|
作者
|
內容
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/12 下午 06:02:00
|
|
|
What do you think?
Is it going to be mortal sin?
According to the Church's NARROW interpretation of natural law, that every sexual act must be open to procreation......( Humanae Vitae # 10 )
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 上午 08:57:29
|
|
|
從理念上而言，任何沒有生育企圖的性行為都犯罪的。不過教會只是選擇性譴責某些行為，對於同樣犯上這個問題的普遍行為，就不提了。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 上午 11:01:03
|
|
|
"同樣犯上這個問題 (沒有生育意圖) 的普遍行為",
其實是指哪些? 可否舉例?
教會為何要選擇地譴責? 那什麼才是真正準則呢?
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 上午 11:05:25
|
|
|
contraception, sex during pregnancy, masturbation.....to name a few
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 上午 11:41:58
|
|
|
Many Christian denominations also denounce these, not just the Catholic Church, especially masturbation.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 下午 01:16:07
|
|
|
I mean 哪些是教會選擇性地不 denounce/不提?
Bro One 好似說有些違反 Procreation Of Life 這個原則的行為未被denounced .
唔知我有冇理解錯?
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 下午 04:57:41
|
|
|
這是很具震撼性的說法，雖然，這不是今天才有的'說法':性行為的目的純粹為生育，這跟基督的愛德教導的聯繫在哪裡，是該首先給信眾或慕道者弄清楚的呀!
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 下午 11:44:13
|
|
|
例如沒有生育能力的人性交，是教會允許的，但是這明明是沒有生育可能的性交，不過，可能當事人雖然沒有生育能力，但是也有生育意圖，也說不定；其次，就是沒有生育意圖的性交了。人工節育所以被視為本質惡，就是因為其明確地沒有生育意圖。然而，有不少人雖然沒有用人工節育的方法，但是也沒有生育意圖的，教會就不會視之為本質惡，甚至鼓勵，例如用自然避孕法，當夫妻刻意計算在不能成孕的日子中發生性行為，就是沒有生育意圖了，可是教會卻贊同這個方法。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/4/18 下午 11:51:52
|
|
|
Then indeed,
the idea "intention of procreation of life"
is not really the norm for lawful sex.
Maybe the question is not really about "procreation of Life" but something else?
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/19 上午 09:52:49
|
|
|
I share Augustine's question.
Perhaps it is an over simplification to state that sex not intended for procreation is forbidden. A better statement is perhaps this: sex not intended for procreation as well as intended to erase procreation is prohibited.
In such case, the crux of the matter is the intention to erase procreation.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/21 下午 10:37:17
|
|
|
一直以來，夫妻之間的房事如沒有向生育開放，跟據這樣的自然律的詮釋，顯然是不道德的。但今時今日，相信很少夫妻會對他們二人沒有向生育開放的神聖結合感到有犯罪感。
對與錯全繫於教會如何以自然律去詮釋！堅持以狹窄的方法去解釋的話，所有在這詮釋以外的性行為皆屬違法！夫妻得知妻子懷孕之後行房就是明知該次房事是沒有生育的意圖，故是違法，這樣狹窄的詮釋，完全抹殺了夫妻二人知到懷孕之後的喜悅而情到濃時選擇以性來表達愛的權利。
現代科學有足夠的證明就算動物也非每次性行為都有傳生的目的，一些高等的猿類也發現有自慰和同性戀行為！再者，誰能說不符合動物(自然界)的行為均有違自然及不道德？
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/21 下午 10:46:28
|
|
|
And what is the difference between "without the intention to pro-create" and " with the intention to erase pro-creation"?? How would they look like when put to practise??
Any perhaps God would be more angry if one intends to erase pro-creation than when one lacks the intention to pro-create??
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/22 上午 09:57:36
|
|
|
"Without intention to procreate" - this has a striking difference from "with the intention to erase procreation".
The former is spontaneous - when a married couple chose to make love without the thought of having children or not to have children. The latter involves an ulterior intention to just seeking pleasure without regard to the consequences.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/22 上午 10:54:16
|
|
|
When married couple use artificial, contraceptives, are they without intention to procreate or do they intend to erase pro-creation?
Who can tell? and How to tell?
And more importantly, the Church has been hard-selling NFP ( natural family planning ). When married couples practise NFP ( choosing to have sex during infertile periods ), are they without intention to procreate or do they intend to erase pro-creation?
That is the part I cannot understand and if anyone can help..... please.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/22 上午 11:41:01
|
|
|
入果一定要分辨, 看來, 用人工方法不能說沒有意圖; 永自然法, 起碼可以說: 我'忍都忍到今日', 為的是'不想弄出人命'.當然, 人工方法也可以是為同樣目的,但說穿了, 是人工方法太方便, 不拒時日, 容易給人abuse.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/4/22 上午 11:45:42
|
|
|
Who to tell?
I think in matters as these, what matters is the persons' own intention an d'discipline'. The Church can only offer guidelines as to sanctification. It could NEVER impose its will through rules and regulations.
Perhaps unless we understand how the Church teachings touch human hearts rather than through punishments and violence, we could never understand salvation.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/22 下午 09:27:17
|
|
|
"unless we understand how the Church teachings touch human hearts ..., we could never understand salvation."
Absolutely.
That is exactly what happens. People dont understand how Church teachings touch their hearts, so probably no one can ever get saved.
And there are times when we cannot suppose all Church teachings can touch human hearts. And may be some teachings never touch human hearts at all.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/23 上午 11:42:53
|
|
|
This Sunday's Gospel offers a good answer here:
Jn 14:1-12 - Thomas asks the Lord, where is the road to heaven, if we haven't been there and don't know what heaven is like.
Jesus says: I am the way, the truth the life...I am in the Father, and the Father in me.
What's being stressed is the 'union' in Christ, and the union of Christ with the Father.
Are we like Thomas, always asking, where. what. when. why. how?
Will this do for our faith?
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/23 下午 02:15:55
|
|
|
按照施大姐的說法，我可以得出兩個截然不同的結論：
(1)什麼都不想，只按照教會的訓導，因為教會就是基督的身體。
(2)什麼訓導都不想，因為只要我覺得走基督的路，就是
真理之路。
施大姐認為何者才是正確呢？
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/23 下午 03:52:19
|
|
|
手中無劍,心中有劍,我當然選(2)了,好像大太極,打得久了,不用一招一式地來,而是混然一體的打了.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/4/23 下午 09:38:40
|
|
|
"混然一體的打了"...isn't it the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
As for reflection for the Faith, I would say:
we begin by asking,
then we are partially satisfied by certain theological theories, or moral standards when we
try to live them externally,
partially because they are not as exact as
1+1=2 to us.
Finally we abandoned asking, not because we
gave up the Faith, it's really that
we gave up the attempt of a "verbal" Faith,
the pretence to be able to understand everything.
We finally realized actually we know very little.
We are not like Christ, when he debate over the Scriptures in the synagogue when he was just a child.
We are, however, the listener of the inner testimony of the Spirit. Like our dear mother Mary,
"who pondered over the mysteries, again and again".
What could matter if we have already found the Precious
Pearl, which each of us gave up everything
in return for.
Should we debate over its chemical composition,
or calculate its value before (or even after)
we BUY it with all our money?
When we say a rational/"clear" explanation is
needed for presenting our Faith. That is true if we
humbly beseech the Holy Spirit to blow through
the hearers of the Word.
We are only the microphone for preaching the Word,
it's the Holy Spirit who IS the real missionary.
As I said somewhere else. It is pride if we claim
we could fit Holy Mysteries into human theories.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/23 下午 11:35:02
|
|
|
Oh
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/4/24 上午 11:30:52
|
|
|
OH AGAIN!
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/4/24 下午 01:58:01
|
|
|
我一直以為，在這裡，最反動的是我，現在，我才知道，大家都是高人......只要自己心之所安，教會訓導不用理；只要找到聖神，教會訓導不用理，大家唸信經時，唸到唯一、至聖、至公、由宗徒傳下來的教會時，有沒有點心虛呢......
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2002/4/24 下午 02:30:34
|
|
|
哈哈.......
聖多瑪斯摩爾是我偶像,所以學他一樣,不同意時便保持緘默,雖然最後都是難逃一死......
另外,我唸信經時從沒心虛,除了有時唸(及子)時,但我相信那只是表述的問題,而非信仰內涵的問題.
|
