New "catechism" promotes contraception
#11
(04-11-2011, 11:12 PM)damooster Wrote: I can kind of understand their "translation" argument and I want to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt...

But how difficult is it to translate the word "no?" Or "Contraception is evil?"

Yeh, that was my thought.  When there is a question like "Is contraception allowed?", surely alarm bells should be going off as soon as the word "yes" appears in any context.
Reply
#12
What the hell, man?  "Bish Schony" will defend his "YouCat" as orthodox, saying that this is a misunderstanding and mistranslation, but this is just straight bull.  I can't stand this condescension to the youth culture, much less the blatant heterodoxy.  Give the kids a straight up catechism and tell them the right answer.  NO, contraception is not appropriate.  That's it.  I'm losing my patience with these wolves spewing crap in Christ's name.

YouCat?!?  Are they freaking serious??

[Image: Banging-head-on-desk.gif]
Reply
#13
I'm going thru Baltimore Catechism #0 with my 7 yr old preparing him for his first communion and it's jarring in its directness. Commit a mortal sin, and you go to hell unless you go to confession. Pretty basic stuff. Fundamental stuff. Seems like an easy answer. Is contraception a moral sin? Yes, as per Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae. Use it and you go to hell unless you go to confession.
Reply
#14
(04-12-2011, 06:15 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I'm going thru Baltimore Catechism #0 with my 7 yr old preparing him for his first communion and it's jarring in its directness. Commit a mortal sin, and you go to hell unless you go to confession. Pretty basic stuff. Fundamental stuff. Seems like an easy answer. Is contraception a moral sin? Yes, as per Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae. Use it and you go to hell unless you go to confession.

But you can't say things like that.  What if you offend someone?  Now that is the real mortal sin in the Church these days.
Reply
#15
Apparently, the Holy Father wrote the preface to the book and recommended it back in February:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=111391 (Pontiff Recommends "Extraordinary" Youth Catechism)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=111386 (Pope Promotes "Gripping" New Youth Catechism)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=111401 (Pope's Preface to New Youth Catechism)

From the article linked to in the OP: "The English edition, published by Ignatius Press, does not contain the problematic language."  So... why are the other editions (particularly the German and Italian texts) still being published?  Why isn't there a moratorium until the catechism can be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that there's not even a hint of heresy?

Eh, why do I still allow myself to be surprised?  After a period of corrupting the Faith (Vatican-approved statement: "In the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation"), the Modernists are now making a direct, and apparently approved, attack on Morals.  sad  >sad

NorthernTrad,
Interesting observation.
Reply
#16
If there is a problematic translation error in the Italian version of the Catechism for Youth, I'd hope they'd hold back distribution on this version. However, I also recognize the secular media has a bad habit of erroneous quotes.

Reply
#17
Horsefeathers ! This can not stand !

tim
Reply
#18
 

What about this from the Italian version (straight from the horse's mouth:

Question 420 in the Italian language edition states:

“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).

Only God can give life. 

What is the YC talking about?  This is heresy, the formal kind, bad as it is. 

And they're saying, "Wait and see (for the final versionb) before jumping into conclusion? 
Reply
#19
(04-11-2011, 10:26 PM)Stevo Wrote: As if things at WYD weren't bad enough, apparently every pilgrim will get a copy of this "catechism".

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/world-youth-day-catechism-suggests-endorsement-of-contraceptive-methods/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

No surprises to see who oversaw it (yes, I'm looking in your direction Cardinal Schonborn)

I pray that it is all a mistranslation.

Blessings,
Pray
Steve

It would sem that now the Danube flows into the Tiber too...
Reply
#20
(04-11-2011, 10:54 PM)Pheo Wrote: Yes, a new catechism with a trendy title like 'YouCat' is precisely what the Church needed now.

You see, young people are stupid, so they need things spelled out in vague terms with just enough heterodoxy to keep things interesting.  It's the new springtime, and things smell rank great!

The name of that catechism, YouCat, is down right EMBARRASSING!!! I'm assuming it stands for Young Catholic, but have no idea why Catholic youth would need their own CatechismHuh? However, the text says nothing about artificial contraceptives & I'm thinking that it speaks of NFP. NFP has been approved by the Church since St. Augustine, who wrote to the The manichaeans  in the year 388,  "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?" The Manichaeans refused to have children, believing that  it was immoral to create any children, thus (by their belief system), trapping souls in mortal bodies.

Our Church's first recorded official statement on periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy is from 1853, where a ruling of the church's Sacred Penitentiary addressed the topic of periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy. Distributed to confessors, the ruling stated that couples who had, on their own, begun the practice of periodic abstinenceespecially if they had "legitimate reasons"—were not sinning by doing so. I do believe that the legitimate reasons clause is often abused, still the Church teaches that NFP is allowable when the health of the Mother might be compromised, the family would be put in dire financial circumstances because of another baby, etc.  Let's PRAY that is what the snippit from CN is referring to.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)