Author Topic: John Gregory (Read 4256 times)

CM · « **on:** December 19, 2009, 10:31:22 PM »

Quote from: Antipope Pius XI

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

Quote from: Antipope Pius XII

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.

There you go. Put your Orwellian mind and false logic to work.

littlerose · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2009, 10:42:41 PM »

Those statements justify abstinence from intercourse, but do not indicate approval of abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia.

IMHO.

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2009, 01:29:36 AM »

Littlerose, those statements condone the practice of eugenics and even holds it out as an obligation.

And as for justifying abstinence from intercourse, there is no need to justify it at all. It is perfect licit to abstain from intercourse. It is not, however licit to do so in such a way that you are deliberately avoiding conception. That is undeniably a contraceptive action per se.

littlerose · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2009, 02:26:41 AM »

"eugenics" in its mild form means not having defective children. If a couple discovers that they cannot avoid a birth defect in a child, that is, a 100% certainty, perhaps after having one, then according to the quotes you cite, they could openly state that they will refrain from intercourse at fertile times so as not to beget another defective child.

Since no child is conceived, no innocent person is harmed.

Should they miscalculate their ovulation and become pregnant anyway, they would just have to hope for the best and love the second child.

The fact that the Pope may have permitted "eugenics" in some mild form as this does not mean he permits it in the "blue-eyed genius-athlete" form.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2009, 02:42:21 AM »

Some mild form? You just invented that scenario (which would not justify contraceptive intentions or actions pertaining to the use pf the procreative act, nor would it be 100% certainty as you ridiculously say) all on your own, using the wide open leeway that the above quote gives you. You are doing exactly what the ANTIpope wants you to do, making excuses for sin.

And I note that you did not contradict the assertion that it is contraception. You cannot.

littlerose · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2009, 04:01:11 AM »

If a woman looks at a man across the street and decides she would not accept a sɛҳuąƖ overture from him for any reason at all, that is contraception.

If two people carry certain characteristics in their DNA, the likelihood of passing those characteristics on can be determined with increasing accuracy.

As far as sɛҳuąƖ intercourse in marriage without the intent of procreation, St Paul himself advised that most people should marry rather than "burn with desires". He was not talking of the procreative function of intercourse to the exclusion of the pleasure or passion of lovemaking. Spouses are responsible to each other's passions outside of begetting children.

What pope contradicts St Paul?

oldavid · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2009, 04:12:42 AM »

Quote from: littlerose

As far as sɛҳuąƖ intercourse in marriage without the intent of procreation, St Paul himself advised that most people should marry rather than "burn with desires". He was not talking of the procreative function of intercourse to the exclusion of the pleasure or passion of lovemaking. Spouses are responsible to each other's passions outside of begetting children.

What pope contradicts St Paul?

Well said Littlerose,

But, as per my experience, some very legalistic types are happy to merely smear "gnat repellat" on the camel they swallow.

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2009, 04:53:27 AM »

Legalistic? Do you think you don't have to obey the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all men?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God a heretic?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that one may kill another just to take his food a heretic?

If not why not, and if so, why?

Answer oldavid.

littlerose · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2009, 10:00:11 AM »

Quote from: CM

Legalistic? Do you think you don't have to obey the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all men?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God a heretic?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that one may kill another just to take his food a heretic?

If not why not, and if so, why?

Answer oldavid.

More like it's just weird. In the first case, the person might be just someone who has no understanding of any religion at all and thinks Jesus was just a historical figure, much like I think of Mohammed, the founder of Islam. "Heresy" carries a lot of intentional weight that goes further than "ignorance" or "error".

And in the second case, he's a murderer and a thief, regardless of religion. Even most atheists would say so, too.

littlerose · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2009, 10:30:48 AM »

oops, I just saw the "answer oldavid"... did not mean to interrupt.

oldavid · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2009, 08:57:24 PM »

Quote from: littlerose

oops, I just saw the "answer oldavid"... did not mean to interrupt.

Glad you did.

oldavid · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:04:54 PM »

Quote from: CM

Legalistic? Do you think you don't have to obey the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all men?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God a heretic?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that one may kill another just to take his food a heretic?

If not why not, and if so, why?

Answer oldavid.

I thought we were talking about marriage, coupulation,conception etc.
What's that got to do with theft, murder, Aryanism etc.?

littlerose · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:07:23 PM »

Besides, why are we appealing to "Natural Law"? that is the humanist premise, not the Catholic.

oldavid · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:23:02 PM »

Yes and I messed up my previous post.

It should have also said:
Are you trying to imply that marital relations outside of the fertile time should be sinful? Or that every married couple should have a child every year or less unless they abstain from their marital rights completely?

littlerose · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:37:43 PM »

Quote from: CM

Legalistic? Do you think you don't have to obey the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all men?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God a heretic?

Is it legalistic or unjust to label a man who believes that one may kill another just to take his food a heretic?

If not why not, and if so, why?

Answer oldavid.

Oh, and right there, CM, is one of the heresies that usually gets your panties all in a bunch: "all men"...

Usually you are the one who is upset by people who suggest that Salvation is for "all" and not just exclusive to Catholics who avoid heresy. Now I see you appealing to Natural Law, to universal humanity, and on top of that, to the "heart" (fleshly emotion) instead of to the "soul" (God-breathed spirit)...
all of which is very New-Age and not at all surprising when one sees that you focus so heavily on Centered Prayer in your blog.

:pop: GOTCHA!!!