speak the truth to each age that manifests its love of self in increasingly creative self-defeating ways.
I think the thing that most disappointing part of the whole thing is the attack on people who only want a few children, which just confirms that the Vatican hierarchy want women to remain barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
You could not have said a more ignorant statement, I'm afraid. Try using reason next time.
In some cases, a habit remains, which is still likely not subjectively sinful <==This statement is false;
although it is hard to tell what he is saying since he used the word "subjectively" instead of the clearly applicable "objectively". The use of subjectively sounds like an attempt to bring relativism into this.
The act itself is a mortal sin and can be forgiven as with other sins.
Do you know the difference between objective and subjective sin?
Here is a quote, that happens to be on the subject of premarital sex, but it is a similar situation. This is actually a critique of a position taken by Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin. That isn't you, is it?
Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin wrote an article on unmarried children living together titled "Cohabiting Kids: What's a Parent to Do?" It appeared in the Knights of Columbus magazine Columbia (March 2001), having been reprinted from The Priest, published by Our Sunday Visitor Inc. Champlin warns parents that telling their cohabiting children that they are living in sin and need to go to confession is beyond the pale because it's "playing God."
He does acknowledge that "Living together before marriage is, objectively, a moral wrong. Engaging in sexual intercourse prior to nuptial vows increases the wrongness of that situation." In the next paragraph, however, he opens the door to moral relativism: "But subjective sin represents a different matter. Sin occurs when we fail to follow the divine imperative-in our heart. Sin happens when .... we have failed to follow our conscience." So if, personally, you don't think an "objective" sin is really a sin, then it's not a sin for you.
But this is a gross and irresponsible oversimplification. The Catechism says that "subjective" sin can be truly sinful, and that appealing to "conscience" will not necessarily get you off the hook: "This is the case when a man `takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded by the habit of committing sin' [Gaudium et Spes, 16]. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits" (#1791).
Sheryl Temaat ---
Still, the act is objectively sinful.
An act that is objectively sinful may not be subjectively sinful, in which case, the person committing the act is not culpable. That's why confessors always take circumstances into account when counseling someone and will ask about the person's commitment to a Christian life overall.
We can all think of rare circumstances that might affect a person's culpability for a given sin, but round poling by an adult male educated in the Catholic Church is not likely to be waived by the Canon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.