Author Topic: YOUCAT contraception  (Read 5204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jitpring

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 536
  • Reputation: +247/-0
  • Gender: Male
YOUCAT contraception
« on: April 11, 2011, 02:29:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Age, thou art shamed.*
    O shame, where is thy blush?**

    -Shakespeare, Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23624
    • Reputation: +20715/-383
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #1 on: April 11, 2011, 02:33:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • YOUCAT and contraception

    Catholic News Agency has reported that the Italian edition of YOUCAT (Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church) suggests that "contraceptive methods" can be used by Catholic couples in regulating the size of families. The report says, "Vatican sources who spoke to CNA April 11 on the condition of anonymity speculated that the problem was in the original German text, a fact that was later confirmed by CNA." It further reports: "The English edition, published by Ignatius Press, does not contain the problematic language. It is not yet known if other language versions also contain the same controversial statement on contraception."

    Below are paragraphs 420 and 421 from the English translation of YOUCAT, published by Ignatius Press:

    420 May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?

    Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. [2368–2369, 2399]

    Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big, almost superhuman challenge for the couple. Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe: Regulating births, in the first place, must not mean that the couple is avoiding conception as a matter of principle. Second, it must not mean avoiding children for selfish reasons. Third, it must not mean that external coercion is involved (if, for example, the State were to decide how many children a couple could have). Fourth, it must not mean that any and every means may be used.

    421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?

    The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]

    The Church pays careful attention to the order of nature and sees in it a deep meaning. For her it is therefore not a matter of indifference whether a couple manipulates the woman’s fertility or instead makes use of the natural alternation of fertile and infertile days. It is no accident that Natural Family Planning is called natural: it is ecological, holistic, healthy, and an exercise in partnership. On the other hand, the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception—namely, chemical methods (“the Pill”), mechanical methods (for example, condom, intra-uterine device, or IUD), and surgical methods (sterilization)—since these attempt to separate the sexual act from its procreative potential and block the total self-giving of husband and wife. Such methods can even endanger the woman’s health, have an abortifacient effect (= cause a very early abortion), and in the long run be detrimental to the couple’s love life.

    The same page includes this quote, in the margin, from Pope John Paul II:

    Pope John Paul II describes “contraception” (as opposed to “the regulation of births”) as follows: ”When couples [have] recourse to contraception … they manipulate and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of total self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.” Pope John Paul II (1920–2005), Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 32
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-10
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #2 on: April 11, 2011, 03:26:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    YOUCAT and contraception

    420 May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?

    Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. [2368–2369, 2399]


    Heretical.  Only for grave reasons could something like NFP ever be used, and only then, with the approval of the Church (not today's Church, of course, but the Eternal Church.)

    Quote from: Matthew
    Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big, almost superhuman challenge for the couple. Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe:


    Only if there are grave reasons, a phrase that is nowhere to be found in this "catechism."

    Quote from: Matthew
    421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?

    The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception.


    Heretical.  It's the word "deliberate."

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #3 on: April 11, 2011, 03:29:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And the Pope's condoms remarks should be seen as part of this change.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #4 on: April 12, 2011, 12:46:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no change. There is a mistranslation of some sort regarding the German text (not surprising since the German Bishops are left wing).

    The English text quoted is in no way heretical. Shouting "heresy" doesn't make it so. It is a text for kids, not a doctrinal tome.

    "Big, almost superhuman challenge...not for selfish reasons" = Grave or serious reasons.


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-10
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #5 on: April 12, 2011, 06:41:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A "big, almost superhuman challenge" does not constitute grave reasons.  In fact, the opposite is true -- the more children that a couple has, the easier that it becomes raising them.  Have you read the threads on the Duggars?

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #6 on: April 12, 2011, 07:45:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The types of reasons were listed right before the superhuman challenge.

    They are explaining "grave reasons" to kids in words they will understand.

    You have every right to criticize their use of words and their clarity, but you step out of bounds calling it heretical.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6014
    • Reputation: +3484/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #7 on: April 12, 2011, 08:03:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    The types of reasons were listed right before the superhuman challenge.

    They are explaining "grave reasons" to kids in words they will understand.

    You have every right to criticize their use of words and their clarity, but you step out of bounds calling it heretical.


    See, this is what I mean, each day he becomes more insane like defending the errors of VII.  Where is B16's outcry?


    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-10
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #8 on: April 12, 2011, 08:29:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    The types of reasons were listed right before the superhuman challenge.

    They are explaining "grave reasons" to kids in words they will understand.

    You have every right to criticize their use of words and their clarity, but you step out of bounds calling it heretical.


    Sometimes "social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big...", sorry, I am not buying it.  Only one reason, IMHO, could ever be given for using NFP and that is when the mother would die from an another pregnancy.  Maybe an extreme genetic condition could also justify its use, however, having a child with Down syndrome would not be a justification.  However, are "social" and/or "psychological" reasons grave reasons for using it?  No, that is "crossing the line," which is why it is heretical.  It's like saying that one has justifiable reasons for not fulfilling the Sunday obligation because you forgot to wash your car on Saturday.  By the way, I am not condemning periodic abstinence, just the long-term "Catholic birth control" known as NFP.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #9 on: April 12, 2011, 09:24:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On what basis are you claiming this to be heretical?

    So far, it sounds like the only grounds are that the article's interpretation of "grave reason" contradicts your own.

    Please show some authoritative document that clearly shows the panphlet's interpretation of "grave reasons" is in error. This is the first step before getting to heresy and I don't think you've even gotten that far.

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-10
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #10 on: April 12, 2011, 09:37:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    On what basis are you claiming this to be heretical?

    So far, it sounds like the only grounds are that the article's interpretation of "grave reason" contradicts your own.

    Please show some authoritative document that clearly shows the panphlet's interpretation of "grave reasons" is in error. This is the first step before getting to heresy and I don't think you've even gotten that far.


    The phrase "grave reasons" appears nowhere in the article.  Neither does the phrase, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 17)  The document is heretical, because it is equating (if only implicitly) the primary and secondary ends of marriage.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #11 on: April 12, 2011, 09:43:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    “Q. Puo una coppia christiana fare ricorso ai metodi anticoncezionali?” (Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?)

    “A. Si, una coppia cristiana puo e deve essere responsabile nella sua facolta di poter donare la vita.” (Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life).


    That's what it says.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #12 on: April 12, 2011, 10:02:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote
    “Q. Puo una coppia christiana fare ricorso ai metodi anticoncezionali?” (Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?)

    “A. Si, una coppia cristiana puo e deve essere responsabile nella sua facolta di poter donare la vita.” (Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life).


    That's what it says.


    This is the Italian text, which everyone plainly admits is erroneous.

    Jehanne is trying to say the English text is "heretical" because it contradicts Catholic teaching on the use of NFP, but he has yet to cite an authoritative teaching on NFP involving "grave reasons" that the article contradicts. It seems to only contradict his idea of what "grave reasons" means.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #13 on: April 12, 2011, 10:08:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: stevusmagnus
    On what basis are you claiming this to be heretical?

    So far, it sounds like the only grounds are that the article's interpretation of "grave reason" contradicts your own.

    Please show some authoritative document that clearly shows the panphlet's interpretation of "grave reasons" is in error. This is the first step before getting to heresy and I don't think you've even gotten that far.


    The phrase "grave reasons" appears nowhere in the article.  Neither does the phrase, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 17)  The document is heretical, because it is equating (if only implicitly) the primary and secondary ends of marriage.


    Obviously the term "grave reasons" appears nowhere. As I said, it is trying to explain the same concept in words that kids will understand. Just because you don't use those two exact words doesn't mean you can't explain the Catholic teaching on NFP without heresy.

    Now you are switching your claim of heresy to the fact that the article doesn't quote Casti Connubii on the ends of marriage. So any article on NFP and artificial contraception that fails to use this exact quote from Casti Connubii is heretical? How does the article implicitly deny the teaching of Casti Connubii?

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +458/-10
    • Gender: Male
    YOUCAT contraception
    « Reply #14 on: April 12, 2011, 10:43:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Quote from: Jehanne
    Quote from: stevusmagnus
    On what basis are you claiming this to be heretical?

    So far, it sounds like the only grounds are that the article's interpretation of "grave reason" contradicts your own.

    Please show some authoritative document that clearly shows the panphlet's interpretation of "grave reasons" is in error. This is the first step before getting to heresy and I don't think you've even gotten that far.


    The phrase "grave reasons" appears nowhere in the article.  Neither does the phrase, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 17)  The document is heretical, because it is equating (if only implicitly) the primary and secondary ends of marriage.


    Obviously the term "grave reasons" appears nowhere. As I said, it is trying to explain the same concept in words that kids will understand. Just because you don't use those two exact words doesn't mean you can't explain the Catholic teaching on NFP without heresy.

    Now you are switching your claim of heresy to the fact that the article doesn't quote Casti Connubii on the ends of marriage. So any article on NFP and artificial contraception that fails to use this exact quote from Casti Connubii is heretical? How does the article implicitly deny the teaching of Casti Connubii?


    An article is heretical when it omits Catholic dogma.  It is not enough to deny a dogma, but failing to affirm the Truth would make one at least an occult heretic.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16