Cardinal Turkson says don't breed like rabbits in order to save "Mother Earth"
#11
(12-09-2015, 02:13 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I wish there were more orthodox Catholics thinking seriously about our relationship with the natural world. Instead, we have American conservatives who are also Catholic saying, "Drill, baby! Drill! Who cares about the environment?" Or else we have liberals who want to change Church teaching on birth control and give power to the UN and other international organizations.

I feel the same way.  The Catholic principles are relatively clear (man's primordial vocation as steward of creation, his right to own and use creatures for just purposes, the primacy of the human person among all other creatures, etc.), but the extent of the global environmental problem (if any) and the means necessary or conducive to solving it (if any) are all reduced to political dogma.
Reply
#12
(12-09-2015, 02:13 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I wish there were more orthodox Catholics thinking seriously about our relationship with the natural world. Instead, we have American conservatives who are also Catholic saying, "Drill, baby! Drill! Who cares about the environment?" Or else we have liberals who want to change Church teaching on birth control and give power to the UN and other international organizations.

I sort of wonder if somebody like Edward Goldsmith might provide some direction for Catholics here.

Yes, that's precisely what we need: more influence in the Catholic Church from Jews from Frankfurt :P

I kid, of course, but I think the Catholic Church can find within itself the habits of thought to deal with the ecological crisis, if it exists in any global sense. To paraphrase Leo XIII, the problem of the world is that those in the Church are now suspicious of the Church's ways and so they whore themselves in some worldly path. And I don't think this is something impossible or too hard. I mean, even Laudato Si, in the bits and pieces I've read, is quite Catholic.

The problem is, again, the Catholics giving themselves to these modern Gnosticism.
Reply
#13
(12-09-2015, 02:22 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Maybe not, but many conservatives are pretty explicit about their lack of concern for the environment. Just do a Google search for "coal rollers."

Very few modern politically "conservative" or "liberal" catholics would be recognizable as Catholic to our ancestors in the Faith.
Reply
#14
(12-09-2015, 02:33 PM)GangGreen Wrote:
(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That being said, when we put to the two aspects together, we get the full doctrine.  Abstaining during fertile days and coming together only in infertile days would be a sin, not because the individual acts are sin, but because of the general violation of the duty to procreate.

That's my understanding anyway.

I counter that what makes someone's duty to procreate restricted to certain times? If a couple has 4 children and decides to stop are they being sinful? If a couple has 6 children and decides to stop, are they being sinful? What if a couple decides to wait for a couple years after marriage due to economic and living situations before they have children and then proceed to have a large family... were they being sinful prior to having children?

The use of NFP to prevent pregnancy is so gray and the Church has never ruled on it. It's only in trad circles where I see people full blown against couples using it. If using NFP to only have relations on infertile days to prevent pregnancy for a time is sinful because it goes against the duty to procreate, then shouldn't complete abstinence be the same?

I think we are in agreement.  In the statement you quoted, I should have added "without just cause."  When I said the general duty to procreate, I meant really general.  There can certainly be just causes to not procreate during any particular time and there is no universally right number.
Reply
#15
(12-09-2015, 02:22 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Maybe not, but many conservatives are pretty explicit about their lack of concern for the environment. Just do a Google search for "coal rollers."

I couldn't possibly care less about the environment.  I'm not politically conservative in the American sense -- I just do not care about the environment, and I think that caring about the environment is a waste of time and effort. 
Reply
#16
(12-09-2015, 02:33 PM)GangGreen Wrote:
(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That being said, when we put to the two aspects together, we get the full doctrine.  Abstaining during fertile days and coming together only in infertile days would be a sin, not because the individual acts are sin, but because of the general violation of the duty to procreate.

That's my understanding anyway.

I counter that what makes someone's duty to procreate restricted to certain times? If a couple has 4 children and decides to stop are they being sinful? If a couple has 6 children and decides to stop, are they being sinful? What if a couple decides to wait for a couple years after marriage due to economic and living situations before they have children and then proceed to have a large family... were they being sinful prior to having children?

The use of NFP to prevent pregnancy is so gray and the Church has never ruled on it. It's only in trad circles where I see people full blown against couples using it. If using NFP to only have relations on infertile days to prevent pregnancy for a time is sinful because it goes against the duty to procreate, then shouldn't complete abstinence be the same? St. Paul pretty much tells married couples to have relations as much as they can and not to refuse the other for long periods of time because it may lead themselves and their spouses into sin. So are we to believe that the only way to do things is for families to have 8 children?

I think it's left grey for a reason. There are no black and white rules what constitutes "grave reason" to not have children.

What we do need to do, however, is to make sure the Church is a larger influence on the couple than the society at large. A "serious economic reason", for example, isn't needing a McMansion, or another sunspot vacation, or brand new vehicles, but society would have you believe it is. I know for us, economics isn't really a factor for whether we're trying to avoid, but sometimes health is, or the needs of our current children is, or a myriad of other reasons.

But in the grand scheme, if the Church's teaching is the primary influence the rest of the argument is academic. We choose life because we love life and we trust God to provide. We believe as spouses we have a duty to our children to have children. We embrace our sexuality instead of denying it. There are seasons to life, and sometimes the season is to wait. I think what St. Paul is talking about is when one spouse refuses despite the requests of the other...  but when both spouses agree now is not the time, how can that lead to sin?
Reply
#17
(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: With regard to NFP,  I think you have to look at it in two parts, the macro and micro. 

In the macro is the married couple's general duty to procreate. A married couple has the duty to "be fruitful and multiply" or at least try to (infertility is not a sin unless it is deliberately willed). Simply deciding you don't feel like having kids is therefore a sin--even if you accomplished it by perfect abstinence after consummating the marriage.

There is no duty to procreate. Those words from Genesis have always been understood as a blessing, not a precept. See, for ex., the footnotes to the Douay.

(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: (snip) That being said, when we put to the two aspects together, we get the full doctrine.  Abstaining during fertile days and coming together only in infertile days would be a sin, not because the individual acts are sin, but because of the general violation of the duty to procreate.

Birth control (as opposed to artificial birth control) is always open to the possibility of conception even if it makes the likelihood much more remote. Doing what you say is not a sin unless it's done for a reason that isn't serious. There simply is no "duty" to procreate.
Reply
#18
(12-09-2015, 03:59 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: With regard to NFP,  I think you have to look at it in two parts, the macro and micro. 

In the macro is the married couple's general duty to procreate. A married couple has the duty to "be fruitful and multiply" or at least try to (infertility is not a sin unless it is deliberately willed). Simply deciding you don't feel like having kids is therefore a sin--even if you accomplished it by perfect abstinence after consummating the marriage.

There is no duty to procreate. Those words from Genesis have always been understood as a blessing, not a precept. See, for ex., the footnotes to the Douay.
There's no duty even for married couples? If the procreation and education of children is an end of marriage (even the primary end), can a married couple simply decide (for whatever reason or no reason at all), to simply not have children? It seems if a married couple can sin by refusing to have children, there must therefore be a general duty to have children (assuming it is possible) that is being violated, no?

Quote:
(12-09-2015, 02:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: (snip) That being said, when we put to the two aspects together, we get the full doctrine.  Abstaining during fertile days and coming together only in infertile days would be a sin, not because the individual acts are sin, but because of the general violation of the duty to procreate.

Birth control (as opposed to artificial birth control) is always open to the possibility of conception even if it makes the likelihood much more remote. Doing what you say is not a sin unless it's done for a reason that isn't serious. There simply is no "duty" to procreate.

I guess my point is summed up in the idea that we both agree that using NFP can be sinful when used to avoid pregnancy without a just cause.  But how can this be, unless there is some duty to not avoid pregnancy that is being violated in those cases? I'm just not seeing the basis for the use of NFP to avoid children to ever be sin in any circumstances unless there is some duty opposed to its arbitrary use. 
Reply
#19
Thought experiment here:

Lets say in the next 15-20 years fertility monitors become so advanced they can accurately predict when a woman is fertile at 100%.  Would it be sinful to use such a monitor and only have sex on days where the woman is non-fertile?  Is NFP acceptable simply because there is some risk (not a large risk if done properly and a woman has regular cycles) of pregnancy?
Reply
#20
(12-09-2015, 02:38 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: To paraphrase Leo XIII, the problem of the world is that those in the Church are now suspicious of the Church's ways and so they whore themselves in some worldly path.
This is certainly a problem, but sometimes I think it's even more superficial.  Since our doctrine requires us to be in agreement with one political faction on certain points, I get the impression some leaders think we should therefore also be enthusiastic about points on the other faction's platform that don't explicitly go against the faith, to show we are not tied to any particular party.  That's just the impression I get anyway--maybe I'm just cynical.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)