No, of course not, Steve. I have said all along the church very badly NEEDS a VATICAN IV
If I may use (borrow) an anachronism which illustrtrates my meaning?
Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics!
(Catholic trying to hang in there)
Q
Umm, no. Yes, no doubt that 1500 years ago, before there really was a Catholic Church (or at least during the early formative years of, depending) St Augustine did have some odd ideas about sex.
I am giving you the Official Rulings and Archives of the Pope himself, since before WWII. Now, unless you’re really old, let us just say your memory is defective. God man, *I knew this *and I am not/never have been a Catholic.
ACRONYM
Sorry, Steve!:smack:
Q
(bolding mine) Which doesn’t mean having all the children the physiologically can.
NFP isn’t silly. It may be hard and complicated and less reliable than the pill. The difference is that you are still open to procreation, but use your knowledge of how your body works.
St. Paul says celibacy - total giving yorself to God - is super good. Marriage is good. Never says lesser of two evil. He recognizes that celibacy isn’t for everyone.
No “great teacher” of the Church is infallible and his views are to be respected, but only insofar as the do not contraict Church rules.
So, your third grade teacher trumps the official rulings of the church? that’s how it works?
To what purpose should the Church COYOTE?
Should the Church go with what she thinks (maybe wrongly) is the will of God or rule by polls?
You beat me to that but thank a lot.
More angel-counting. If you don’t want (more) children, you aren’t “open to procreation.” That’s like saying when I get in the car I’m open to dying in an accident.
Aji
I just meant that the church needs to move into the 21st Century. So many things need to be re-examined (IMHO), and COYOTE was just a way for me to say that.
Q
(Oh-oh. In the Pit again. No section for the dain-bramaged, huh?:smack:)
Are you kidding? If the brain-damaged aren’t allowed in the Pit it’ll be a ghost-town.
Yes, it was about 1500 years ago but it is still being taught. One thing though -
How come it never changes when it says something the (let’s call them) hardliners want to hold to the exact words, but when it doesn’t match what they want, then it’s OK to say “that was long ago”? It seems I was mildly opposed because in one or more of my posts, I said that things change and so should the rules. It’s strange how the “timeline” goalposts keep moving back and forth depending on who is arguing for or against something. In that case, the comment was about “cafeteria Catholics”.
Same way the always do- let the Holy Ghost decide.
Aji and The Flying Dutchman, since when did seatbelts become some way to address the problems associated with drunk driving?
Do you think that the biggest problem with drunk driving is that the driver might injure or kill him or herself? Really?
How does buckling up keep you from crossing the center line and smashing headlong into a minivan?
Your analogy is not only poor, but suggests that you don’t have a clue.
Not only did I read a Lot, but know couples who have children they cannot afford, physicaly, financaly, or physically, because their method of so called natural birth control failed. When RCC’s are the majority in a country the population Poverty level excedes (as well as in places where other religions do not allow birth control) or it is not readly available… To except a married couple to only have sex when the woman cannot concieve is not good for a marriage or a child that is born to a family with more children then the couple can care for. What may work for a couple that have a low sex drive may work fine, but not the average couple!
Teaching responsible parenting and the use of better methods of birth control is more moral than waiting for a time of month so a woman cannot concieve.
If RCCs wants to believe that fine, but then don’t complain of all the worlds poverty, or expect others to support their children.
That is part of the “disconnect”. When it suits the purpose, it is “divine revelation” or “God speaking through man” or Officilly Good Tasting And Less Fattening. When it doesn’t suit the purpose, then the Great teacher is no longer speaking the Word Of God, and is all too human (and fallible). Don’t you sometimes wonder which it’s gonna be? It’s all too too convenient. And paul said it was preferable to “burning with passion”. That sounds like a lesser of two evils situation. You could just as well say “it’s a little better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick”. It isn’t quite enough to be called “damning with faint praise”. Besides which, a LOT of “rules” can be traced back to these writings.
Nice try at evasion. This nonsense was taught from day 1, al the way through the last year of high school. It was also “taught” in pre=marriage “training”. If it were only one instance, I would have discounted it as a fluke. However, it was far to consistent, and the “message” was always the same. So no, it’s not just one loony 3rd grade teacher.
They have voted on things in the past. It is a historicl fact that “back in the beginning”, the bishops VOTED on which books belonged in “their” Bible. They threw out entire books. I won’t say if they were wrong or right in their selections, but there was a lot of arguing and voting. VOTING. And this was the Bible, the Word Of God. So yeah they can vote when they want to.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, despite how it may look. I agree with Dr Deth that things can and do change (his point about the 1500 years). I’m saying maybe it is time for a few more changes. But it has to be done honestly. A thing can’t be The Immutable Word on one side of the mouth, and “it was long ago and the guy was just human” out the other side. That is trying to have it both ways.
IOW, no matter what the official Church doctrine is, the “sex is only for procreation” teaching is being perpetuated by those who SHOULD know the official line. So, if people believe what they’re told over and over again, isn’t that what you WANT in a religion?
The problem with the Catholic teaching on sex is you need a degree in philosophy and theology to understand them. Although the more “modern” view of their stand on sex seems good in theory when you get into the details it is not and the burden is overwhelming.
First, in every sexual act their must be a chance of the woman getting pregnant. Second, each act must be a perfect act of self giving. Perfect, I don’t know what that exactly means but it has to be perfect. Third, you can not feel lust for your spouse and each act must be both prudent and chaste. Fourth, Frequent abstaining is good so you can return to your spouse in the right and pure frame of mind instead of in a lustful manner see JP2’s “Theology of the Body.” This is in addition to the abstaining needed for NFP which can be 6 to 12 days per month depending on many factors not limited to, temperature readings, menstrual cycle, charts, calendars, mucus levels etc. You better pray your charts and thermometer readings are correct. Sex play in those off days is forbidden as mutual masturbation.
Seriously, can anything be more unnatural.
Niether is true as my cites earlier have shown.
That’s another thing I don’t get.
Why the fuck is “god’s will” stopped by a condom?
Catholics are basically saying they’re god is so fucking weak it can’t put one tiny hole in thin latex. Catholic god < cheap synthetic rubber.
The real problem is the Catholic church just wants more members, and instead of winning members over with revaluations of perceived truth, good works, and charity.
It’d rather try to out breed other religions. So it has asinine rules like no contraceptives, all Catholics must marry other Catholics or their spouse must sign an agreement that any kids produced will be Catholic, etc.
All and all pretty creepy. Especially considering the senseless harm the no contraceptives rule causes. To paraphrase Five Man Electric Band “if God was here He’d tell it to their face Man You’re some kind of sinner”.
Do you actuallt think that the RCC’s position on contraception is about breeding members? It’s interesting cuz it’s always the reason people tell me we’re losing guys.
Good to know you are invulnerable to accidents…is that 6th level spell?
OK, my bad.
Official teachings ----> Unchangeable (in their core)
Other teachings ----> Have to be understood in their context.
Couldn’t agree more.
It work’s insofar as it reduces the possible damage after a crash-
That’s a terrible thing and you’re absolutely right that we should get our act together.
Still hung out on the “natural” thing.
It isn’t. God’s will, in this context, does not mean He’s using his power to do something and the condom beats Him. As I have explained it’s God’s desire that we do it (like not lying or killig). Nobody says “how is god’s will stopped by a muscle in the mouth or a trigger finger”?
I see. So “open to” means “would hate it with every fiber of my being.”
Gosh, when you define it that way, it’s impossible for someone not to be “open to” having children. Want children? You’re open to them! Don’t want children? You’re open to them!
Somehow, I think your theological skills are suspect.
Hmm. Not seeing it.
Wearing a seatbelt reduces the possible damage after a crash…
Wearing a condom reduces the possible damage after a disease infection…
Nope, the latter does not make sense. See the crash is the unwanted outcome of the behavior (driving drunk), and wearing a seatbelt does nothing to alter the likelihood of the crash.
Disease infection is the unwanted outcome of the behavior (having sex), and wearing a condom vastly alters the likelihood of that outcome.
So, nope. Not a bright analogy.