• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christians: The Use of Contraception is a Sin[W:40]

phattonez said:
So Pope Pius XI was wrong when he stated this: "Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such away that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
Click to expand...

Was that spoken ex cathedra?
 
People commit sins all the time and will continue to do so. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What I mean is, the point of christianity should not be condemnation and damnation. It should be to educate. And for the self, to know we will never be perfect. Even when we don't commit some such sins, we easily commit others. And that's where Jesus comes in, as the redeemer. To free us from from eternal damnation from such sins. Eternity seems like such a long time to suffer, for sins committed in a short life. That's why we have forgiveness and redemption.

So while it may be true that lustful acts with ones spouse may be sinful, we are drinking from our own cups. The man who endures much, who forgives much, who keeps his promise to his spouse and family and who believes in Jesus will be saved. This despite the myriad petty sins committed daily.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Only when speaking ex cathedra, as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

That's not true. If that was the case then papal infallibility would have been used only twice to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The fact is that the pope is infallible when, speaking as pope, he speaks on matters of faith and morals.
 
Manny said:
People commit sins all the time and will continue to do so. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What I mean is, the point of christianity should not be condemnation and damnation. It should be to educate. And for the self, to know we will never be perfect. Even when we don't commit some such sins, we easily commit others. And that's where Jesus comes in, as the redeemer. To free us from from eternal damnation from such sins. Eternity seems like such a long time to suffer, for sins committed in a short life. That's why we have forgiveness and redemption.

So while it may be true that lustful acts with ones spouse may be sinful, we are drinking from our own cups. The man who endures much, who forgives much, who keeps his promise to his spouse and family and who believes in Jesus will be saved. This despite the myriad petty sins committed daily.
Click to expand...

I'm not damning anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the act is sinful. It is important that we know what is sinful and what is not so that we can avoid sinning.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not damning anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the act is sinful. It is important that we know what is sinful and what is not so that we can avoid sinning.
Click to expand...

It might very well be sinful, but I think you're failing to account for ambiguity and extenuating circumstances here.

Even far more heinous sins might not necessarily damn a person to Hell if they were committed for reasons, or under circumstances, which might have warranted them, or which diminish a person's culpability.

After all, we are all ultimately sinners, and no one is making it to heaven but by the grace of God alone.
 
phattonez said:
So Pope Pius XI was wrong when he stated this: "Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such away that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
Click to expand...

Was pope Francis wrong when he stated

One also sees the need for policies which can lighten an excessive imbalance between incomes. We must not forget the Church’s teaching on the so-called social mortgage, which holds that although it is lawful, as Saint Thomas Aquinas says, and indeed necessary “that people have ownership of goods”,[12] insofar as their use is concerned, “they possess them as not just their own, but common to others as well, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as themselves”.
Click to expand...

Or do you only respect the authority of the Pope when he doesn't conflict with your Libertarian views? The common theme in your moralizing is that it puts a lot of restrictions on the actions of others, but you seem unconcerned with anything that actually might impact yourself.
 
rathi said:
Was pope Francis wrong when he stated

Or do you only respect the authority of the Pope when he doesn't conflict with your Libertarian views? The common theme in your moralizing is that it puts a lot of restrictions on the actions of others, but you seem unconcerned with anything that actually might impact yourself.
Click to expand...

Is economics faith or morals? No, it isn't.

When he speaks of our morality in economic transactions then sure, he has authority. However, when he is talking about what economic system is best or most fair, then he's not in his realm.

Pope Leo XIII: "If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem . . .I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience."

See you later.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
It might very well be sinful, but I think you're failing to account for ambiguity and extenuating circumstances here.

Even far more heinous sins might not necessarily damn a person to Hell if they were committed for reasons, or under circumstances, which might have warranted them, or which diminish a person's culpability.

After all, we are all ultimately sinners, and no one is making it to heaven but by the grace of God alone.
Click to expand...

Extenuating circumstances are up to God to judge. Contraception, on its own, is intrinsically evil. There is no way around that.
 
phattonez said:
Is economics faith or morals? No, it isn't. See you later.
Click to expand...

The pope absolutely seems to think that economics is most certainly a matter of faith and morals (not that I actually agree).


If, then, we consider peace as opus solidaritatis, we cannot fail to acknowledge that fraternity is its principal foundation. Peace, John Paul II affirmed, is an indivisible good. Either it is the good of all or it is the good of none. It can be truly attained and enjoyed, as the highest quality of life and a more human and sustainable development, only if all are guided by solidarity as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good”.[7] This means not being guided by a “desire for profit” or a “thirst for power”. What is needed is the willingness to “lose ourselves” for the sake of others rather than exploiting them, and to “serve them” instead of oppressing them for our own advantage. “The ‘other’ – whether a person, people or nation – [is to be seen] not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as our ‘neighbour’, a ‘helper’”.[8]
Click to expand...

You have no problem literally damning other people to hell, so you really shouldn't be getting pissy about getting called on your inconsistency.
 
rathi said:
The pope absolutely seems to think that economics is most certainly a matter of faith and morals (not that I actually agree).

You have no problem literally damning other people to hell, so you really shouldn't be getting pissy about getting called on your inconsistency.
Click to expand...

I'm getting "pissy" about a person who trashes Christianity coming into the religious discussion forum posting something irrelevant to the topic and going for personal attacks when confronted.
 
phattonez said:
I'm getting "pissy" about a person who trashes Christianity coming into the religious discussion forum posting something irrelevant to the topic and going for personal attacks when confronted.
Click to expand...

I'm not trashing Christianity. I'm trashing your inconsistency. You make a lot of posts in the religious forum proclaiming moral authority over other people, I simply am applying that same standard to you.
 
rathi said:
I'm not trashing Christianity. I'm trashing your inconsistency. You make a lot of posts in the religious forum proclaiming moral authority over other people, I simply am applying that same standard to you.
Click to expand...

No, you're stirring up nonsense and trying to derail my thread. Am I not allowed to talk about what is sin and what is not?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Debate the OP, which is not other posters.
 
phattonez said:
Before getting into the scriptural and moral case against contraception, I'd just like to point out that all Christian denominations were in full agreement about this until the 20th century. All.
Click to expand...

How does one prove the 'all' denominations were against contraception? Pretty sure it isn't with a blanket statement.
 
RogueWarrior said:
How does one prove the 'all' denominations were against contraception? Pretty sure it isn't with a blanket statement.
Click to expand...

What does it even matter if other denominations are for or against it? Catholicism may have a central authority that it's minions have to listen to, but Protestantism doesn't work like that.

If some grand poobah has this or that to say, it's meaningless.
 
Lateran III levied the sentence of excommunication for engaging in the usury, setting the clear precedent that economic matters are certainly moral issues involving sin and even subject to punishment. Pope Francis's statements about the immoral nature of economic actions should be treated no differently than the same arguments made against contraception.
 
phattonez said:
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I never brought this up. I'm only discussing the sinfulness of using contraception.
Click to expand...

Among all christians or just your flavor?
I don't think you get to decide what constitutes sin for all christians.
If your interpretation or you agree with someone else's interpretation that contraception is a sin then don't use contraception. No one is forcing you to use it. Just like you can't force people not to use it if they don't believe that interpretation.
 
rathi said:
Lateran III levied the sentence of excommunication for engaging in the usury, setting the clear precedent that economic matters are certainly moral issues involving sin and even subject to punishment. Pope Francis's statements about the immoral nature of economic actions should be treated no differently than the same arguments made against contraception.
Click to expand...

Like I said, economic matters are not faith or morals.

Furthermore, usury is not the charging of interest on a loan. It's more complex than that.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Because there were no statements to the contrary until the 20th century. The first major statement in support came in 1930.

Touchstone Archives: Children of the Reformation
Click to expand...

And that is typical for a christian argument. If they didn't endorse it , they must oppose it. Logic and debate don't work that way. It must be nice to lay false claim to the undecideds.
You might use 'many' or even maybe 'most' and get away with it.
 
RogueWarrior said:
And that is typical for a christian argument. If they didn't endorse it , they must oppose it. Logic and debate don't work that way.
You might use 'many' or even maybe 'most' and get away with it.
Click to expand...

It was universally condemned. Birth control is not some new invention. It's been around since Egyptian times at least, and Christians have always opposed it.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Among all christians or just your flavor?
I don't think you get to decide what constitutes sin for all christians.
If your interpretation or you agree with someone else's interpretation that contraception is a sin then don't use contraception. No one is forcing you to use it. Just like you can't force people not to use it if they don't believe that interpretation.
Click to expand...

Funny how atheists seem to be the ones most riled up at even the discussion of this issue.
 
tacomancer said:
What does it even matter if other denominations are for or against it? Catholicism may have a central authority that it's minions have to listen to, but Protestantism doesn't work like that.

If some grand poobah has this or that to say, it's meaningless.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Just trying to keep tonez in tune with reality. Pun intended.:2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom