| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2009 03:14:38 AM · #801 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That means there has to be a willingness to change and grow as society does. Just as birth control was something that Catholicism has had to address, so will Christians have to grow and accept gay relationships. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Perhaps you should choose a better example other than Catholics and birth control.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church̢۪s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Catholics are still against birth control. |
That's not quite the story......
"The commission took its job seriously. It studied the history of Catholic teachings on contraception and found that many of the scientific and theological underpinnings of the prohibition on contraception were faulty or outdated. Lay members presented the findings of surveys they had conducted of devout Catholic couples about their experiences with the rhythm method; some of the women present testified about their own use of the method. What the commission heard challenged their thinking about the role of fertility and contraception within marriage. They heard that contrary to the assertion of the hierarchy that natural family planning brought couples closer together, it often drove them apart. They heard of couples who became obsessed with sex because of the unnatural restrictions placed upon spontaneous demonstrations of affection. And they heard women speak of childbearing as one of many roles they played as wives, mothers and partners and of the importance of the non-procreative sexual bond to marriage.
In the end, the commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the church rescind its ban on artificial contraception, saying that it was not "intrinsically evil" nor the popes' previous teachings on it infallible. But to the Vatican, it was impossible that the teaching on birth control could change because this would acknowledge that the hierarchy had been wrong on an issue it had elevated over the years to a central tenet of its teachings. For the last meeting of the commission, in the spring of 1965, it demoted the commission members to "experts" and brought in 15 bishops to make the final report. What followed was a serious of contentious meetings, as the increasingly impassioned pro-contraception forces squared off against a minority of members determined to hold the line for the Vatican. When Father Marcelino Zalba, a church expert on "family limitation," asked the commission in undisguised horror what would happen "with the millions we have sent to hell" if the teaching on contraception "was not valid," commission member Patty Crowley shot back: "Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?" (Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, 1995)
But in the end even the bishops were swayed by the logic of the case for contraception. They voted nine to three to change the teaching, with three bishops abstaining. The official report of the commission said the teaching on birth control was not infallible; that the traditional basis for the prohibition on contraception--the biblical story of Onan and his spilled seed--had been interpreted incorrectly in the past; that the regulation of fertility was necessary for responsible parenthood and could properly be accomplished by intervening with natural processes; and, finally, that the morality of marriage was not based on "the direct fecundity of each and every particular act," but on mutual love within the totality of marriage.
While there was only one official report of the commission, the dissenting members prepared what would later be known as a minority report. This report basically said that the teaching on contraception could not change--not for any specific reason, but because the Catholic hierarchy could not admit it was wrong: "The Church cannot change her answer, because this answer is true ... It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ ... could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history." It went on to say that if the hierarchy was to admit it was wrong on this issue, its authority would be questioned on all "moral matters." (National Catholic Reporter, April 19, 1967)"
So it's really not true that Catholics are against birth control........what this means is that in fact, they have had to look at their stance and realize that like it or not, they cannot refute it because to do so would mean that in fact, they were human and had made a mistake.
Yet again, an archaic religious tenet stands in the face of human fallibility and common sense.
So to say that Catholics are against bith control is simply not true.
And like it or not, they had to look at it and deal with it.
I somehow don't see acceptance and tolerance of gay relationships in the Christian religions in my lifetime, but sooner or later, they will have to understand that maybe it should be on God to judge, not man, and perhaps live together in harmony.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2009 11:16:28 AM · #802 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Catholics are still against birth control. |
Actually it's the church that is against birth control, otherwise we would have a lot more Catholics running around.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 11:24:10 AM · #803 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[snipped]...a big block of text from Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, 1995...[/snipped]
So it's really not true that Catholics are against birth control........what this means is that in fact, they have had to look at their stance and realize that like it or not, they cannot refute it because to do so would mean that in fact, they were human and had made a mistake.
Yet again, an archaic religious tenet stands in the face of human fallibility and common sense.
So to say that Catholics are against bith control is simply not true.
And like it or not, they had to look at it and deal with it.
I somehow don't see acceptance and tolerance of gay relationships in the Christian religions in my lifetime, but sooner or later, they will have to understand that maybe it should be on God to judge, not man, and perhaps live together in harmony. |
There are laws that spell out in the Catholic Church. These are called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and CCC2370 deals with birth control.
Originally posted by CCC2370:
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil |
My understanding of this reference is that we Catholics are against birth control.
Also, I don't see acceptance of gay relationships in the Christian religion. However, I see the acceptance of the individuals who have same sex attraction.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2009 12:26:21 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are laws that spell out in the Catholic Church. These are called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and CCC2370 deals with birth control. |
Um... you're just quoting the original papal decree. The commission appointed to investigate that issue found that it was erroneous and should be overturned. The church didn't like that answer, so it replaced the commission with 15 bishops who ALSO agreed that the rule should be overturned. They were simply ignored. So basically what you're quoting is false and only exists is because the church is afraid that admitting such a huge mistake might cause people to wonder what else might not be true.
Message edited by author 2009-10-26 12:28:22. |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 01:41:53 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are laws that spell out in the Catholic Church. These are called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and CCC2370 deals with birth control. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Um... you're just quoting the original papal decree. The commission appointed to investigate that issue found that it was erroneous and should be overturned. The church didn't like that answer, so it replaced the commission with 15 bishops who ALSO agreed that the rule should be overturned. They were simply ignored. So basically what you're quoting is false and only exists is because the church is afraid that admitting such a huge mistake might cause people to wonder what else might not be true. |
Thanks, Shannon....I actually wasn't aware of the second commission, but the end result is the same.
I have always wondered why religions are so reluctant to change when it means the difference between tradition and veracity. To stick to tradition in the face of progress, facts, logic, and reason just makes them look bad, and loses credibility for them.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2009 02:02:56 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are laws that spell out in the Catholic Church. These are called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and CCC2370 deals with birth control. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Um... you're just quoting the original papal decree. So basically what you're quoting is false and only exists is because the church is afraid that admitting such a huge mistake might cause people to wonder what else might not be true. |
Yes, it does quote the original papal decree, but that's what the Catechism is. That's a list of all the stuff Catholics follow. If you don't follow those rules, you're not a Catholic.
I won't get into if the Catholic Church is correct or not (that would be another thread).
But you can't say the Catholic Church is for birth control, if the basic laws that are followed by all Catholic says it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2009 02:49:59 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
[Yes, it does quote the original papal decree, but that's what the Catechism is. That's a list of all the stuff Catholics follow. If you don't follow those rules, you're not a Catholic. |
You might want to read my previous comment on birth control... because if indeed what you advocate is true then there are thousands (if not millions) of Catholics that do not adhere to the tenets of the church and ought not be considered Catholics.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 06:27:09 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
[Yes, it does quote the original papal decree, but that's what the Catechism is. That's a list of all the stuff Catholics follow. If you don't follow those rules, you're not a Catholic. |
You might want to read my previous comment on birth control... because if indeed what you advocate is true then there are thousands (if not millions) of Catholics that do not adhere to the tenets of the church and ought not be considered Catholics.
Ray |
That's true. And if you read the article, the author states, quite hypocritically, that Catholicism shouldn't be reformed to reflect the attitudes of the majority of Catholics, because the problem lies with the majority of Catholics.
If the author truly believes that the faith's historical doctrine trumps the moral advancement of the laity, he should be outraged that the Inquisition is no longer rounding up prospective witches and torturing and murdering children, and he should be scandalized that Catholics are allowed to marry Protestants. |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 07:09:34 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's true. And if you read the article, the author states, quite hypocritically, that Catholicism shouldn't be reformed to reflect the attitudes of the majority of Catholics, because the problem lies with the majority of Catholics.
If the author truly believes that the faith's historical doctrine trumps the moral advancement of the laity, he should be outraged that the Inquisition is no longer rounding up prospective witches and torturing and murdering children, and he should be scandalized that Catholics are allowed to marry Protestants. |
I'm sorry this is turning into a Catholic thread. You don't seem to understand the Catholic Doctorine. It doesn't change much. Infact, it's said the church has 2 speeds, slow and stop. It just recently apologized for Galileo.
So yes, when the Pope says X, anyone in union with the Pope has to follow X. Other wise you have church skisms.
The author of that article doesn't blame the congregation, he's blaming the church for not telling us what we should believe. "If the folks in the pews don't know their religion, they can't practice it." |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 07:26:23 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
So yes, when the Pope says X, anyone in union with the Pope has to follow X. Other wise you have church skisms. |
So if the pope is wrong (as the commission and bishops overwhelmingly concluded), then the rule conflicts with the true intent of the Bible and leaves you with two choices: ignore the church or ignore the Bible. It's a Catechism-22! Then again, it's hard to believe that anyone who requires armed bodyguards and a bulletproof car for protection would have any special access to a God he claims to represent... |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 07:42:40 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sorry this is turning into a Catholic thread. You don't seem to understand the Catholic Doctorine. It doesn't change much. Infact, it's said the church has 2 speeds, slow and stop. It just recently apologized for Galileo. |
Well... I'm pretty familiar with it. I hate pulling out my CV, but I'm sure I know my stuff. I get the "slow speeds", but I suppose mine was a rather pointed criticism, more than an observation. |
|
|
|
10/26/2009 11:02:48 PM · #812 |
Very good points being made about the 2 speeds; its very true. The Roman Catholic church is now more of a political enterprise only based on Christ and the apostles' teachings. One half of the church adapts with the times, and the other half chooses to stick by its historical doctrines ignoring the fact that civilization has evolved.
Now my personal opinion, my belief here is that the pope represents the latter half because of a disbelief in evolution; or, he believes mankind's evolution is not necessary. Whether you agree it is or it isn't is another story. Now yes the Catholic church is against abortion and birth control because it bases that policy on the old world, a world where man needs to reproduce as much as possible to expand our species. Now its easy to figure out why they are against gay marriage. But...we Evolved, along with the planet, but you will still never hear anything about evolution at a mass.
Message edited by author 2009-10-27 01:55:12. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 08:05:11 AM · #813 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's true. And if you read the article, the author states, quite hypocritically, that Catholicism shouldn't be reformed to reflect the attitudes of the majority of Catholics, because the problem lies with the majority of Catholics.
If the author truly believes that the faith's historical doctrine trumps the moral advancement of the laity, he should be outraged that the Inquisition is no longer rounding up prospective witches and torturing and murdering children, and he should be scandalized that Catholics are allowed to marry Protestants. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sorry this is turning into a Catholic thread. You don't seem to understand the Catholic Doctorine. It doesn't change much. Infact, it's said the church has 2 speeds, slow and stop. It just recently apologized for Galileo.
So yes, when the Pope says X, anyone in union with the Pope has to follow X. Other wise you have church skisms.
The author of that article doesn't blame the congregation, he's blaming the church for not telling us what we should believe. "If the folks in the pews don't know their religion, they can't practice it." |
So.....again I find myself at a point where my question is: If a religion cannot even hold onto the people that are supposedly their followers, then what possible draw is there for me?
If the leader of said sect chooses to follow the letter of an arcane way of being rather than to acknowledge that life has changed in the last 2000 years, what sort of sense does that make outside the denomination? How is this religion to survive when its edicts will basically over time diminish the faithful entirely?
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 11:23:18 AM · #814 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....again I find myself at a point where my question is: If a religion cannot even hold onto the people that are supposedly their followers, then what possible draw is there for me?
If the leader of said sect chooses to follow the letter of an arcane way of being rather than to acknowledge that life has changed in the last 2000 years, what sort of sense does that make outside the denomination? How is this religion to survive when its edicts will basically over time diminish the faithful entirely? |
It looks like there is no draw for you. You'll have to find a faith that relies on the changes of man.
If you want a faith that doesn't change with the times, is constant over the turmoils of man, and is taken not from man but on something higher, I know of one religion for you.
How will it survive? Only time will tell.
BTW, the pope is on myspace, so I think the church is getting with the times. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 11:58:51 AM · #815 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
BTW, the pope is on myspace, so I think the church is getting with the times. |
Nope the pope is not on MySpace, the church's PR team is on MySpace posing as the pope. My mom is on facebook, that really (REALLY!) doesn't mean she's getting with the times |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 12:51:40 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you want a faith that doesn't change with the times, is constant over the turmoils of man, and is taken not from man but on something higher, I know of one religion for you. |
What... Buddhism? It CERTAINLY can't be the one that recently pardoned Galileo, used to condone slavery, offered indulgences for sale, added new text to the gospels 1000+ years later, tortured and/or murdered people for witchcraft and heresy, forbade women from even speaking in church, etc. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 01:19:32 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It looks like there is no draw for you. |
Oh, I knew that.....thing is, I know of all too many people who were of certain faiths that can no longer stomach the rigors of societies which stubborn;y refuse to grow and change.
That's how they die off......by alienating their own members....
Originally posted by Nullix:
You'll have to find a faith that relies on the changes of man. |
Well, I trust in the guidance I get from my understanding of God......which pretty much flies in the face of most conventional dogma, so I get harassed, tyalked down to, and ridiculed over, but I don't see my relationship with teh God of my understanding as anyone's concern other than my own.
It's funny, I feel that God conveys his message to me just fine without anyone trying to impose what their take on God is and how I should live as they see it.
Let's just take it as a given that I have to answer for my life.......I don't answer to you, or that guy over there, right?
So what business is it of yours or his?
Can't you and he just hope that I have managed to make my relationship with God work and concentrate on your own frailties?
There is no man on earth qualified to speak for God.
So why must you judge me?
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you want a faith that doesn't change with the times, is constant over the turmoils of man, and is taken not from man but on something higher, I know of one religion for you. |
Umm.....no.
I want nothing to do with a religion that cares more about adhering to irrelevan, obsolete edicts than it does about the good and welfare of its members.
Just for curiosity's sake, give me the best answer you can for this question.....
Do you believe that God, who supposedly does not want us to practice birth control, just wants us to keep breeding in an exponential manner 'til the planet cannot possibly support its population?
Somewhere along the line someone will have to start making the decision on who's going to get to eat, and who won't.
What then?
Originally posted by Nullix:
BTW, the pope is on myspace, so I think the church is getting with the times. |
To even conceive that a man of his stature would waste time in such a manner is both amusing and appalling.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:33:49 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you believe that God, who supposedly does not want us to practice birth control, just wants us to keep breeding in an exponential manner 'til the planet cannot possibly support its population? |
Overpopulating the planet?
In 1798, Rev. Thomas Malthus, one theoretician of overpopulation, predicted that by 1890 the world would have standing room only.
In 1972, Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, warned that 65 million Americans would die of starvation by 1985.
In 1972, Planned Parenthood World Population circulated an article titled "The Human Race Has 35 Years Left: After that, People will Start Eating Plankton. Or People."
Reality, world wide birth rates have decline since 1960. By 2002 it was just 2.6. We need a rate of 2.1 to maintain numbers. Now Europe is looking at problems with negative population growth.
With China's one child policy and their culture, less girls are being born. I predict in about 10 years, there's going to be a bunch of Asian men who have nobody to marry.
Also in China, with their population control, there is evidence of forced abortions.
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women
What do you want, bad morals and population control?
|
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:47:19 PM · #819 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In 1798, Rev. Thomas Malthus, one theoretician of overpopulation, predicted...
In 1972, Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, warned...
In 1972, Planned Parenthood World Population circulated...
I predict... |
Well, at least you're honest. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:50:42 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral...
What do you want, bad morals and population control? |
The argument that contraception = bad morals is pretty facile. And since when did the Catholic church espouse respect for women? |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:52:05 PM · #821 |
Malthus didn't anticipate industrialized farming, based on a (now known to be) limited supply of fossil fuels.
There are already one billion undernourished people in the world (as well as a billion overweight people).
World Hunger Statistics in Real Time
Message edited by author 2009-10-27 16:52:22. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:55:38 PM · #822 |
I agree with the moral aspect too. I'm just hoping, but if this Vatican astronomer is correct articlethen it would be nice if we could become ET and hop on a space ship and buy some lunar or martian real estate to solve the over-population problem, if it is becoming a problem.
Keymasters and Gatekeepers, wasn't that from Ghostbusters? Key and Keyhole |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 04:56:24 PM · #823 |
| The "amount that would allow to feed the hungry today (in $ US dollars)" is only about $26 million. Egad. Ratzinger could sell a few relics or auction off one or two of those priceless dust collectors in the Vatican Museum, end world hunger, and he'd be a global hero. |
|
|
|
10/27/2009 05:14:20 PM · #824 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women |
Except that on no level is there any connection whatsoever between birth control and morality.
Perhaps if you could offer some kind of verifiable proof that immoral behavior is somehow caused by birth control......but sinxce that's just another farcical concept, that's not likely to happen.
It's precisely these kind of ridiculous ideas and statements that the church makes that gets it into trouble.
As an aside, a fairly serious problem here in Pennsylvania has been molestation of young boys by Catholic priests over the last 50 years.
Not really the kind of issue where birth control is germaine.
There has been little or no recourse against these men who have perpetrated these crimes against children. Some transfers, and out-of-court settlements, but by and large, the issues were swept under the rug as much as possible by the archdiocese.
Somehow, given this, I have some issues with regarding the Catholic church as bastions of morality.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:17:28 PM · #825 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Somehow, given this, I have some issues with regarding the Catholic church as bastions of morality. |
I'm with you on this. Faith does not garantee morality.
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women |
Conjugal infidelity : There was infidelity well before the invention of the condom. And those who practice it, more tahn too often, don't use protection.
The general lowering of morality : I fail to see the link
Loss of respect for women: If anything, it is an increase of respect for women. Protected sex is a very big symptom of respect for one's partner. Also, I'm not sure that seeing women a little more than "baby factories" sometimes putting their live at stake (in case of young girls' rape or health complications)is very repectful.
|
|
