Is contraception immoral...

[Claire]

I once heard it said that we don't so much differ on what we think the rules are, but what we think the exceptions are. For example, just about everybody believes that killing is bad, but you get a pretty good spread on what circumstancs render it permissible. I think that theory is pretty well demonstrated in this thread :)

 

As for the problem of evil (i.e. why does God allow there to be evil in the world), I'll go ahead and throw out the Augustinian/Thomistic theory on the subject.

 

For Saint Augustine (and subsequently Saint Thomas Aquinas), everything was made good. Things are evil only in-so-far as they are lacking some good proper to them. For example, cake is good in-so-far as it exists. The evils of cake are that its lacking the nutritional benefits proper to food. Also, while eating (the cake) is good, there is evil present if the moderation (i.e. not overeating) proper to the act is lacking.

 

When God made the world, everything was created perfectly. Evil entered the world as a consequence of the fall. The relationship between man, and the creation he was given stewardship over, was damaged. Basically we broke ourselves, and took creation down with us, hence all the bad things in the world.

 

I realize LDS theology precludes holding people responsible for the sins of Adam (i.e. original sin), but I'm not sure if that precludes the existence of consequences of that sin. In Catholic theology, while the "taint" of original sin is a thing, the greater emphasis tends to be on the consequences emanating from that original sin that we all have to deal with.

 

Also, this reminds me of he concept of redemptive suffering. Christ undoubtably suffered upon the cross, and through our own suffering we share in his passion and become closer to Him. I like to think of this in terms of humility. Often times the best Christians, no matter your denomination, are the ones who've had to endure the most hardship in their lives. I think this is because it helps to emphasize with His sufferings and keeps us from getting to prideful.

 

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the subject.

[MarginOfError]

Apparently your view of "all-powerful" (or "omnipotent", if you prefer) differs from mine. The idea that God allows horrible things to happen and exist if they just happen to randomly exist is because He's too busy to be bothered...? Hmm.

 

I don't think our views differ in how we view "all-powerful" but in how we view God's level of involvement in the minute-to-minute affairs of all of creation.  Much like the Deists, I'm of the persuasion that God designed a system and stepped away to let it work--intervening only in certain circumstances as he feels compelled or impressed to do so.  

 

So yes, I believe that birth deformities occur because the Lord designed a system where they would happen from time to time (in a manner that can be quantified by probability distributions observed in nature) as opposed to Him deliberately creating a child with deformities to make a point.

[Windseeker]

The idea of something being "religiously permissible" is, to be frank, a Catholic-leaning idea, and not really very comfortable in a Mormon setting. We believe in gaining truth from God. We learn important principles from his kingdom (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but the deep truths are learned only through revelation and in no other way. So that the kingdom of God might "allow" abortions in some instances is really of no consequence in Mormon thought, because the Church does not determine morality. We bow to the Priesthood authority of the Church because it is God's authority; but it is God, not the Church, who makes eternal judgments. The Church acts as an arbiter in fairly restricted circumstances. I daresay there are a great many Mormons who, though they live in compliance with Church laws and rules, perhaps even enough to gain entrance to the holy temple, are not living in harmony with the Spirit of God, and will be cast off at the last day if they do not repent.

 

I myself seen to have forgotten these powerful principles of late. Thank you for such a poignant reminder.

[Jane_Doe]

 

I realize LDS theology precludes holding people responsible for the sins of Adam (i.e. original sin), but I'm not sure if that precludes the existence of consequences of that sin. In Catholic theology, while the "taint" of original sin is a thing, the greater emphasis tends to be on the consequences emanating from that original sin that we all have to deal with.

 

Also, this reminds me of he concept of redemptive suffering. Christ undoubtably suffered upon the cross, and through our own suffering we share in his passion and become closer to Him. I like to think of this in terms of humility. Often times the best Christians, no matter your denomination, are the ones who've had to endure the most hardship in their lives. I think this is because it helps to emphasize with His sufferings and keeps us from getting to prideful.

 

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the subject.

 

One of my favorite BoM chapters says (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.25?lang=eng#24)--

 

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 23 And they would have had no ^achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no ^bjoy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no ^csin.

 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who ^aknoweth all things.

 25 ^aAdam ^bfell that men might be; and men ^care, that they might have ^djoy.

 26 And the ^aMessiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may ^bredeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are ^credeemed from the fall they have become ^dfree forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the ^elaw at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

I'd really commend reading the whole chapter.

[Guest]

So yes, I believe that birth deformities occur because the Lord designed a system where they would happen from time to time (in a manner that can be quantified by probability distributions observed in nature) as opposed to Him deliberately creating a child with deformities to make a point.

 

I buy this one.  The system itself that allow for CP is God's Creation.  He could have created a system that doesn't allow it, but that's not what He did.

 

This still supports my viewpoint that a human undergoing the mortal test of CP is somehow disqualified from the sanctity of life because he happens to have conditions that the people around him doesn't want to deal with in their own mortal test.  The decision on what is sacred or what isn't all depends on human frailty - CP doesn't pass, ADHD passes, missing a limb passes, missing 4 limbs doesn't pass... A child costing only $500/month to raise passes, a child costing $1000/month to raise fails...

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think our views differ in how we view "all-powerful" but in how we view God's level of involvement in the minute-to-minute affairs of all of creation.  Much like the Deists, I'm of the persuasion that God designed a system and stepped away to let it work--intervening only in certain circumstances as he feels compelled or impressed to do so.  

 

So yes, I believe that birth deformities occur because the Lord designed a system where they would happen from time to time (in a manner that can be quantified by probability distributions observed in nature) as opposed to Him deliberately creating a child with deformities to make a point.

 

The comment I was addressing was not the randomness. It was: "..that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run." I inferred from this statement that you were saying He is too busy to be bothered.

 

As to the random thing: I can agree that this is a possibility of how God works. (Though I do tend towards a view that He is somewhat more involved). But even accepting a stochastic process in mortality, where I think there is missing consideration (perhaps) is on the other side (pre-existence). God knows the beginning from the end. He knows what "randomness" will occur, and He knows that any given spirit He sends into any given body will experience exactly what they experience. To me, that argues for a significant higher level of control than I believe you are alluding to, even within a stochastic based plan.

[Claire]

I buy this one.  The system itself that allow for CP is God's Creation.  He could have created a system that doesn't allow it, but that's not what He did.

 

This still supports my viewpoint that a human undergoing the mortal test of CP is somehow disqualified from the sanctity of life because he happens to have conditions that the people around him doesn't want to deal with in their own mortal test.  The decision on what is sacred or what isn't all depends on human frailty - CP doesn't pass, ADHD passes, missing a limb passes, missing 4 limbs doesn't pass... A child costing only $500/month to raise passes, a child costing $1000/month to raise fails...

 

That does bring about a question in my mind. Your argument or abortion in some circumstance, as I understand it, is that the pre-mortal soul assumed that mortal life knowing its risks and challenges. My question then is this: wouldn't the person procuring the abortion also have had the same opportunity? Perhaps the test of such a child was one the person agreed to in their pre-mortal existence. After all, I'm certain in our pre-mortal existence more-so than here we would have recognized the transitory nature of mortal life and that fleeting nature of its hardships. As such, it seems like no burden would have been too great to have been borne, considering the reward that waits for those who endure them.

 

Then again, I don't know the particulars of the pre-mortal existence, so perhaps I'm missing something :)

[Guest]

That does bring about a question in my mind. Your argument or abortion in some circumstance, as I understand it, is that the pre-mortal soul assumed that mortal life knowing its risks and challenges. My question then is this: wouldn't the person procuring the abortion also have had the same opportunity? Perhaps the test of such a child was one the person agreed to in their pre-mortal existence. After all, I'm certain in our pre-mortal existence more-so than here we would have recognized the transitory nature of mortal life and that fleeting nature of its hardships. As such, it seems like no burden would have been too great to have been borne, considering the reward that waits for those who endure them.

 

Then again, I don't know the particulars of the pre-mortal existence, so perhaps I'm missing something :)

 

It's not really taught that way - that in Pre-Mortal existence our Spirits were all-knowing - that we can look through time as if they were above it looking at the landscape of the future (in non-linear fashion, I suppose - the discussion of Time as it pertains to LDS teaching can be an "into the breach" moment... lol).  Rather, we know the principles of the Plan of Salvation and that we can act or be acted upon.  Whatever weaknesses we inherit as part of our mortal probation, including those that we get from another one's actions, are things we are to act on.  God, being all-knowing, knows each of us individually and each of us are called to our mortal probation.  We answer the call - yeay or nay with our Free Will - in FAITH.

 

Now, in your paragraph above, the challenge of a child to a raped woman is not there to "trip her up".  Rather, it is there as a product of a previous action to which her free will was bypassed (the rapist acted, she was acted upon) and is now for her to act on.  So yes, she is presented with a choice - to keep, to abort, or to do something else - this choice for her directs the next set of things for her to act upon for the rest of her mortal probation.  Of course, keeping the child is the first recourse - what we, as an LDS community and Church leadership would encourage her to take.  But taking a different choice than this one to set up the rest of her mortal probation is not wrong if that's where the Holy Spirit guides her.  So, the choice is not a sin in and of itself, the WHY could make it a sin in the eyes of God.

 

See, this is what Vort was saying about the idea of "a list of sinful things" being a Catholic concept.  The LDS concept of sin is more fluid.  The Exercise of Free Will is the main reason for our mortal probation - and that the summation of all these choices made in FAITH forges the transformation of our Intelligences in this stage of our progression.  So that, if the summation of all these choices lead us to transform closer to the character of the Will of God then those were the right choices, and if the summation of all these choices lead us to transform farther from the character of the Will of God then those were the wrong choices.  And if we have transformed to such a level such that our free will is aligned perfectly with God's will - then we have become gods in that stage of our progression.

 

And finally... in Pre-Mortal Existence, we despaired when God first presented us with the Plan where we are to enter mortal life.  The possibility of us making wrong choices when we do not have the sure knowledge of the Will of God was not something we were willing to take - as the law is clear that no unclean thing can ever be exalted.  Lucifer presented the solution of removing Free Will to guarantee exaltation which God rejected.  Rather, Jesus Christ was chosen to pay the price of justice for choices made without the sure knowledge of the Will of God.  So that, Jesus Christ's Atonement was not given because man SINNED against God.  Rather, Jesus Christ's Atonement was given because in the Plan of Salvation where we are to make choices without sure knowledge, SIN is possible.

 

Edit:  I reread this entire thing and I really don't know if I'm explaining this succinctly.  I'm just not very good with putting my thoughts into paper, especially when English is not native to me.  And I tend to use many many many long paragraphs to explain things.  I can't seem to simplify it into as few sentences as possible.

 

But this post right here - the impact of the teaching of Pre-Mortal life in the Plan of Salvation - is one of the pillars that lead me to believe in the truth of the restoration.

Edited January 16, 2015 by anatess

[Jane_Doe]

 

See, this is what Vort was saying about the idea of "a list of sinful things" being a Catholic concept.  The LDS concept of sin is more fluid.  The Exercise of Free Will is the main reason for our mortal probation - and that the summation of all these choices made in FAITH forges the transformation of our Intelligences in this stage of our progression.  So that, if the summation of all these choices lead us to transform closer to the character of the Will of God then those were the right choices, and if the summation of all these choices lead us to transform farther from the character of the Will of God then those were the wrong choices.  And if we have transformed to such a level such that our free will is aligned perfectly with God's will - then we have become gods in that stage of our progression.

 

 

I really like what you said here Anatass.  I am going to re-state it from a different angle. 

 

From the LDS perspective, the goal of this life is not to (just) avoid a list of sins and on judgement day recite a check-list of "I didn't do this, or this, or this, or this....".  Rather the LDS goal is to reach judgement and say "These are the things I *did* do to become more Christ-like".

Edited January 16, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

I really like what you said here Anatass.  I am going to re-state it from a different angle. 

 

From the LDS perspective, the goal of this life is not to (just) avoid a list of sins and on judgement day recite a check-list of "I didn't do this, or this, or this, or this....".  Rather the LDS goal is to reach judgement and say "These are the things I *did* do to become more Christ-like".

 

Or even more simply... This is what I have become.

 

Right?

[Claire]

I really like what you said here Anatass.  I am going to re-state it from a different angle. 

 

From the LDS perspective, the goal of this life is not to (just) avoid a list of sins and on judgement day recite a check-list of "I didn't do this, or this, or this, or this....".  Rather the LDS goal is to reach judgement and say "These are the things I *did* do to become more Christ-like".

 

I would argue that the Catholic position isn't really the proverbial "check list" either. A person could have lived an objectively horrible life and could still find salvation at the end.

 

I would agree though that the difference is more a matter of revelation. In Catholicism, Christ represented the fullness of revelation, and no subsequent revelation is necessary. Everything that ever could be known to human minds was fully revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.

 

Setting aside other debates of exaltation, I believe both camps believe in doing God's will. During his ministry, Christ revealed a number of commandments to us, including both "though shalt not" sort of rules, along with general guidelines on how we ought to live our lives. Its safe to assume that those rules and guidelines constitute God's will, so we abide by them. If we fail to abide by them, then we go against God's will, which is basically what sin is.

 

That's not to say that the rules aren't open to some refinement through the development of doctrine, which is another story for another time. The only rule of the development of doctrine that's really relevant here is that changes cannot contradict prior teachings.

 

In summary, in Catholicism, we attempt to conform ourselves to God's will through living a life in keeping with Christs teachings. Yes this includes following the "thou shalt nots," but it also means doing the "though shalts" as well. We have to care for the sick and the elderly, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, love our neighbors, and so forth. With the help of God's grace, received through the Sacraments of his Holy Church, we hope to be able to echo the words of Paul in saying "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20). 

 

I guess my point is that Catholic morality is not just a set of rules. It is a guide to how to live one's life to conform ourselves to God's will, and it also includes the means to obtain the graces necessary to actually do that.

 

I think were we differ from LDS morals on this one, and this may just be my perception thus far, is the guidelines are more strict in our case. It's not that you guys don't believe Christ said what he said or meant what he meant, but you seem more willing to allow for exceptions in particular instances on the grounds of personal revelation.

 

If I got that wrong, as always, feel free to correct me on it :)

[Backroads]

As far as birth control goes, I find myself in greater scrutiny over some methods and considering how some groups find them murderous.

I admit the idea of killing a fertilized egg is disturbing.

[estradling75]

 

I think were we differ from LDS morals on this one, and this may just be my perception thus far, is the guidelines are more strict in our case. It's not that you guys don't believe Christ said what he said or meant what he meant, but you seem more willing to allow for exceptions in particular instances on the grounds of personal revelation.

 

If I got that wrong, as always, feel free to correct me on it :)

 

Yeap because the scriptures are full of exceptions...  "Thou shall not Kill" except when "aggressively" invading the promise land under Gods orders to kill pretty much everything rather then continuing to wander in the wilderness.  "Thou shall not Commit adultery"  Lady caught in the act.  Christ's response "I don't condemn you"...  Thief on the Cross "This day you will be with me in paradise" in spite of having done nothing but talk to Christ while hanging there.   The Scriptures are full of the Lord Granting exceptions.

 

Although perhaps it is the word exception that is the real hang up??  Perhaps if we phrased it as seeking out the assurance that the Lord would forgive the action in those cases, might cause us less issues? That would be just another way to describe the LDS 'exceptions' to abortions

[Jane_Doe]

 

I think were we differ from LDS morals on this one, and this may just be my perception thus far, is the guidelines are more strict in our case. It's not that you guys don't believe Christ said what he said or meant what he meant, but you seem more willing to allow for exceptions in particular instances on the grounds of personal revelation.

 

If I got that wrong, as always, feel free to correct me on it :)

 

Hi Claire, I have a question for you.

 

It is my understanding that Catholics have volumes and volumes of "Cannon Law", is that true?  If so, what purpose does it serve?  Is it relevant to salvation, or more just logistical-how-to-run-church-stuff?  

 

I occasionally visit Catholic Answer forums and I see threads about things like the validity of a person's marriage.  It sorta sounds like lawyer speak at times.  Am I seeing that right?  (I doubt it).

[Claire]

 

Yeap because the scriptures are full of exceptions...  "Thou shall not Kill" except when "aggressively" invading the promise land under Gods orders to kill pretty much everything rather then continuing to wander in the wilderness.  "Thou shall not Commit adultery"  Lady caught in the act.  Christ's response "I don't condemn you"...  Thief on the Cross "This day you will be with me in paradise" in spite of having done nothing but talk to Christ while hanging there.   The Scriptures are full of the Lord Granting exceptions.

 

Although perhaps it is the word exception that is the real hang up??  Perhaps if we phrased it as seeking out the assurance that the Lord would forgive the action in those cases, might cause us less issues? That would be just another way to describe the LDS 'exceptions' to abortions

 

I suppose that my retort would be that the "exceptions" (non-LDS, can't speak to the BoM) weren't usually in acts of private revelation. They were usually pretty public, and pretty blatant. To use the invasion of Israel as an example, he told Moses and his successor Joshua pretty point blank to do that.

 

As for Christ forgiving (well, not condemning) the adulteress and more overtly forgiving the thief, Christ granting absolution and forgiveness aren't really an exception at all. Reconciling sinners to himself was largely the point of His coming. Also, in those instances, he didn't tell them that they could go commit adultery or steal, he forgave them after the fact.

 

Hi Claire, I have a question for you.

 

It is my understanding that Catholics have volumes and volumes of "Cannon Law", is that true?  If so, what purpose does it serve?  Is it relevant to salvation, or more just logistical-how-to-run-church-stuff?  

 

I occasionally visit Catholic Answer forums and I see threads about things like the validity of a person's marriage.  It sorta sounds like lawyer speak at times.  Am I seeing that right?  (I doubt it).

 

Yes, there is such a thing as canon law. If you want to take a look at it, you can find it here:

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

There are a couple of things at work here. To try to draw a parallel, in a lot of ways it has some similarities to the LDS handbook of instructions, although it's obviously formatted more like a legal code. Basically the idea is that the Church writes down all the rules surrounding various sacraments, practices, ect in one place for ease of reference and deliberation.

 

There is also some exercise of the Church's authority going on here. We believe that Christ gave the apostles, and their successors the bishops, a certain amount of authority over governing the Church, including its institutions and sacraments. Again, canon law is an extension of that, where the bishops have basically compiled many of the rules and practices they've instituted.

 

As for the question of "validity," I think I can draw an LDS parallel. Unless I'm mistaken, you need some sort of priesthood in order to baptize, confirm, and/or bless the sacrament in LDS services, correct? If you don't have that authority and try to do so anyway, I would also assume that it doesn't work (i.e. you aren't really baptized). Likewise, in Catholic sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, holy orders, matrimony), there are certain conditions that must be met for the sacrament to "count." If any of those conditions are not met, then the sacrament is said to be "invalid." Conversely, if they were all met, the sacrament would be "valid."

 

A sacrament could also be "illicit" or "licit." An illicit sacrament is one where some of the rules were not followed, but breaking those rules did not render the sacrament invalid. Conversely, a licit sacrament is one where the rules were all followed. As a general rule of thumb, breaking a rule renders a sacrament "illicit" if the rule was instituted by the Church and it renders it "invalid" if the rule was instituted by Christ. For example, we believe that Christ set up the rule for using bread and wine in the eucharist, so it would be invalid if you used pizza and pop. Conversely, we believe that the Church set up the rules for what the priest is supposed to wear (vestments), so wearing a sombrero would only render it "illicit." Both rules rendering a sacrament invalid and rendering it illicit can be found in canon law.

 

-Clarie

Edited January 16, 2015 by Claire

[Vort]

Is contraception immoral?

 

In a word: No. But a one-word answer is inaccurate.

 

This is an example of what I consider a "Catholic" question: Is this action on the Approved List or on the Disapproved List? (No mockery to Catholicism intended. Rather, that is my understanding of the underlying question.)

 

In LDS circles, I think it's truthful to say that the act of contraception is not, in and of itself, considered in violation of the Spirit of God. Thus, a simplistic answer to the question would have to be "No". But, as I have pointed out, from an LDS viewpoint the question itself is defective.

 

Speaking only for myself, I find the idea of contraception deeply disturbing. I suppose I might actually have a very "Catholic" attitude toward the subject. God has given us the unparalleled gift of being involved in the creation of human souls. Can there be a greater gift in mortality? This he has shared, and along with it has given strict guidelines stipulating under what conditions this gift can and should be employed.

 

But now we're going to subvert the primary purpose of this unspeakably powerful gift so that we can enjoy the carnal aspects of it without having to worry about creating new human life?

 

Words fail me.

 

I do not pass judgment on any individuals on this matter, except perhaps myself. Contraception probably prevented me from having more children than I would otherwise have had. I acceded to using contraceptives for what at the time I thought were good and sufficient reasons. Perhaps they were. I don't believe God is going to condemn me at the last day for my choices in that.

 

But...

 

What of the children that might have been mine? They are not. They will not be. I have limited myself. I love each of my children beyond my ability to describe in words (or even in interpretive dance). Surely I would have loved any other children with equal fervor. But I don't have them. They don't exist, because I didn't create them. And sometimes, this leaves me feeling very hollow indeed. "Regret" is not a strong enough term to describe the feeling.

 

My point is not to overshare. Rather, I want to suggest (and illustrate) that whether or not contraception is "sinful" just doesn't do the topic justice. Sometimes, it's not a matter of "sinfulness"; it's a matter of "Godliness".

 

If I had it all to do over again, I would very seriously consider not using contraception at all, and would have some important conversations with my wife in that regard. Not that we didn't have any such conversations, but I was perhaps less, um, fervent in my feelings than I might otherwise have been.

[estradling75]

 

I suppose that my retort would be that the "exceptions" (non-LDS, can't speak to the BoM) weren't usually in acts of private revelation. They were usually pretty public, and pretty blatant. To use the invasion of Israel as an example, he told Moses and his successor Joshua pretty point blank to do that.

 

As for Christ forgiving (well, not condemning) the adulteress and more overtly forgiving the thief, Christ granting absolution and forgiveness aren't really an exception at all. Reconciling sinners to himself was largely the point of His coming. Also, in those instances, he didn't tell them that they could go commit adultery or steal, he forgave them after the fact.

 

Pretty public exceptions simply prove that "exceptions" are possible  God being an Unchanging God an all that.  But lets drop that word because it seems to cause such hang up.

 

Lets go forgiveness... We all agree that the Lord power to forgive is profound.  Its also a fundamental part of what he does and it is based on the fact that we all fall short of what he would have us be.  Abortion is never good, but depending on an individual circumstance the Lord could very well be much more willing to forgive then in other cases.  Recognizing these cases and telling them: One to seek the Lord will concerning the matter, and Two that the Church will not take action against them.  Can in no reasonable sense be seen as being soft or out of step with God will on the issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, there is such a thing as canon law. If you want to take a look at it, you can find it here:

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

There are a couple of things at work here. To try to draw a parallel, in a lot of ways it has some similarities to the LDS handbook of instructions, although it's obviously formatted more like a legal code. Basically the idea is that the Church writes down all the rules surrounding various sacraments, practices, ect in one place for ease of reference and deliberation.

 

There is also some exercise of the Church's authority going on here. We believe that Christ gave the apostles, and their successors the bishops, a certain amount of authority over governing the Church, including its institutions and sacraments. Again, canon law is an extension of that, where the bishops have basically compiled many of the rules and practices they've instituted.

 

This is absolutely fascinating; thanks for posting it.

 

I think all churches must have to walk a fine line between trying to develop written procedures, but not drifting too far into legalism so that the leaders can be open to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit as they understand it (and so that you don't create an adversarial relationship between leaders and the congregation, where some lawyerly congregant is always out there with a rule book saying "Bishop, you can't do that!").  Mormonism takes an interesting approach--it writes out a handbook for leadership, but makes that particular handbook unavailable to the general membership. 

 

 

As for the question of "validity," I think I can draw an LDS parallel. Unless I'm mistaken, you need some sort of priesthood in order to baptize, confirm, and/or bless the sacrament in LDS services, correct? If you don't have that authority and try to do so anyway, I would also assume that it doesn't work (i.e. you aren't really baptized). Likewise, in Catholic sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, holy orders, matrimony), there are certain conditions that must be met for the sacrament to "count." If any of those conditions are not met, then the sacrament is said to be "invalid." Conversely, if they were all met, the sacrament would be "valid.

It's worth noting that the LDS view might not be quite as stringent as Catholicism in this regard.  Priesthood leaders, for example, will oversee rites like the Sacrament, and will insist on them being performed properly (to the point of having them repeated two or three times, if the officiator flubs up the verbiage or if--for example--a person being baptized doesn't quite go completely under the water)--but if, after the fact, it is discovered that the officiator was actually not living Church standards and therefore "unworthy" at the time of the ritual, the Church more or less shrugs and says "well, we did our best" and still recognizes the rite as binding.

 

For example, I read about the experience of a Mormon missionary in the mid-to-late-20th century.  After returning home it came out that the missionary actually had some sort of gender disorder--although the missionary had external male genitalia and had been raised as a male; the missionary was actually a female genetically and turned out to also possess female reproductive organs internally.  She decided she wanted to live as a female and maintain Church activity.  Now, as you probably know, Mormon females are not allowed to be ordained to the Church's priesthood.  After the issue worked up through the chain of church hierarchy, the decision was ultimately made that while she would no longer be permitted to function as a priesthood holder, the baptisms performed during her missionary service would be recognized and did not need to be re-done.

 

Although--come to think of it--didn't Catholicism supposedly have a female pope back during the middle ages?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[classylady]

Is contraception immoral?

 

In a word: No. But a one-word answer is inaccurate.

 

This is an example of what I consider a "Catholic" question: Is this action on the Approved List or on the Disapproved List? (No mockery to Catholicism intended. Rather, that is my understanding of the underlying question.)

 

In LDS circles, I think it's truthful to say that the act of contraception is not, in and of itself, considered in violation of the Spirit of God. Thus, a simplistic answer to the question would have to be "No". But, as I have pointed out, from an LDS viewpoint the question itself is defective.

 

Speaking only for myself, I find the idea of contraception deeply disturbing. I suppose I might actually have a very "Catholic" attitude toward the subject. God has given us the unparalleled gift of being involved in the creation of human souls. Can there be a greater gift in mortality? This he has shared, and along with it has given strict guidelines stipulating under what conditions this gift can and should be employed.

 

But now we're going to subvert the primary purpose of this unspeakably powerful gift so that we can enjoy the carnal aspects of it without having to worry about creating new human life?

 

Words fail me.

 

I do not pass judgment on any individuals on this matter, except perhaps myself. Contraception probably prevented me from having more children than I would otherwise have had. I acceded to using contraceptives for what at the time I thought were good and sufficient reasons. Perhaps they were. I don't believe God is going to condemn me at the last day for my choices in that.

 

But...

 

What of the children that might have been mine? They are not. They will not be. I have limited myself. I love each of my children beyond my ability to describe in words (or even in interpretive dance). Surely I would have loved any other children with equal fervor. But I don't have them. They don't exist, because I didn't create them. And sometimes, this leaves me feeling very hollow indeed. "Regret" is not a strong enough term to describe the feeling.

 

My point is not to overshare. Rather, I want to suggest (and illustrate) that whether or not contraception is "sinful" just doesn't do the topic justice. Sometimes, it's not a matter of "sinfulness"; it's a matter of "Godliness".

 

If I had it all to do over again, I would very seriously consider not using contraception at all, and would have some important conversations with my wife in that regard. Not that we didn't have any such conversations, but I was perhaps less, um, fervent in my feelings than I might otherwise have been.

 

 

Well said, Vort.

 

I also wonder what if my husband and I had not limited our family?  We had five children together, plus I raised two step children, making seven total.  Whatever the reason was at the time--finances, housing, schooling, work constraints, that prompted us to limit our children, I believe it could have been overcome.  I could have handled more children.  I would have liked to have had at least one more, but my body gave out at the end.  We had large enough spaces between our babies  (one, 4 year space, and two, 3 year spaces), that I could have conceivably had another child.  We made the choices that we did based on our circumstances at the time.  But, I look back on those circumstances now, and realize that they could have all been overcome.  And if we had, we would have been blessed, and I definitely mean blessed, with another one of Heavenly Father's children in our home.  And, I'm with Vort.  Regret is probably too strong of a term.  We did have seven children, and that's nothing-to-sneeze-at, but in looking back, I would have liked to have had another.

[Claire]

This is absolutely fascinating; thanks for posting it.

 

I think all churches must have to walk a fine line between trying to develop written procedures, but not drifting too far into legalism so that the leaders can be open to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit as they understand it (and so that you don't create an adversarial relationship between leaders and the congregation, where some lawyerly congregant is always out there with a rule book saying "Bishop, you can't do that!").  Mormonism takes an interesting approach--it writes out a handbook for leadership, but makes that particular handbook unavailable to the general membership. 

 

It's worth noting that the LDS view might not be quite as stringent as Catholicism in this regard.  Priesthood leaders, for example, will oversee rites like the Sacrament, and will insist on them being performed properly (to the point of having them repeated two or three times, if the officiator flubs up the verbiage or if--for example--a person being baptized doesn't quite go completely under the water)--but if, after the fact, it is discovered that the officiator was actually not living Church standards and therefore "unworthy" at the time of the ritual, the Church more or less shrugs and says "well, we did our best" and still recognizes the rite as binding.

 

For example, I read about the experience of a Mormon missionary in the mid-to-late-20th century.  After returning home it came out that the missionary actually had some sort of gender disorder--although the missionary had external male genitalia and had been raised as a male; the missionary was actually a female genetically and turned out to also possess female reproductive organs internally.  She decided she wanted to live as a female and maintain Church activity.  Now, as you probably know, Mormon females are not allowed to be ordained to the Church's priesthood.  After the issue worked up through the chain of church hierarchy, the decision was ultimately made that while she would no longer be permitted to function as a priesthood holder, the baptisms performed during her missionary service would be recognized and did not need to be re-done.

 

Although--come to think of it--didn't Catholicism supposedly have a female pope back during the middle ages?

 

As far as the "female pope" thing, that's generally considered to be a myth. You can read about it here, but in summary the earliest mention of it was several hundred years after the fact without any real evidence supporting it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

 

Officially, I would imagine that, were such a thing to happen, all the sacraments she performed would likely be considered invalid. I should mention that two exceptions would be baptism, since a layperson man or woman can validly do that, and marriages, where its technically the couple and not the priest ministering the sacrament (he observes for the Church and blesses is). 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the whole "legalistic" person in the pews. Frankly, we have enough trouble getting our parishioners to crack a bible or show up on Sunday, I'm not too worried about flocks of them digging through canon law. Besides, if the priest is doing something illicit, he probably should be called out on it.

 

As a side not, in Catholicism at least, personal worthiness is not something that renders a sacrament invalid. There was a big altercation in the early centuries of the Church with a group called the Montanists who believed that any sacraments performed by somebody who wasn't personally worthy were invalid. Likewise, they didn't believe in confession like modern Catholics do, meaning in their theology, if you sinned after baptism you were pretty much damned. Obviously the ability to reconcile with the church won out (though the penances back then were stuff like "you're banned from receiving the Eucharist for five years", which makes the three "Our Fathers" we get nowadays seem pretty lax).

 

Anyway, the idea is that Christ is performing the sacrament through the minister, so the personal worthiness of the minister doesn't matter, since Christ is definitely personally worthy.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Claire

[CatholicLady]

I would argue that the Catholic position isn't really the proverbial "check list" either. A person could have lived an objectively horrible life and could still find salvation at the end.

 

I would agree though that the difference is more a matter of revelation. In Catholicism, Christ represented the fullness of revelation, and no subsequent revelation is necessary. Everything that ever could be known to human minds was fully revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.

 

Setting aside other debates of exaltation, I believe both camps believe in doing God's will. During his ministry, Christ revealed a number of commandments to us, including both "though shalt not" sort of rules, along with general guidelines on how we ought to live our lives. Its safe to assume that those rules and guidelines constitute God's will, so we abide by them. If we fail to abide by them, then we go against God's will, which is basically what sin is.

 

That's not to say that the rules aren't open to some refinement through the development of doctrine, which is another story for another time. The only rule of the development of doctrine that's really relevant here is that changes cannot contradict prior teachings.

 

In summary, in Catholicism, we attempt to conform ourselves to God's will through living a life in keeping with Christs teachings. Yes this includes following the "thou shalt nots," but it also means doing the "though shalts" as well. We have to care for the sick and the elderly, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, love our neighbors, and so forth. With the help of God's grace, received through the Sacraments of his Holy Church, we hope to be able to echo the words of Paul in saying "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal 2:20). 

 

I guess my point is that Catholic morality is not just a set of rules. It is a guide to how to live one's life to conform ourselves to God's will, and it also includes the means to obtain the graces necessary to actually do that.

 

I think were we differ from LDS morals on this one, and this may just be my perception thus far, is the guidelines are more strict in our case. It's not that you guys don't believe Christ said what he said or meant what he meant, but you seem more willing to allow for exceptions in particular instances on the grounds of personal revelation.

 

If I got that wrong, as always, feel free to correct me on it

 

Very well put, Claire. I was about to say something about the check list thing, but you nailed it much better than I ever could!

[Guest]

As far as the "female pope" thing, that's generally considered to be a myth. You can read about it here, but in summary the earliest mention of it was several hundred years after the fact without any real evidence supporting it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

 

Officially, I would imagine that, were such a thing to happen, all the sacraments she performed would likely be considered invalid. I should mention that two exceptions would be baptism, since a layperson man or woman can validly do that, and marriages, where its technically the couple and not the priest ministering the sacrament (he observes for the Church and blesses is). 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're implying about "were such a thing to happen".  In Catholicism (including ancient history), the only way that could have happened is if everybody thought she was male - kinda like the situation JAG related about the gender reassignment.

 

So, let's go with... say, there was this Pope... wait... let's just lower this to Bishop because I can't, in good conscience, talk lightly about the papal seat like that... okay, this Bishop was ordained with everybody believing he was male.  He then leaves the priesthood and gets gender reassignment.  I don't think any of the sacraments she performed would be considered invalid because... the sacraments are not for the bishop but for the person(s) receiving such... and the sacrament remains valid as it is done by FAITH.

 

Right?

[CatholicLady]

Is contraception immoral?

 

In a word: No. But a one-word answer is inaccurate.

 

This is an example of what I consider a "Catholic" question: Is this action on the Approved List or on the Disapproved List? (No mockery to Catholicism intended. Rather, that is my understanding of the underlying question.)

 

In LDS circles, I think it's truthful to say that the act of contraception is not, in and of itself, considered in violation of the Spirit of God. Thus, a simplistic answer to the question would have to be "No". But, as I have pointed out, from an LDS viewpoint the question itself is defective.

Hmmm... I don't think it's necessarily a "Catholic" thing for something to either be a sin or not be a sin. In Catholicism, some things are black and white, while others are kind of a grey area. Isn't this true also in LDS? For example, as Mormons, you see contraception as perhaps a greyish issue, but what about adultery? What about pre marital sex? Those are examples of black and white issues, no?

Sounds like both your church and mine have issues that are black and white, as well as issues that are grey.

Edited January 17, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Guest]

Hmmm... I don't think it's necessarily a "Catholic" thing for something to either be a sin or not be a sin. In Catholicism, some things are black and white, while others are kind of a grey area. Isn't this true also in LDS? For example, as Mormons, you see contraception as perhaps a greyish issue, but what about adultery? What about pre marital sex? Those are examples of black and white issues, no?

Sounds like both your church and mine has issues that are black or white, as well as issues that are grey.

 

Everything is grey.

 

Having more than one wife - Sin.  But Joseph Smith had more than one wife.  So why is that a sin for me but not for him?

 

Pre-marital sex - Sin.  But then this girl has been abducted by this psychopath when she was 6 and now she's 26 with 2 kids from this psychopath while she was under his captivity... sin or not?

 

We go by the principle of - Teach them correct principles then allow them to govern themselves.

[Claire]

I'm not sure I understand what you're implying about "were such a thing to happen".  In Catholicism (including ancient history), the only way that could have happened is if everybody thought she was male - kinda like the situation JAG related about the gender reassignment.

 

So, let's go with... say, there was this Pope... wait... let's just lower this to Bishop because I can't, in good conscience, talk lightly about the papal seat like that... okay, this Bishop was ordained with everybody believing he was male.  He then leaves the priesthood and gets gender reassignment.  I don't think any of the sacraments she performed would be considered invalid because... the sacraments are not for the bishop but for the person(s) receiving such... and the sacrament remains valid as it is done by FAITH.

 

Right?

 

The scenario was if there was a Pope (or any bishop really, since the Pope is just the bishop of Rome) who was actually a woman pretending to be a man. I that case, the woman could not have been actually ordained. In Catholicism, in order for a sacrament to be valid, you need valid matter and form. Matter is the stuff you use (i.e. bread and wine with water i the eucharist) while form is how you use it (i.e. going through the right motions with the right intent). In the case of ordination (making somebody a priest/deacon/bishop), proper matter for the sacrament is, well, a man. If, either through deception or some really weird medical disorder the man was later discovered to have actually been a woman, the sacrament would have to be deemed invalid. Subsequently, since a person has to be validly ordained to perform most (but not all) sacraments, any sacrament they would have attempted would have to be judged invalid (again, with the exception of those which do not require ordination, like baptism).

 

In the case of "gender reassignment," the Church does not believe such a thing to actually be possible. You may attempt to change the outward genetalia and secondary sexual feature to resemble that of the other gender, but in every way that actually matters you are still your original gender. I would also argue that a good secular argument can be made for this at least until there's a sex change that renders a person capable of reproducing as a member of their new gender. Either way though, since the person is and always was of the original gender (male), it has no bearing on the validity of any sacraments they were involved in.