|
HEY GAIL posted:i love the reasoning where something you can't reproduce with is an "unworthy vessel" UNTIL they remember that old women and women with hysterectomies exist, whereupon they back out of the place their logic led them to with some thomistic handwaving. They loving fetishize physical reproduction and theology of the body is one of the reasons i left I think the artificial womb reference was more for "and even IF you could have a fertile robot, still no-go", but, yes, "if a robot's sterility is the problem, what about human sterility?" is also a good question. Am I the only Catholic in the thread who thinks Paul VI was prevented by papal infallibility from changing church teaching on contraception? (I assume non-Catholics don't believe that papal infallibility exists, which is why this is a question for my fellow papists.)
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I don't think I could be a saint it's too much pressure "She could never be a saint, but she thought she could be a martyr if they killed her quick," to quote one of Flannery O'Connor's characters. (It's the little girl in Temple of the Holy Spirit.) Thirteen Orphans posted:Can you go into more detail in what you mean by this? Papal infallibility doesn't mean "the pope will always teach truth" or "the pope will always teach the right thing at the right time", but only "the pope will not teach something contrary to truth", right? So here's Paul VI, having inherited a commission studying birth control from John XXIII, deciding to expand it from 6 people to 72 people, getting the report that 64 of 69 members voted that use of contraceptives was equivalent to keeping track of the woman's fertile periods and avoiding sex then, and from all appearances being ready to go with that majority report... and then out comes Humanae Vitae, which completely rejects the idea of permitting even married couples to use even non-barrier methods, and which Paul VI justifies, in part, by the commission not voting unanimously. The majority report had already been leaked; if his primary concern was not overturning Casti Connubii or not looking like the Church was changing its mind on something, he could have just... delayed. It's the Vatican, which isn't known for its reaction speed, and it took 4 years for the commission to produce its report, so taking 4 years to write an encyclical wouldn't have been unusual, and maybe in that time there'd be a consensus on accepting the majority report, or maybe he could do something with... contraceptives are different than they were in 1930, science, blah blah, sense of the faithful, blah blah, right? But no, he made a decision he knew would be incredibly unpopular, and about which he said, "because of my weaknesses, the Church is badly governed". This makes me think that he tried to support the majority report and was literally supernaturally unable to do so. Caufman posted:When my wife and I got married, the diocese's marriage prep material exhorted us to make our marriage "open to life". I may have made a grave, sinful error, but I took that to mean a serious, meaningful, and wide-ranging attitude towards life, and not as a euphemism for heterosexual intercourse without birth control. It was definitely meant to be a euphemism for that, I'm afraid; some marriage prep material is more euphemistic than others, because this still really isn't a popular teaching, not helped by the bishops at the time being at best tepid in their support. (I'd have to check my own marriage-prep booklet to see what mine said, because whatever it did say was completely unmemorable.) Whether you made a grave error by not seeing that phrase that way is for you and your confessor to discuss, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Caufman posted:My childhood parish in America was St. Pius X with no affiliation to the Society of St. Pius X. That was very confusing growing up. Both my childhood parish and the parish to which my older son's school is attached are under the patronage of Pope Pius X, in two different states, no less! He's pretty popular for lowering the age of first communion to 7 and encouraging regular reception of communion in general. Apparently he was also the Pope who decided that the US was no longer a missionary territory, permitted Italian Catholics to vote, and let refugees into the Apostolic Palace after a 7.1 magnitude earthquake in 1908. (oh and also he was really, really, really opposed to Modernism, which I am guessing is why the SSPX chose him as a patron)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Alvarez IV posted:I've been more or less certain of this for several years and have washed my hands of him to the greatest extent I possibly can, given that he's aggressively pleasant around people when it matters. And that's the last I'll say about it. That's more or less how I look at it. Edward Feser put it something like "learning to play the violin can be painful and frustrating, but being a skilled violin player is a source of joy; the pain involved in learning to play the violin is insignificant, not even worth mentioning, compared to the pain of someone who's lost a child, but the joy of being a skilled violin player is vastly more insignificant still than the joy of Heaven," and while I didn't find his actual wording memorable (obviously), the idea stuck with me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 23:28
|
|