tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6654598189826116534..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Newsflash: Pope Francis did NOT just green-light contraception!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26083438259832579382016-02-22T05:58:51.657-07:002016-02-22T05:58:51.657-07:00Haven't read all your comments here, Leila, bu...Haven't read all your comments here, Leila, but thought I'd link to this post and see if you had thoughts on it. :). http://www.catholicallyear.com/2016/02/the-pope-francis-conversation-or-go.html?m=1Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18385125152722680152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-7783521781718398812016-02-21T22:43:50.246-07:002016-02-21T22:43:50.246-07:00In the book Moral Theology (the priest's best ...In the book Moral Theology (the priest's best companion in the confessional before Vatican II), there is a category on theft and stealing. "Extreme need" is one "reason that permits one to take things belonging to another" (the word stealing or theft is not use at all). The conditions must be such that the person only take what is needed to survive and no more. And that the person may not take from one who is in the same extreme need. And that wherever possible, this is seen in the sense of a loan, that it will be repaid if situation ever warrants it. <br /><br />Anyway, that's not contraception, but it's an illustration that intrinsic evil is real, but we need to make sure that we understand what those words refer to, and what we just use colloquially. It's a thick little book! And the only reason it's so is because human beings live in this complicated fallen world and though the Church works off broad and concrete principles, we still need them explained and applied to the complexities of life. It's like we used to tell our RCIA students. The reason that someone in the Church answered a question like, "Is it a sin to chew on a blade of grass before receiving the Eucharist", is because someone of the faithful asked it! And the Church works hard to answer those questions. <br /><br />In a case like Pope Francis, he is not a moral theologian, I think it's safe to say! I don't believe that is his area of interest at all. <br /><br />That still may not help you, but tell me what you find!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14895426584701918092016-02-21T22:30:08.497-07:002016-02-21T22:30:08.497-07:00Yes, let me know what you find! But no, I actually...Yes, let me know what you find! But no, I actually don't and wouldn't call that stealing. Stealing has a meaning and that's not it. If the rest of the world wants to say it's stealing then to me it's like calling gay couplings "marriage". It's not really marriage, and stretching a word can't change that. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26046748645961517742016-02-21T21:06:50.795-07:002016-02-21T21:06:50.795-07:00I appreciate the time.
As to the 'stealing...I appreciate the time.<br /><br />As to the 'stealing', I do understand the moral situation that allows for the taking of the food because I understand the whole idea of the common good and serving the common good, as I mentioned before...but look, we still call it stealing. <br /><br />We haven't replaced the word. We just put the same word in a new context and yet still call it stealing. <br /><br />Why don't we do the same with 'contracepting'? Same word, both contexts. <br /><br />Thanks for the time... I'll keep looking and learning as well.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84867276787506892632016-02-21T21:01:32.864-07:002016-02-21T21:01:32.864-07:00I extrapolated that from HV. I promise to look in ...I extrapolated that from HV. I promise to look in the moral theology book after we're done with this movie, here at the Miller home. But as for stealing, that is defined as taking something without permission that rightfully belongs to another. The goods of the earth that God gave for survival cannot rightly or justly be "owned" by someone who is withholding it from the starving. It's not stealing at all to take it. Not stealing. <br /><br />I'll be back later, promise.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24581025032719293012016-02-21T20:51:35.015-07:002016-02-21T20:51:35.015-07:00But I am not looking at virtue here. I am filling...But I am not looking at virtue here. I am filling in my flowchart. My mental flowchart has too man empty rectangles...ack! mental shut down mental shut down!Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35464028644983637052016-02-21T20:48:06.096-07:002016-02-21T20:48:06.096-07:00First, do you agree that rape is not a conjugal ac...<i>First, do you agree that rape is not a conjugal act? It's not the thing that any Pope was talking about when speaking of how contraception would distort the nature of the act?</i><br /><br />? I'm looking for a new word apart from any rape scenario. Rape is not conjugal, okay, but that's beside the point because the nun story never happened and the idea that the pill would ever be acceptable would never be valid- it's an objective evil. No conditions should allow for its use for 'preventative' measures. That's another discussion. <br /><br /><i>Sure we can say that fornicating couples are contracepting, but.... so what? </i> <br /><br />The 'so what' is huge. I need a new word. If not contracepting, then ______. If not ... then ... It's the same logic we use when we argue atheists, "where do morals come from?" If not from God ...then_____. Insert new word here.<br /><br /><br /><i>We are talking about what is moral, and in this case, we've just put contraception on top of another mortal sin. So, forget if someone asked you personally, but just generally and as an academic exercise, what would you say about a hypothetical fornicating couple. Would you say that their use of contraception is a sin? </i><br /><br />I wouldn't call it contraception, because, according to the Church, what they're doing is not contracepting! I need a new word to talk about what they're using or evaluate their use of it. I mean, I'm just looking for a new word. If it's contracpeting, then why doesn't the Church define it like that? Intellectually, I need to know the building blocks of how the Church arrived at this way to go about defining the word and why they chose that route. I am not challenging Her. I am wanting to sit at Her feet and learn. I need to understand, for my own benefit here.<br /><br />The stealing scenario-- so then what is it called, if not stealing? New word insertion. It's not "stealing", okay, because taking (still stealing) food if you're starving is okay in a moral situation where one takes from abundance or excess and it serves the common good (fellow man).<br /><br />I don't know why you brought that in to the explanation of contracepting being built on 2 conditions? It's still defined as stealing and really doesn't illustrate the foundation of where those two conditions come from.<br /><br />I just like to see it. These two conditions come from _______ from this reference, written from ___ to ___. Just a solid reference.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-86471521929312853782016-02-21T20:33:55.930-07:002016-02-21T20:33:55.930-07:00Don't take my "so what" as flippant....Don't take my "so what" as flippant. I really mean it. So if a fornicating couple does not contracept, does that make things more kosher or moral? It's something I've struggled with, because it seems like we should say, "gosh, at least don't contracept if you are fornicating!" But then again, really? Does it matter at that point? Can non-contracepting be a virtue in that situation?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-48087939978402565072016-02-21T20:31:56.883-07:002016-02-21T20:31:56.883-07:00First, do you agree that rape is not a conjugal ac...First, do you agree that rape is not a conjugal act? It's not the thing that any Pope was talking about when speaking of how contraception would distort the nature of the act?<br /><br />Sure we can say that fornicating couples are contracepting, but.... so what? We are talking about what is moral, and in this case, we've just put contraception on top of another mortal sin. So, forget if someone asked you personally, but just generally and as an academic exercise, what would you say about a hypothetical fornicating couple. Would you say that their use of contraception is a sin? <br /><br />It's the best way I can phrase the question. Is it less sinful or more morally okay (on some or any level) if a fornicating couple does not contracept? <br /><br />But again, I have no problem using that word for fornicating couples, just that it doesn't really *matter* in a sense. <br /><br />Do you see why a starving man taking food from a rich man's table is not stealing? So, sometimes context and intent do make a difference, even when something like stealing is TRULY intrinsically evil (I'm back on the nuns taking Pills now, even though it turns out that was probably something that never actually happened). <br /><br />How did we get here???? Oh, Papa Francis!! lol<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-41926189025279514952016-02-21T20:18:52.349-07:002016-02-21T20:18:52.349-07:00Earlier you said this and I agree:
Killing in sel...Earlier you said this and I agree:<br /><br /><i>Killing in self-defense is not murder.</i><br /><br />This makes sense because you've supplied a new word that replaces murder, which makes logical sense. Self-defense is killing, not murder. That makes sense. But...:<br /><br /><i>Contracepting (according to the definition in HV) is when the marital act is thwarted from its natural end. Rape is not a conjugal act.</i><br /><br />So we have the reality that contracepting can only really be called contracepting in marital context but not in fornication context, then what would it be? What's the new word? How can it be only defined to one context? I mean, the fornicators on the pill are obviously contracepting and thwarting and preventing just the same as marrieds who use contraception are. If it's not called "contracepting" for them in this context, then what's the word? I need a new word or I can't get my head around why the objectivity that contracepting is built only on two conditions.<br /><br />All I have found thus far is a reiteration of the moral law and moral theology but nothing teaching me why those two conditions drive the objective definition. <br /><br />Like I asked earlier: Is this thing a ball or isn't it a ball? If it's not a ball if the blue team uses it, then what's the new word? And, further, why does "context of use" and "intent" drive the need for a/the new word? Help, someone?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12826504672413247732016-02-21T19:20:21.179-07:002016-02-21T19:20:21.179-07:00Oh, gosh, yes! Sorry, Sharon, that was to Fausty!!...Oh, gosh, yes! Sorry, Sharon, that was to Fausty!! Thanks for catching that.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34527227380661517982016-02-21T19:09:09.864-07:002016-02-21T19:09:09.864-07:00Was that to Fausty?Was that to Fausty?Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10267718375516325369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-86091305115524294612016-02-21T14:19:08.184-07:002016-02-21T14:19:08.184-07:00I understand it as the Church gives it. I just wa...I understand it as the Church gives it. I just want to understand how they give it.<br /><br />I'd tell them according to the Church they cannot technically contracept because they don't meet the 2 conditions for that. <br /><br />If they're asking me what I think they ought to do with their sex life, I'd tell them that's a really bizarre and private issue and that I don't believe in contraception nor fornication. But they'd know this by my witness, I'd hope. <br /><br />? How does this relate to my questions on moral conditions and where they originate? <br /><br />I'm going to check my Aquinas and some of JP2's stuff. I don't want to cloud up comments with bulletin board comments. I need to go about two levels under to see where the conditions come from. Thanks for the convo.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42533314444431552962016-02-21T14:11:36.483-07:002016-02-21T14:11:36.483-07:00Sharon, I have no idea the actual intent of the Po...Sharon, I have no idea the actual intent of the Pope in his heart and soul, or if he believes that contraception can be used with married people facing something like Zika virus. <br /><br />But I do know that his comments did not green-light contraception. He cannot change the moral law. He'd be the first to say that, once he sorted out the nuances, which he doesn't always seem to fully get. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45296403432245221332016-02-21T14:10:19.655-07:002016-02-21T14:10:19.655-07:00But at the end of the day, it's still 'mur... <i>But at the end of the day, it's still 'murder' in terms of a life being taken.</i><br /><br />No, it's not murder. Not at all. I think that may be the hang-up. Murder is something specific, and it's always immoral. Killing in self-defense is not murder.<br /><br />All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.<br /><br />As for stealing, stealing is always wrong. But "stealing" food if you are starving is not stealing at all.<br /><br />Contracepting (according to the definition in HV) is when the marital act is thwarted from its natural end. Rape is not a conjugal act.<br /><br />Question for clarification purposes: How do you understand the Church's definition of contraception?<br /><br />And, if an unmarried couple asks you if you think they should use contraception as they fornicate, what answer do you give them?<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74088748055560175262016-02-21T13:51:07.803-07:002016-02-21T13:51:07.803-07:00And to continue my thought, the Church has never s...<i>And to continue my thought, the Church has never said that it is ok for unmarried couples to use contraception. So in a way, I'm not really clear, Nubby, what you're having a problem with.</i><br /><br />Of course the Church hasn't (it wouldn't be 'contraception' in that context anyway, according to the 2 conditions needed). I am not saying it did. I am creating a scenario of assumption to illustrate the ideas outlined in the excerpt of HV that Leila posted. I made a concrete application that shows there are no limits on unmarrieds, assumed to be celibate, using the Pill, really, even without threat of attack. The limits are on the marrieds. There would be no limit, per that document, on singles. <br /><br />The moral landscape is assumed, really. That was my point there.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4324489319360707702016-02-21T13:21:11.424-07:002016-02-21T13:21:11.424-07:00And to continue my thought, the Church has never s...And to continue my thought, the Church has never said that it is ok for unmarried couples to use contraception. So in a way, I'm not really clear, Nubby, what you're having a problem with.<br /><br />Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08613359678249417791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28022225861704489932016-02-21T13:13:01.537-07:002016-02-21T13:13:01.537-07:00"But it's a non-thing. Rape is not a conj..."But it's a non-thing. Rape is not a conjugal act. So, the question of contraception cannot even apply."<br /><br />We do have to say, though, that it's not like this is official Church teaching, right? No one has ever said that it's ok to take the Pill if you think you are at high risk of being raped. So really, it's a non-issue.<br /><br />I hope that there aren't people out there who were thinking of using NFP but who have now changed their minds because Pope Francis just said not to bother, because he thinks a "grave reason," whatever that reason might be, overrides an intrinsic evil. What Pope Francis said was not Church teaching. It was not at that level. He did not change anything.Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08613359678249417791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19727947883370421082016-02-21T12:55:39.916-07:002016-02-21T12:55:39.916-07:00For contraception to be contraception, two things ...<i>For contraception to be contraception, two things have to be present: <br /><br />1. The marital act <br />2. The intent to contracept</i><br /><br />Why is it conditioned to these 2 things? <br /><br />The condition of the marital act means that non-marrieds on the pill who are fornicating are only guilty of fornicating because they don't meet both conditions here. <br /><br />They're having sex, but not in the context of marriage, so it’s not called the ‘marital act’, right. So, they’re not literally ‘contracepting’. Only fornicating? How is this logically consistent when we know they are indeed contracepting on top of fornicating. The reality is, they are. <br /><br />It’s like saying, “This thing is only really this thing within this context.”<br /> <br />“This ball is only a ball when used by the red team and on the condition that the red team has the intent to use it. <br />This ball isn’t really a ball if used outside of the red team; so, in the case of the blue team using it, it’s not a ball.”<br /><br />Is the thing a ball or not?<br />Then what is it? The meaning is only in intent and context of act?<br />So, then where’s the objectivity of a thing being able to be defined as evil? <br />Why the parentheses to an objective reality like contraception?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-17601144000452028492016-02-21T12:55:20.935-07:002016-02-21T12:55:20.935-07:00Leila, am I understanding correctly that you are r...Leila, am I understanding correctly that you are revising your original theory that the Pope did not green-light contraception? Are you saying now that he did, in fact, support ABC in these limited situations but didn't officially change doctrine?Faustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574496528428219497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38686734393635918072016-02-21T12:54:32.765-07:002016-02-21T12:54:32.765-07:00To the article on the Pope and all of that, I get ...To the article on the Pope and all of that, I get that he probably shouldn't be speaking so much if he's not good at it, and I really don’t normally care to critique all of that. Like ice skating, people shouldn't speak publicly, if they're not good at it. They'll either get injured or injure someone else.<br /><br />But speaking on objective evils, he not only drew on an untrue event (nuns on the Pill) he made it worse by doing so. Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46443053067751872822016-02-21T12:53:47.291-07:002016-02-21T12:53:47.291-07:00In moral theology, why does context change the obj...In moral theology, why does context change the objective definition of something? Does this mean that the condition of intent changes a literal meaning? <br /><br />Think murder v self-defense. Self-defense is still taking a life, but the context was defensive and not aggressive. But at the end of the day, it's still 'murder' in terms of a life being taken. So why is contraception not still contraception outside of intent, at the end of the day? <br /><br />Morally speaking, intent is always of utmost importance but how does that condition really change the objective reality of what something is? Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34591500462877634392016-02-21T11:46:33.530-07:002016-02-21T11:46:33.530-07:00Oh, I love this!! Please read it!
https://amywelb...Oh, I love this!! Please read it!<br /><br />https://amywelborn.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/against-popesplaining/Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26390571727548185022016-02-21T09:42:40.856-07:002016-02-21T09:42:40.856-07:00Right, no, I get this part. But then look. Singles...<i>Right, no, I get this part. But then look. Singles could be assumed to be chaste and told, "here take the pill, in case, you know, you're raped." Just assumption alone is huge and there is no evil in consuming it. Yet, it works as a preventative. To prevent kids. To prevent ovulation. To prevent whatever. To thwart.<br /><br />Still thwarting. Not a sex act of marriage, but still thwarting.</i><br /><br />Yes, and I suppose if a single woman just wants to pop hormones in the off chance that she is raped one day, so be it. I don't think there is anything that says she cannot. The problem is not in the thwarting (we thwart things all the time), it's in the thwarting of the end of the conjugal act. It's attempting the marital act, but saying no to the baby that could result. In rape, there is no marital act. There is no conjugal act. <br /><br />Think of it this way: The act of rape to conceive a child is mortally sinful, as is the act of making a child in a petri dish, via IVF. If I were to position myself next to the lab tech as she was just about to add the sperm to the eggs, and if I were to slap that dish out of her hands and thwarted the conception of potential children, I would have thwarted the conception, but not sinfully at all. There would be no sin in preventing a child from being conceived in a petri dish. Rape is as evil, if not more, than an IVF attempt.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50451059316475813942016-02-21T09:37:58.088-07:002016-02-21T09:37:58.088-07:00No, not "should they", but it correlates...<i>No, not "should they", but it correlates to the assumption that they're allowed to "in case of rape". It makes an equal assumption and is an equally preventative measure. Right?</i><br /><br />But it's a non-thing. Rape is not a conjugal act. So, the question of contraception cannot even apply.<br /><br />To me, this whole question is somewhat like the question: "If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift?"<br /><br />It's like a non-question. It cannot apply. It goes against the nature of the thing.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com