Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jitpring on April 11, 2011, 02:29:28 PM
-
Have a look at this on the ridiculous YOUCAT:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/04/youcat-and-contraception.html
-
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 circuмstances 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 sɛҳuąƖ 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 sɛҳuąƖity—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
-
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.)
Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circuмstances 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."
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."
-
And the Pope's condoms remarks should be seen as part of this change.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 circuмstances 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.
-
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 docuмent 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.
-
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 docuмent 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 docuмent is heretical, because it is equating (if only implicitly) the primary and secondary ends of marriage.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
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 docuмent 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 docuмent 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?
-
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 docuмent 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 docuмent 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.
-
stevus and Jehanne, from what camps are you coming from? Jehanne is a sedevacantist, yes? And you, stevus? Not a sedevacantist, clearly, but surely not a NewChurcher?
-
stevus and Jehanne, from what camps are you coming from? Jehanne is a sedevacantist, yes? And you, stevus? Not a sedevacantist, clearly, but surely not a NewChurcher?
No, I am not a sede; however, I do not discount their position. As I stated elsewhere, even if Pope Benedict has lost the Chair of Peter, I believe that it is possible for him to recover from his errors. Still, doubtful Sacraments are no sacraments, which is why I adhere, entirely, to the Traditional Rites.
-
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.
???
First of all, Church teaching on the ends of marriage are part of the ordinary Magisterium. I'm not aware that they were ever dogmatized.
Secondly, your argument would mean that every article on any Church teaching would have to explicitly reaffirm every aspect of Church teaching on that subject or else the author would be an occult heretic. This is absurd.
This "YouthCat" was not written as a doctrinal treatise. It is a simple Q & A for kids to impart to them the Church's teaching on ABC in a way they can understand. You cannot assume that just because the author did not use a direct quote from Casti Connubii it is heretical.
-
stevus and Jehanne, from what camps are you coming from? Jehanne is a sedevacantist, yes? And you, stevus? Not a sedevacantist, clearly, but surely not a NewChurcher?
What does it matter to the argument? The argument Jehanne is making stands or fails based on its own merits whether she/he (sorry, sincerely not sure which due to name and avatar) is a Newchurcher, Buddhist, Atheist, Sede or SSPX'er.
For the record, no I am not a "newchurcher"...whatever that means.
-
stevus, do you actually support this "YOUCAT"?
-
stevus, do you actually support this "YOUCAT"?
Does pointing out that a section of it is not heretical = "supporting" it?
I haven't read it as I don't even think it is out yet, nor do I plan on it since I'm not a teen and don't plan on going to World Youth Day.
-
stevus and Jehanne, from what camps are you coming from? Jehanne is a sedevacantist, yes? And you, stevus? Not a sedevacantist, clearly, but surely not a NewChurcher?
What does it matter to the argument? The argument Jehanne is making stands or fails based on its own merits whether she/he (sorry, sincerely not sure which due to name and avatar) is a Newchurcher, Buddhist, Atheist, Sede or SSPX'er.
For the record, no I am not a "newchurcher"...whatever that means.
Simply put, a NewChurcher is one who supports Vatican II, whose hero is either John Paul II or Pedro Arrupe, etc.
If you had to say what camp you speak from, what would it be? SSPX? FSSP? Other? It helps to know this, as it enables one to plug certain unstated biases into one's comments.
Forgive. I'm yet a babe here.
-
stevus, do you actually support this "YOUCAT"?
Does pointing out that a section of it is not heretical = "supporting" it?
It's not that, but your implicit endorsement of its ostensible purpose of putting things in a way that youths can understand. Given today's catastrophic breakdown, this way is necessarily abysmal.
"The soft discrimination of low expectations" - an excellent phrase.
-
The NewChurch publisher of the English version of the YOUCAT is trying to minimize the fallout:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/04/youcat-and-contraception.html