Confessions of an angry Catholic

[Murphy101]

Catholics for choice is NOT a Catholic organization.

 

That's like a group called "vegetarians for eating meat".

[LibraryLover]

I didn't realize that NFP was against church teachings.  Now I'm curious about something else.  Is it OK to have sex when you are obviously far too old for even an oops pregnancy?

[Murphy101]

I didn't realize that NFP was against church teachings. Now I'm curious about something else. Is it OK to have sex when you are obviously far too old for even an oops pregnancy?

NFP is not against church teachings when done with openness to life.

 

I do not recall anyone saying otherwise.

 

If you are married - it's okay to have sex with your spouse.

[LibraryLover]

NFP is not against church teachings when done with openness to life.

 

I do not recall anyone saying otherwise.

 

If you are married - it's okay to have sex with your spouse.

 

OK. I thought Moxie wrote that church stand on sex is that it is for procreation. I'll go reread. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

ETA: Reading comprehension issues. Sorry about that.  OK, NFP is not birth control, and it doesn't work for Moxie. I get it. ((Wishing you all the best, M.))

[Murphy101]

OK. I thought Moxie wrote that chruch stand on sex is that it is for procreation. I'll go reread. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I don't recall and would need to reread too. If she did, then she was mistaken if she said it was ONLY for procreation.

[Violet Crown]

Is there any instance of Infallible Doctrine later being overturned?

The strongest case for that is probably the prohibition on usury (lending money at interest). It's explicitly condemned in Scripture, and Church teaching condemning it was unwavering through the Renaissance. It wasn't so much "overturned" as eviscerated, thus (Caution: wildly simplified history here): Italian merchants needed to know what kinds of contracts counted as usurious, as they were illegal and so invalid. Insurance and shipping contracts were legal; interest-bearing loans were banned. The crucial difference was determined to be that the latter bought and sold the use of money (usury), while the former bought and sold risk. Theologians and economists agreed that this was the relevant distinction. But any loan contract could easily be drawn up as a contract for the transfer of risk, and of course this was done. Thus the ban on usury effectively disappeared without ever being changed as infallible teaching. The modern catechism feebly condemns excessive interest on loans; but this definition of usury is a novelty, and is universally ignored.

 

Aren't you sorry you asked?

[Murphy101]

Usury - nope. Not a case.

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

[nmoira]

Aren't you sorry you asked?

Not at all. :D I find the whole thing fascinating.

[Violet Crown]

Usury - nope. Not a case.

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

In my fallible opinion, the case made by the author of that article, that money was once "unfruitful" but is now "fruitful," is risible. I think there are good reasons not to see the change in the teaching regarding usury as a failure of infallibility; but the argument that the nature of money suddenly changed in the Renaissance is not one of them.

[katilac]

In my fallible opinion, the case made by the author of that article, that money was once "unfruitful" but is now "fruitful," is risible. I think there are good reasons not to see the change in the teaching regarding usury as a failure of infallibility; but the argument that the nature of money suddenly changed in the Renaissance is not one of them.

 

And it has a painful number of grammatical errors. I'm only a few paragraphs in, and I can't read further due to the wincing it's inducing. 

[DianeW88]

How are you feeling, Moxie?  Is your dh doing any better?  You've been on my mind for the past few days.  I really do have so much sympathy for your situation.  You are between a rock and a hard place.  And based on your age, and the fertility history in your family, you may end up having several more pregnancies after this one if NFP doesn't work for you.  Maybe some counseling with your parish priest could help you make peace with the situation?

[Murphy101]

Crud, I had a whole thing type and it disappeared when I switched pages to cut and paste. Sigh

 

Well anyways.

 

Here is also this, just in case there is confusion about infallibility. Not everything is infallible.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V

 

And specific to usury

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

Of note:

 

In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence. A certain number of authors, among them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application. Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man. The vehement denunciation of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were called forth by the moral decadence and avarice of the time, and we cannot find in them any expression of a general doctrine on this point; nor do the Fathers of the following centuries say anything remarkable on usury; they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress.

And

 

The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans, even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not promulgated any doctrinal decree on the subject.

At best, one would argue the supposed infallible is being ignored, not changed, which doesn't change the right or wrong of it. No doctrinal decree has been issued changing anything, thus IF it were infallible, then it still is. Tho it seems somewhat debatable that it ever was infallible to begin with. Or more accurately, what usury was/is seems to be questionable, neverminding whether any definition of it was/is infallible.

[Parrothead]

I don't recall and would need to reread too. If she did, then she was mistaken if she said it was ONLY for procreation.

 

Moxie said sex between a married couple is for unity and procreation. 

 

[mommymilkies]

Catholics for choice is NOT a Catholic organization.

 

That's like a group called "vegetarians for eating meat".

They would disagree with you.  They are a group of Catholics.  And some vegetarians are not against others eating meat-they just choose not to (or in rare cases, are allergic-thanks, ticks!). 

[Murphy101]

They would disagree with you. They are a group of Catholics. And some vegetarians are not against others eating meat-they just choose not to (or in rare cases, are allergic-thanks, ticks!).

Yes. Of course they would disagree with me. I never said I expect agreement.

 

Likewise if they started wearing pink and standing on one leg and proclaiming they are flamingos, I'd still say they aren't flamingos bc they are not flamingos.

[poppy]

Isn't divorce then remarriage also strictly forbidden? I believe divorce is allowed in some circumstances, but remarriage is not.

Just thinking of rules ignored by many Catholics.

[Little Nyssa]

What about talking with the parish priest and asking for a dispensation?  To quote:

 

"In the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, a dispensation is the exemption from the immediate obligation of law in certain cases. Its object is to modify the hardship often arising from the rigorous application of general laws to particular cases, and its essence is to preserve the law by suspending its operation in such cases."

 

(Now that is  from Wikipedia, obviously not a Catholic source.)  

 

Here is another source talking about dispensations, which seems to come from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm

 

I do not know whether a parish priest has the authority to give this kind of dispensation, you Catholics may be able to say whether this can be a possible course or not.  All I want to say is that perhaps it is worth talking it over with one's priest.

[poppy]

I'm a vegetarian and I encourage others to buy meat. Seriously. I haven't eaten a bite of meat in 18 years. Gave it up as a teen for ethical reasons to do with factory farming. I buy pasture-raised pork, chicken, beef and lamb for my husband and son all the time.  After all these years, I have no desire to try it, but I also have no ethical problem with humanely raised meats.

[Murphy101]

Isn't divorce then remarriage also strictly forbidden? I believe divorce is allowed in some circumstances, but remarriage is not.

Just thinking of rules ignored by many Catholics.

Sigh. Why? What does another person's lack of adherent to teaching have to do with whether a follower should actually follow the teachings?

 

Let me make the list short:

 

Every sin and every wrong ever done is a rule ignored.

 

Which has absolutely no weight in weighing the value of the rule. It serves no purpose other than to convince ourselves of our own righteousness in doing wrongly.

 

That aside...

 

Divorce is a secular civil matter.

 

Either you are validly married to one person or you are annulled from that marriage in the RCC. (Ridiculously over simplified, but true nonetheless.)

[Murphy101]

You cannot get dispensation from mortal sin.

 

Dispensation must come from a bishop or higher. (A priest cannot give it, tho he can petition his bishop to allow him to do so on behalf of the bishop.)

[poppy]

Sigh. Why? What does another person's lack of adherent to teaching have to do with whether a follower should actually follow the teachings?

 

Let me make the list short:

 

Every sin and every wrong ever done is a rule ignored.

 

Which has absolutely no weight in weighing the value of the rule. It serves no purpose other than to convince ourselves of our own righteousness in doing wrongly.

 

That aside...

 

Divorce is a secular civil matter.

 

Either you are validly married to one person or you are annulled from that marriage in the RCC. (Ridiculously over simplified, but true nonetheless.)

 

I'm not a Catholic seeking divorce, nor am I trying to persuade anyone to go against her conscious.  Just curious about this topic and I thought it'd be nice to get a response from a knowledgeable person, instead of Google.

 

I was thinking of Jackie Kennedy, actually.

[Murphy101]

I'm not a Catholic seeking divorce, nor am I trying to persuade anyone to go against her conscious. Just curious about this topic and I thought it'd be nice to get a response from a knowledgeable person, instead of Google.

 

I was thinking of Jackie Kennedy, actually.

I didn't say you were. It's just a constant question/statement. "Well no one actually practices those parts of the faith so I/you shouldn't bother either." Ugh. It's annoying.

 

For Jackie Kennedy, Onassis filed for an annulment from his previous wife. I do not recall whether it was granted or not.

[poppy]

I didn't say you were. It's just a constant question/statement. "Well no one actually practices those parts of the faith so I/you shouldn't bother either." Ugh. It's annoying.

 

For Jackie Kennedy, Onassis filed for an annulment from his previous wife. I do not recall whether it was granted or not.

 

I would assume it is a serious dilemma dealt with by each person individually, an issue of faith, not something shrugged off by anyone but the most craven in-name-only Catholics.  And knowing how  peers you respect handle the same situation can be helpful.  It doesn't mean you jump off a bridge like all the other lemmings, but, it can be part of your inner conversation.

[justamouse]

I have 7 children. All of them were born ON birth control. BC is not 100% effective. At all. 

Two years ago, I became a Catholic. 

When I got pregnant with #7, I cried for MONTHS. Dh and I didn't talk for 3 months. I did not want that baby. But here's the thing, there was nothing I could do about it (nothing we were willing to do about it). 

When I got pregnant with #6? I had 3 month old twins that I was nursing. 

Babies are not always born at the best times, and let me tell you, I struggled, I cried, I was exhausted. We were barely making ends meet. Dh had health problems. 

But they are my stars. They are the loves of my life. I wish I had never ever gotten my tubes tied (before I reverted!) because we would have had more when things got easier and life settled down more. 

And, there are women who are suffering with infertility which is *just as much a cross*. Seriously, think about how an infertile woman would feel reading this thread. (Now when I am in serious baby wanting mode, I offer up my fertility and suffering for all of the infertile women out there. )

Here's the thing. This too shall pass. They will get older, life changes, marriages have times of tenseness, and times of sweetness, children grow. The church, she knows, she is wise.  There is grace for this. (((hugs)))

 

Congratulations.
 

[Pod's mum]

My take:

To follow Jesus, via Catholic Church or other, is to try, to strive to follow his teachings and be led to the Father.

However as humans it is pretty inevitable that we will stumble, again and again and again.

Thus we need to be forgiven and encouraged to keep on trying to follow as straight as we can. Our hope being that we will not get too far off the correct path. Detours take you off the path. Maybe just a bit, but now you are on a different track.

The job of the Church is to support, pick us up and help us back on track. But to provide support. Because sometimes it can take time.

 

So Priests etc that accept our detours are not doing so because they aren't supporting the right track, but because they know how hard it is and for someone to keep that path within view so they can regain it later is better than giving up, defeated now.

 

It is a narrow difficult road.

Anyway, hope this makes sence.

 

(PS. As someone who once backed away from God-Botherers, I find it a bit amusing and odd that I now is one.)

[littlebug42]

I sympathize, Moxie.  This is the area that I struggle with the most with the Catholic Church.  My husband (not a practicing Catholic) is adamant that he does not want any more children.  I know that getting pregnant again would be a nightmare for my body and would basically take me away from my other children and my husband for the entire pregnancy.  I feel like I owe the children I have a mother too and can't risk that to have more children.  This is an issue that could be a major wedge in my marriage.  It is driving me away from the Church because there just is no resolution of the two sides.  I admire your strength and your faith.  I pray that it becomes easier and you find some peace. 

[Orthodox6]

For Jackie Kennedy, Onassis filed for an annulment from his previous wife. I do not recall whether it was granted or not.

 

Just to provide clearer information. . .  We do not have "annulments" or "divorces" in the Orthodox Church.  A divorce is something granted by a civil government.  What the Church does is to grant permission (or to deny permission) to marry in the Church.  This can be a second marriage if permission is granted by the bishop; rarely, it can be a third marriage (but this is rare).  

[butterflymommy]

I'm not catholic but I have never used BC, for my own religious reasons. I don't know if this will be a comfort for you but at age 36 your fertility will likely go into steep decline soon. I was ultra-fertile until age 38 and have since only had miscarriages or just not gotten pregnant at all. Statistics support this so it's not purely anecdotal. It's possible this will be your last baby, whether you want him or her to be or not.

 

Very few women regret their babies once they arrive. There was a study done of women who wanted abortions but either couldn't afford them or were turned away from abortion clinics for medical reasons. Only something like 2% regretted having their children, and strangely, at a follow up years later, a number of women denied ever having wanted an abortion in the first place, it was like their minds simply blocked it out. Again I don't know if any of this is a comfort, but, I think the path our lives take is simply something we have to accept more often than not. We're not as in control as we like to think.

[Aelwydd]

Moxie, here's my advice for FWIW.

 

Resolve the conflict between your conscience and the authority of the Magisterium. You need to do so to find peace. BC is hardly the only life issue that may rear its head and create such turmoil for you. Settling the issue won't prevent struggles, but it will help you deal with future problems if you are not having this battle within yourself every single time.

 

Revisit church history, including papal encyclicals, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc., then do some soul searching. Maybe spend some time in Adoration or meditatively praying the rosary. Consider a form of fasting that is ok while pregnant, like giving up processed sugar and caffeine so as to help focus your mind and to settle.

 

I'm a questioning Episcopalian. I have objections to hormonal birth control that have nothing to do with Humanae Vitae, and everything to do with my concerns about carcinogens, weight gain, and a flatlining sex drive. It is no panacea for me, unfortunately. I don't have any objections to others using it, but I can't.

 

Condoms, eh. We have used them, but they don't just impede sensation for dh, but actually mine as well. That leaves permanent sterilization as an option, and one that induces a viseral cringing reaction for me. DH may choose that for himself, but I hope he would not inflict such medical trauma on his reproductive system.

 

So where does that leave us? Well, other ways besides straightforward coitus to satisfy each other, which I know is not acceptable to the CC. I don't accept its right to direct me, so not an issue obviously.

 

It also leaves abstinence, and frankly, we've employed that option quite a bit as well. I have health reasons that make pregnancy undesirable.

 

I'm sharing this to let you know that even when not hemmed in by religious rules, as women it seems our reproductive choices are fraught with all kinds of undesirable outcomes.

 

I really wish we'd evolved the ability to ovulate by conscious choice!