Posted on 03/10/2007 1:25:48 PM PST by CatQuilt
Sean Hannity... Wow. Well, this should be a surprise to exactly no one, but ... watch this. (Source)
(Actually, it might be better to just go here - look the right side at "Hot Video." 'Cause it's hot. - "Judgment Day for Sean."
In short: Sean Hannity running all over Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International for questioning his rejection of the Church's teaching on birth control.
(Excerpt) Read more at amywelborn.typepad.com ...
Read some of these links from FR
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1798749/posts?page=59#59
So have the moderator delete this one already
This is BS and will do more damage to the church than the muslims of all the previous 10 centuries.
Stick to Trent
"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:"...........
Case closed. "Natural Family Planning" has a GOAL of 0%...it is hovering around 2.5% now but its appeal is that it is more effective than condoms, way more effective, thus, according to this modern (gag) catechism (Of which section you show was apparently was farmed out to Dr. Ruth to write), The padre Euteneuer is promoting something that is intrinsicially evil.
Yeah, agreed.
I've read through the Catholic NFP stuff and used it, and Cyrano and I thought they made very valid points. I wouldn't be quite as strict though in my interpretation of when it's OK/not OK to use birth control. I think financial hardship is a good reason, but a *very* slippery slope. Also relationship problems would be a valid reason but also hard to define in some cases. I would definitely say that the pill is NOT acceptable. Anything that interferes after conception or has the risk of interfering after conception is wrong, IMO. (e.g. anything that changes the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation.) I don't agree with the interpretation of Onan's sin. I think his sin was cheating his dead brother and his widow out of an heir and therefore providing for his family (the widow)... the not wanting of children was not agreed upon by both of them and was very selfish in his case. Both can agree on not having children for very selfish reasons and also use otherwise 'acceptable' methods of birth control, and still be very wrong because of their selfish motives.
I think Onan's sin was more than just resisting the obligation of fathering a child. I can't remember now who it was, but someone in scripture resisted the same thing and was NOT struck down by God.
Here's a link to contact Sean Hannity:
Hannityandcolmes@foxnews.com
hope this hasn't been posted previously.
I think there are a lot of people that haven't been struck down when another has. God says he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
I'm not Catholic. I'm not, because I believe there are a lot of other things wrong with Catholic doctrine too. Not just this one.
Besides, I remember you don't like me.
Before my husband and I were married nearly 19 years ago, I (nervously!) prayed, "Lord, I'll take as many babies as you want to give us". The "joke" later became, "I didn't know it was going to be none!" I have two stepsons, two adopted sons and 3 step-grandbabies. Where would you say that leaves me and my husband in our physical relationship, seeing that we're not fruitful?? Do we cease all contact? I'm sure this would be very fruitful for our marriage /sarc.
My wife, now a retired RN, taught Natural Family Planning back in the early 1950s. It was part of Church Dogma at that time as it is today. At that time it was called the Rhythm method.
It was taught because it was the natural way. The problem was that married couples then as today did not have the perseverance, prayer life or were able to control their physical emotions. In other words we don't want children now so we will use contraception. I can't wait one week or one day.
The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.
True. But I know the story is an OT one and God is consistent.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The Biblical foundation is found in Genesis 1:1 -
"In the beginning..."
God is the author of all life. He doesn't need our permission to create life, but contraception is essentially that - telling God when and where it's acceptable for Him to be the Creator. See how this dovetails with the fall of Adam and Eve? The serpent convinces them they can be powerful and independent of God. Although God put a limitation on what fruit they could eat in the garden, they disobeyed for their own satisfaction, interupting His will much as a condom does with regard to transmission of life.
TribeMike,
Let’s parse the words again, contra – means against. Abstinence is not a direct action against conception as the placement of a condom or the taking of a pill, which directly and in a distinctively physical manner blocks conception. Ultimately, the spirit of the law matters in that the use of abstinence and natural family planning will be in accord with chastity and right action if the heart of the persons involved are in accord with god’s love and will. Natural family planning is not intrinsically evil as the direct action of contraceptive pills and devices.
Further, there are problems with Hannity’s theology. Hannity has expressed belief in an ethical distinction between those who choose to enter into sexual relations and those who don't choose, ie. rape victims. Ultimately, he is pro-choice, if you do not choose to have sex and thus do not make an informed choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy then you can choose to abort the baby. Hannity puts the choice ahead of pregnancy, a better starting point but philosophically still allows abortion where choice is compromised. Think about the possible effects such an exception, if the health of the mother can be stretched imagine how many people can claim date rape… his public criticism of others, such as Kerry, begs challenges of his own public stances.
Maedoc
Malarkey. Abstaining from the marital act (for any reason), cannot possibly be intrinsically evil. If it were, it would be a sin to go on a business trip without taking your wife along. It can certainly be extrinsically evil in some circumstances, of course.
Besides, if you're arguing that the use of NFP to avoid conception for a serious reason is evil, then you're objecting to the words of at least 3 popes, two of whom (Pius XI and Pius XII) were pre-Vatican II. Here is what Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Thanks.
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.