Thursday, March 29, 2007

Father Euteneuer - Mini Catechesis on Contraception

Check out this video from Father Euteneuer on the link between contraception and abortion. Its a good video - a mini catechesis on contraception. Be sure to pass it along.

Also, please consider a donation to Human Life International. The Gates Foundation, The United Way and a host of other large non-profits (and even your tax dollars) are funding Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion causes. Those of us who are pro-life need to be actively supporting pro-life causes such as HLI financially. If you're not financially involved with HLI, please become involved somewhere else.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where di the links go?

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Click them and find out.

bill bannon said...

Lol....he's linking contraception to abortion because he knows that abortion is infallibly condemned (Evanglium Vitae, sect.62, 1995)and contraception is not (Humanae Vitae 1968 introduced at the Vatican press conference as non infallible...twice stated).

That does not mean that one can casually dissent form HV but it does mean that one can dissent with prayer, counsel and study....and with the added proviso according to Germain Grisez that one can point to a higher level of authority (though Grisez is no Pope either). Bernard Haring's dissent from HV was based on NT passages.

Fr. Entenuer should inform his audience of this option of sincere dissent...and inform them of those like Fr. Haring (Theological Studies...1970's) and Bovens (Journal of Medical Ethics 2006)who raised the issue of natural methods causing non implantations in the uterus also due to non precise timing around the outside window of ovulation's time zone.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Bill, mocking a priest is not the way to win anyone over to your cause. "LOL" is highly disrespectful and condescending.

The Catholic Church is the last of all Christians to take a stand on this issue. If you don't like the Church's stance, there are plenty of other churches to chose from.

bill bannon said...

No I can use lol if I think a priest is going too far and causing a needless and serious division within Catholicism by omitting to note things he must know.

Now the priest is correct in wanting Daniel Maguire out of Marquette University but he is being timid in failing to note that the Jesuits are not under local episcopal jurisdiction but are directly under the Pope by a special vow of obedience...so the Pope should de-chair Maguire for pro-divorce and pro-gay and pro-abortion rhetoric....Divorce is condemned by anathema in the Council of Trent...(session 25-3 I believe)/ gay activity is condemned in Romans Chapter one clear as a bell and thus needs no papal comment since Scripture is inerrant / and abortion is condemned in sect.65 of
Evangelium Vitae infallibly.

But the priest insists on throwing birth control into the mix as infallible because he thinks it is yet canon 749-3 states that infallibility must be "manifestly evident" for an issue to be prosecuted over....and further Enteneuer's belief in its infalliblity means that John Paul II was totally negligent since 1979 for not prosecuting one theologian for heresy in that matter of birth control while others were prosecuted on issues really of the faith like the resurrection ( a German priest) and Christ's divinity...warning of excommunication ( Sobrino)
religions are all equal (Balasuriya in Sri Lanka).

Why do I fume on the issue? Because it is preventing the conversion of highly intelligent non believers. Half of my friends are very intelligent Asians ( Carnegie Mellon...Wharton) who are non Christian. It gives me an insight into a whole world that is unconverted but high IQ'd. It is one thing for the Church to convert the non-educated like Mayans....Celts (when we were the barbarians )...Alqonquins....mud men from New Zealand.....Gauls....caribs. You get the point. Japan....not an arrested culture like all those...has like 1% Catholic.
Imagine if you will, conversions by them or by intelligent Chinese... rising or falling over an issue that Christ had not one thing to say in regard to. And now Onan seems in the new translations and in retrospect to have been about the very serious issue of risking the non appearance of the Messiah...not about wasting seed which in the Law made a man unclean until evening...see Leviticus 15:16 " 16
"When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening.
17
Any piece of cloth or leather with seed on it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening."
________________________________

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

"No I can use lol"

Bill, If you'll re-read my post I think you will find that I never questioned your ability to type the word "lol" but rather whether you SHOULD do it or not. In fact, I didnt even say whether you should or shouldn't, I just said its disrespectful and it is. You wouldn't want anyone talking to you that way so its not respectful to talk to others that way.

Now I dont remember him using the word 'infallible' in his speech (if he did I missed it) and Im pretty sure he never talked about Onan.

Anyway, this is a classical abuse of the word 'infallible'. The encyclical may not be infallible per se, like an ex cathedra dogma, but it is official Vatican teaching. It agrees with unanimous Church tradition. Church tradition is also infallible.

No one (even Protestant) permitted contraception until the 1930s so it simply wasn't a debate before then and so you had few statements about it (though there are strong early Church father condemnations of it - see Chrysostom for example)

Now my argument isnt aiming to prove that contraception has been infallibly condemned. Frankly, I just dont know enough about Catholic infallibility and how that works to answer it. But I do know that the Church condemns it. I also know that the reasoning for it (as laid out here by Fr. Eutenuer and elsewhere by others) are very valid reasons and you havent even approached an argument against those reasons.

Now as for the argument that some people are too smart to convert to Catholicism when it has 'dumb' teachings like this... I wont dignify that with a response.

bill bannon said...

Long standing tradition on an issue whose science was unknown til modern times is not a good arguement....that the earth stood still was a long standing tradition until science grew up in that area. The long standing tradition against gluttony is totally unaffected by science but some issues were.

And on lol....no...Christ used very strong language (e.g. "whited sepulchers") on his technically religious superiors ( He came "under the law")as did John the Baptist and you're not holding them to charges of disrespect...I said "lol".... not "brood of vipers" since the priest is no where's near that category. You simply need the lol charge because this area is not your forte and you need juice from somewhere and that's alright....what our encounter will make you do in the future....is work on the area outside the box that many NFP heretic hunters are in. The rythmn people were not heretic hunters at all and wrote in to the birth control commission for change....because their form of natural method required more from them than NFP does from your generation.

You wrote:

It agrees with unanimous Church tradition. Church tradition is also infallible.

News to Rome. John Paul tried his hardest to reverse 1600 years and several scriptures on the death penalty....see ccc #2267 (and his 1999 comment that it was "cruel").....#2267...where the tradition is ackowledged and then rendered almost void through the praise of life sentences (modern penology) as though they were new (they existed during the Inquisition and simply require affluence in any century) and they existed in 1952 when Pope Pius XII affirmed the death penalty that John Paul sought to rescind as does the USCCB.....which irrationally has the "cruel" comment within their document that in another place affirms the rightful place of the death penalty in Catholic Tradition.

Unanimous Tradition? John Paul tried in Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4 to undo two millenia of tradition on husband headship by touting the "mutual subjection" of Ephesians as the only subjection despite 5 other NT passages that mention husband headship without mentioning the mutual subjection of Ephesians...and despite Pope Pius XI in section 74 of Casti Cannubii declaring that anyone who undermines husband headship is a false prophet. Seems John Paul did not read Casti Cannubii as closely as he might have. Unanimous tradition anyone.

Where were you honorers of unanimous tradition when those moments were going down?

Birth control was unanimous til 1930 because the woman's cycle, the role of the ovum and sperm...in short...the science of it all was not known until beginning in the 19th century. Augustine denounced the use of the cycle because he and Jerome sided with the Stoics that sex was for procreation and outside of that explicit aim...they called it "lust" and for Augustine that lust was venial within marriage. The Natural methods position was resisted by the pre-eminent moral theologian of the early 20th century as it became more accurate and he warned that it was simply to be advised to Onanists as a lesser evil. his name was Arthur Vermeesch and you'll see his name on some of the essays at newadvent's Catholic Encylopedia which is from 1917. The Bishops' Council of Malines warned that the natural methods would lead to abortions. They too couldn't get a wrong tradition out of their heads...that of Augustine and Jerome who said that children actually had to be willed for coitus to be free of any sin. Strangely Augustine did not praise large families since he and several other Fathers thought the end was near.

Some periods...including Aquinas' thought that the man's "seed" contained the whole new person potentially and thus the woman's body contributed little. Ergo....for some during those times, wasting one's seed in coitus interruptus was like spilling out onto the ground the entire potential person...Leviticus 15:16-17 escaped them I suppose.

So only the outward crust of the tradition stayed the same...ie the dictate: don't contracept....but the reasons varied even within both Jerome and within Augustine since both men changed within their life times on the ensoulment issue...both later in life clearly siding with the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-26 that spoke of the formed and unformed within the mother...which unforetunately had a place in liberal approaches to abortion both in English common law and in Church law at one point. The thing of it is....the Hebrew version of that Exodus verse is almost entirely different.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Bill this isnt an issue of science - its an issue of morality.

Christ used strong language yes, He was God, He has special rights.

You're right, this isn't my area of forte, but I'm not making a lengthy - argument about whether it has been infallibly pronounced (to repeat myself). And the "LoL" comment is just in bad taste. Regardless of the issue. It sounds like James White and his anti-Catholic arguments. He has every right to do it, and so do you, but its extremely rude and condescending to talk like that. Your position is - you can be rude if you want to , mine is you shouldnt . We disagree. Ok fine. We'll leave it at that.

You seem to have a real hatchet to bury and I dont know why you picked me to do it with. Obviously, I wasnt around when most of this stuff happened that you're talking about. I became a Catholic 6 months ago. So I was still very anti-Catholic when JPII was pope.

Im not saying that everything that comes out of a popes mouth is true or everything thats in the catechism or an encyclical is perfect.

Im convinced by the arguments Ive read from Father Eutenuer and other sources and Im not convinced by yours. Now you've brought up interesting points, which I will think about, and Im thankful for the information.

But frankly, contraception has seemed to me intuitively wrong even when I was a Protestant.

So we've reached a conclusion - I think contraception is wrong - you think its not wrong. Ok. Well we've both stated our case and neither of us seem convinced by the other. Theres no reason to keep arguing about it.

bill bannon said...

You repeated the LOL charge of course without dealing with Christ's and John's example of course. But isn't that the net?

I didn't give what I believe about abc as to when it is justified since it is diverse and the pill seems anti health around the stroke issue unless perhaps one has excellent genetics like both my parents who ate red meat and eggs their whole lives and lived to near 90 in mom's case and 94 in Dad's case with my mom never doing exercises but my father always doing long walks.

My pet peeve is with this situation inter alia....New Testament Scripture telling the very sexual to marry rather than burn...and then to not keep away from each other unless for prayer and then return together lest the devil tempt you..... and then Rome telling that same person not to use condoms if he gets AIDS from a blood transfusion in a negligent hospital after a car accident but to become totally celibate to his wife after scripture had told him three years ago to marry or burn...and to live in a Josephite marriage of which marriages we have absolutely no record other than Joseph who seems to have been old....and Gregory of Nyssa and his wife.....and we have not one Catholic book on how to conduct such a marriage....permit an LOL.
Ponder that one. And I bid you adieu.