It Came From The Roman Church: Catholic horror stories told by Evangelicals & how to respond

This Rock/ Catholic Answers via Petersnet ^ | David Mills

[RobbyS]

Forty years ago, I also could see no difference between NFP and the use of contraceptives, and logically the case is hard to make. But in terms of consequence, the matter is clear. "Contraceptive Mentality" is not a mere rhetoric: It describes a world view in which charity is replayed by sentiment, duty by royal whim. Few who use NFP will, in the end, resort to abortion; the same is not true of those who use contraceptives, to whom a pregnancy is a "problem"to be fixed, an abortion a final solution. For the latter, every sex act is open to a death.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I will be happy to continue this debate with you personally via FReepmail. I only debate on this publicly forum with men of good will. 259 posted on 7/31/02 10:27 PM Pacific by Polycarp

I was not seeking their contribution... honestly. I just try to flag those who -- without meaning any vanity -- have told me in the past via FReepMail that they like to read my arguments (I flag Jerry_M on my Christian-libertarian posts, I flag RnMomof7 on my Arminian posts, I flag the_doc and Matchett on my Roman posts, etc.)

To illustrate, I honestly would have no objection to you flagging Campion or Patent on subjects which they found to be of interest. But it was not meant to give any personal offense, I'll drop it if you like.

We can FReepMail the discussion if you prefer, but I do like the Forum a lot better. It moves much faster... I gat a lot of FreepMails and sometimes don't answer them for days. ;-)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Forty years ago, I also could see no difference between NFP and the use of contraceptives, and logically the case is hard to make. But in terms of consequence, the matter is clear. "Contraceptive Mentality" is not a mere rhetoric: It describes a world view in which charity is replayed by sentiment, duty by royal whim. Few who use NFP will, in the end, resort to abortion; the same is not true of those who use contraceptives, to whom a pregnancy is a "problem"to be fixed, an abortion a final solution. For the latter, every sex act is open to a death.

Look, Robby, unlike most Protestants I will freely stipulate that the Contraceptive Mentality is in and of itself a sinful attitude.

My arguments simply attend to the assertion that NFP is somehow more "procedurally ethical" than non-abortifacient mechanical contraception. I don't buy it. Both NFP or non-abortifacient Mechanical contraception can be used to service a sinful Contraceptive Mentality; that should be obvious, if you think about it. But neither NFP nor Mechanical methodology is necessarily employed to service a Contraceptive Mentality, in certain "stewardship"-type cases of Family Poverty and lack of economic means; and I do not at this time buy the argument that in such cases NFP is somehow more "procedurally ethical" than non-abortifacient Mechanical contraception.

At present, I am content to be uncompromising in my opposition to all forms of chemical contraception in all cases, because contrary to Reverend Dobson, I know that all abortifacients violate the Sixth Commandment. I am genuinely interested in the NFP-vs-Mechanical contraceptive procedural question, but am electing to table my critiques on that subject at this time.

Polycarp may direct a specific thread on that subject to my attention any time he likes; on a dedicated thread, I will gladly (and as best I can, humbly) offer him my personal mumblings on the subject anytime he should request.

[Starwind]

I am genuinely interested in the NFP-vs-Mechanical contraceptive procedural question, but am electing to table my critiques on that subject at this time.

I'd be curious about your views on sex (within an ordained marriage) that precludes conception (masturbation, oral sex, coitus interuptus, etc).

Also, do you think in-vitro fertilization, sperm banks etc, which seek to create life outside of God's 'plan' are biblical?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I'd be curious about your views on sex (within an ordained marriage) that precludes conception (masturbation, oral sex, coitus interuptus, etc).

Good grief. Gee, Starwind, we're getting pretty specific, aren't we?

Which brings up a tangential pont -- Unfortunately for both modern Romans and modern Protestants, Pagan America expects us all to be "prudes" who are afraid even to discuss theological questions of sexuality in plain terminology. I am guilty of it myself, preferring anesthetic euphemisms like "Mechanical Contraception" when I am plainly talking about condoms and sponges. Argh!!

Nonetheless, here goes...

I do not believe that Marital enjoyment of Oral Foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin, any more than manual foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin.

If Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are engaging in "oral foreplay" in preparation for good, productive Biblical Procreation... then the Priests are cordially invited to stay the heck out of their Marital Bedroom.

A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits. I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. (Song of Solomon, 4:12-16, 5:1a)

In short, "foreplay" -- including Oral Foreplay -- in view of Marital Procreation, is not Sin.

As always, IMHO.

Also, do you think in-vitro fertilization, sperm banks etc, which seek to create life outside of God's 'plan' are biblical?

Dunno.

Give me an example of a medical technology which helps couples to pro-create without the elimination of "excess" embryos, and I will probably consider it. As Polycarp has probably figured out, Orthodox Presbyterians do not necessarily have an extensive, magisterial "Theology of the Body" on such matters; it's all about that Old-Time Religion (the Ten Commandments) with us. "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

The problem with "in-vitro fertilization" to Orthodox Presbyterians is not with the abstract idea of "playing God" so much as it is the fact that we have a serious moral objection with discarding the unused fertilized embryos like so much Human Trash.

If "in-vitro fertilization" did not involve the elimination of dozens of "unwanted" Human Embryos to acheive the "desired result", then us Decalogue-dependent Orthodox Presbyterians would probably have no more moral objection to "in-vitro fertilization" than we would have a moral objection to "fertility pills" -- which is to say, no real objection at all.

HOWEVER, in the Status Quo, "in-vitro fertilization" does involve the elimination of dozens of "unwanted" Human Embryos, and Orthodox Presbyterians do have a serious moral objection to that. "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

[Starwind]

I do not believe that Marital enjoyment of Oral Foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin, any more than manual foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin.

And if said foreplay does not lead to Procreation...?

[.45MAN]

(((PING)))

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And if said foreplay does not lead to Procreation...?

Under what conditions?

At this point, we get into mind-reading. The Church is not an institution devoted to mind-reading, but rather the teaching of Moral Instruction.

Aside from Abortifacients which as always wrong, the core teaching seems to me to be, "Christian Couples should not be engaged in a Contra-Conception Morality". If a Marital Couple are enjoying some physical intimacy one night, and decide for whatever reason to NOT fully-consummate (maybe she has a "head-ache" for all I know), I don't see any possible "problem" with that.

On the other hand, if a Marital Couple are deliberately using "foreplay" to avoid procreation on a continuing basis, then we are outside of a pure question of "Christian Liberty" and into a question of "Contraceptive Mentality". I don't propose to read their minds, but I will point out that a contraceptive mentality is Immoral.

[Theresa]

"Most people I know who left the church did so on ideological lines, mostly having to do with human desire."

I knew a woman who says she left because as a child the huge crucifix in the church made her cry and because the Church did not forbid drinking which was why her father was an alcoholic. So silly. She was on her third marriage.

[Theresa]

"I just read the bible for myself and did not let other MEN influence me."

I read the bible with the aid of the Catholic Church and I am glad that God gave me the grace to trust in his Church and the Holy Spirit who guides it. I WANT and welcome the influence of the Catholic Church and I need it.

[constitutiongirl]

Yeah, I've even heard of that one. I've read Fox's Book of Martyrs. Of course, all of the Protestant atrocities were conviently left out.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I WANT and welcome the influence of the Catholic Church and I need it.

Well it's no wonder you don't see the truth.

Becky

[sitetest]

Dear Starwind,

I'm happy to see that you wish to become a Catholic scholar! ;-)

"Ok, my original concern in post 169 was the need to combine catechism and encyclicals, etc..."

Well, remember first that this concern came about because Wrigley told us that he tended to believe that we don't teach idolatry, and I pointed out that it wasn't that tough to find out what we actually teach, believe, and practice.

It isn't necessary to read the source documents cited in the footnotes of the Catechism to learn what it is the Church teaches. If what you're trying to do is find out where the Church stands, the Catechism, by itself, does a pretty good job. Which is why I said:

"If you want a good, basic idea of what Catholics believe and practice, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

But, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to know what it is that Catholics teach, believe, and practice, without necessarily delving into all the theology behind it.

An English translation of Humanae Vitae may be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

An English translation of Familiaris Consortio may be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

I just googled for these, and the Vatican website translations came up as the first URLs. That may be effective in finding many official Church documents as you study further.

I wish you good reading.

sitetest

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Can you please give me scripture refernces for this. Thanks

It'll have to wait till tomorrow, its on my other compter.

Becky

[mlocher]

there is no Christian denomination more inconsequential to modern Christianity than mainstream American protestant denominations, specifically the likes of the major Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist sects. I do not consider them "evangelical."

just like the pope keeps catholics away from christ, i happen to believe that deonominations of any kind keep people from christ, or perhaps better stated, can be a barrier between the christ -- person relationship. in my paradigm, i expect and hope that denominations would be inconsequential.

i am intrigued with your thought process. can you elaborate a bit more on your definition of evangelical and why you think these denominations are inconsequential? this enquiring LCMS member is interested. LCMS = lutheran church -- missouri synod and hopefully as you can tell from my previous posts i do not take the work of man too seriously.

[SoothingDave]

If you are trying to say that the church is the body of Christ thus making it God or equal to God, that would be idol worshipping at least and could be blasphemy.

It's not just a metaphor, Becky.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Re 183

Thank you for the very nice response. I was actually just warding off all the arguments that I get hurled at me. You and one other poster that I have dealt with, and it has been quite a few, are the only two that have come out and said plain that the catholic schools are pitiful at teaching their own faith. If more of the catholics recognized that fact it might be able to be fixed. Good Luck.

I think just about every Catholic on the Neverending thread expressed regret that the schools did and do a poor job catechizing children. Not "only two." I recall every one doing it.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I beg to differ Dave. Most of you defended the schools and said I was either not paying attention, or just plain studpid. Maybe after dadwags came on and said that during the times I was in schools the education sucked some might have relented a little, but no one believed me till a catholic confirmed it.

Becky