Closing both eyes.
Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.
Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.
Which doesn’t usually work.
That’s how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.
Susma Rio Sep
When it comes to sexual acts, Catholic priests are the most detailedly instructed people on earth on the kinds, nature, and gravity of sexual aberrations.
They have to know them, because they hear confessions and a lot of confessions are about sexual sins.
Now, I am not saying that priests are active in sex acts conventional and unconventional.
But a good alarming number in the U.S. seem to have made a name for themselves, in regard specially to sexploitation of children.
Susma Rio Sep
Joel asks:
I've never understood why artificial contraception is evil, but "Natural Family Planning" is OK. Both are intended for the same purpose, No Kids. Oh, and a question for anyone to answer. If the wife shouldn't become pregnant because it would be dangerous to her health, would that be an exception to allow artificial contraception?
The official explanation of the Catholic Church makes a distinction between natural family planning (contraception) and artificial family planning (contraception).
Natural contraception consists in no sex, or sex only when the wife is infertile.
Artificial contraception attempts by mechanical, chemical, or surgical ways and means are all deadly sinful.
OK, it means that the intention to avoid pregnancy is not generally prohibited, meaning if you have already done your duty of going forth to multiply even with just producing only one baby, you are allowed to practice contraception but the natural way.
Other reasons justifying the intention to practice natural contraception: the will not to have babies but to have sex just the same, are any causes like pursuit of a lawful career, economic straits, too many children already, and most important the health of the mother – but remember, only by natural methods.
Contraception by artificial methods, mechanical, chemical, or surgical ways and means, is absolutely prohibited, even for the health of the mother.
You just have to limit yourself to natural contraception: no sex, or have sex when the woman is not fertile.
Susma Rio Sep
Uh, yes, you just described the curch position, but you didn’t explain the logic behind it. That’s what I’m interested in.
Logic of the Catholic Church’s position:
Sex is ordained by God for procreation and education of children.
Therefore any sex use not furthering the procreation of children is contrary to God’s ordination.
How do we know God’s ordination?
a) For Catholics, the official teachers of the Catholic Church say so, from the Pope to the last priest, that’s good enough for them.
b) For non-Catholics, God’s ordination is seen in nature: just like the birds and the bees and the flowers, sex in humans also results in babies; hence, the natural (read that, God’s) ordination of sex is production of babies.
I for my own part find some strength in this argument, but I don’t accept it.
It so happens that I maintain that I am the master of nature in every faculty of nature where I can control, modify, and even abolish its workings or its effects – if I think that it’s going to be better for me and for my neighbors.
Susma Rio Sep
Apparently I made myself unclear. I’ll try again. Please explain this logic
**
Are you referring to Orthodox Jews? Becuase if you are, you’d be wrong.
If you are familiar with the OT, then please kindly point me to the verse where it states that anal sex is prohibited. Or, if you like, I’ll spare you the trouble and tell you that it’s not there. There is no verse in the Torah prohibiting anal sex and in the Talmud it is specifically permitted.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes, it’s just homosexual anal sex that’s banned, right Zev?
For the most part, that is true.
Zev Steinhardt
Precision is always important.
Susma Rio Sep is offering absolutely inaccurate information and dispensing it with calm surety. This really bothers me.
In addition to the mistake with respect to Jewish law, with which I have passing familiarity, there are serious errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. For example, in responding to Kalhoun’s question about married priests and if the Church is “looking the other way:”
This is a lie.
The requirement that a priest not marry is not set in stone. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 1047 § 2) provides that if a man already married wishes to become a priest, the Holy See alone may grant permission.
Now, if you, Susma Sep Rio are talking about any case in which a priest has married without the permission of the Holy See and continues to exercise his office with the church “looking the other way” or “closing both [her] eyes,” please present it, and then I’ll glady retract my characterization of you as a stinkin’ liar.
But I see no reason to withdraw that characterization at present.
That’s pretty bizarre logic - but it’s not what the Church says.
As my post above should make clear, Susma Sep Rio’s posts should not be consulted if the goal is accurate information on the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church makes a distinction between “artificial” methods of birth control and “natural” methods. So they don’t say, “Doing anything to prevent pregnancy is wrong,” – they say, “Using unnatural methods to prevent pregnancy is wrong.”
Unnatural methods include anything that creates a barrier that prevents the transmission of life, or anything that disrupts or changes the natural body cycle.
Choosing when to have sex, on the other hand, is perfectly natural.
I hope that clears this up.
Although since humans have lost the signals common to most primates that indicate their fertile periods, and may have developed methods for actively concealing when females are fertile, choosing to have sex at a particular time to avoid pregnancy is arguably just as unnatural as using hormonal regulation or rubber sheaths.
Bricker, actually I do know that unatural is concidered evil, and natural is concidered good. But why? It seems to me that under that logic, walking places is good, but driving a car is evil.
OK, that might be a bad analogy, but I hope you get my point, and my confusion on the subject.
That was my post, not Gr8Kat’s.
Strange. Perhaps you could contact a moderator to report the problem.
No, She’s my wife. She has a computer in our “office” and I have a computer in the kitchen. She had to retire for medical reasons, and uses an electric wheelchair to get around. It’s easier for her to use the kitchen computer, and I have a hard time remembering to log her out, and re log in as me when I want to post. So I guess I’ll just start using the office computer to avoid that problem.
Oh, and to tie in what I was talking about to this thread, “Natural Family Planning” is OK with the Catholic Church, heck it’s even recomended, because it’s a natural way to avoid pregnancy, right? OK, for those people who are into it, anal sex is a natural way to avoid pregnancy, right?
Since my question was long ago answered, can one the moderators please close this.
Thank you.
Wrong. The Church teaches that NFP is only acceptable for “grave reasons,” the logic being that they DON’T want NFP to become a Catholic equivalent of contraception.
The mentality is, in a nutshell, this (I don’t have my churchy-books in front of me, so I’ll try to wing it): marriage is meant to be open to children. And I really want to point out here: one of the aspects of marriage is its unitive feature: it’s meant to draw the couple closer together through physical bonding. Sex feels good, it’s supposed to make them love each other more, so married couples should have lots of it. Seriously. But the love that comes from it is meant to be open to new life, since children are meant to be the product of their parents’ love. In other words, the love that the couple has for each other is meant to just keep growing, and that includes a shared love for and with any children who appear.
There might be “grave” circumstances in which it would be “preferrable” not to have kids. What this means is tremendously up in the air and furiously debated. For example, I’m in a Catholic law school. A number of my married Catholics have continued to have children through the 3 years, despite the fact that daddy (and in some rare instances, mommy) is ass-busy with studies and isn’t pulling in much income. In their opinion, three years of study isn’t “grave” enough to avoid kids. Other classmates have put off having children through NFP: they think they can’t afford kids right now, and would prefer to wait until their finances are settled so they can better welcome the little’uns.
Anyway, in either case, both sides are still open to kids, even the NFPing ones. That is, those that are working with the wife’s cycle to avoid pregnancy would still be open to the child if one…er…slipped through. In short, NFP is intended to leave the parents open to new life, so that children are never viewed as an embarassment or burden if things don’t go according to plan.
Any other method would be considered, for all intents and purposes, “contraceptive” and therefore illicit. The method might be “recommended,” but only as a means for a couple to grow together in their sexuality.