With the RCC in its entirety, based on posting history.
The natural way is like in any animal, a female is more receptive when she ovulates. To many I have talked to worry about conceiving, and it puts a strain on their relation ships and themselves. Perhaps it is more so in my generation, so many complained about the reason the husband wanted sex and they didn’t want to get pregnant. Through guilt and fear of Hell fire they lived a good part of their fertile years. Now I know of many who have a vasectomy or the women have their tubes tied.
Or not, in theory it’s supposed to be like that but I know many women whose horniest days are at other times. And even if that’s your most receptive time, that doesn’t mean it’s the only time you’re receptive.
The thing that I find interesting is that they talk a lot about the poor, but expect a couple to have children they can’t afford, want, or take care of, as a result they make more poor. One need just look to countries where the percentage is high for RC’s and see the poverty there.
They should look to Bali, where one man there thought the couples that if they had less children, they would need less land to grow food. He showed them how to use a condom. According to the TV show I watched, it helped a lot of couples. It would also cut down on the woman’s need for an abortion, Of course It is my belief that if Birth Control is a sin , it is a larger sin to have children one does not want, or cannot afford to feed.
The Pope spoke to journalists today and told them about his name choice:
So that answers the Xavier/Assisi question, at least.
No they don’t, there is a concept called Paternidad responsable in Spanish (I’m having problems finding the correct name in English), which says specifically that you shouldn’t have children you can’t afford, either in purely financial terms, emotional ones, etc.
I swear, the immense majority of the times someone complains about RCC’s position on anything they don’t even know what the position is.
ETA: that was in reply to monavis.
Of course there are many women who are horny, and some more than others, but the woman who is afraid of conceiving, or doesn’t want to get pregnant, with less of a sex drive it is a problem to her, at least the women I have met and we discussed the issue. Many now days do not follow the Church’s teachings, they use Birth Control, have their tubes tied and some get abortions. I read that over 80% of RC’s use what the church calls artificial birth control.
Why the church is against what they call artificial Birth Control, think nothing of using artificial means to keep a person on life support even though they have no chance of survival or the cost and pain it causes the rest of their loved ones.
In my opinion a person has the right to use their own minds so long as it doesn’t harm others. It seems to me the Church wants to do the thinking and run other peoples lives. Perhaps it wants to keep it’s numbers up. and I also wonder how many of the people they call Catholic have left the church. I heard long ago that if one is baptized a Catholic they are always considered a RC even if they don’t think of themselves as one.
I have many relatives who are RC even a priest and nun, I understand the Church’s position well. It is true they talk responsibility in their terms but not in reality. One priest said to me," Children is all the poor have!" Of course there are a lot of poor, too many have children they can’t afford, neglect etc. There are many who would limit their families if the could, but can’t afford to have a vasectomy, or their tubes tied. one isn’t available, or fear going to Hell if they don’t follow the Church’s teachings. They are taught that the Church is the word of God,
I know personally that many of their children do not follow the church’s teachings and a lot of it is because what they witnessed in their own homes!
So, wait, anything less than getting themselves martyred is unacceptable for the members of the Church? But do you know what the interesting thing is about martyrs? They’re all dead. Unless you’re arguing that the Church should have chosen a corpse as Pope, you can’t really criticize the guy they did choose for not being a martyr.
Besides which, I note that you also are conspicuously alive. Why didn’t you, personally, go get yourself killed opposing the Argentinian junta? OK, maybe you’re too young for that one, but there are brutal dictatorships all over the world, even today: Why aren’t you off fighting against one of them?
You’re talking about responsible parenthood which means using natural family planning methods to space births and regulate family size but it doesn’t ever recommend against having children you can’t afford.
With both. The RCC in Chile and Brazil managed to oppose their regimes. The RCC is a world wide criminal organisation and the the RCC in Argentina including the current Pope passed by on the other side.
While I do not agree much on the idea that all should be blamed, I do agree that the bigger sin is to keep quiet even after a regime has fallen, what I have noticed about the exculpatory testimony (remember, the exculpatory items reported recently are actually testimony coming from people like the new Pope, not direct evidence) is that it was mostly produced under the pressure of the trials that just recently have been made to find the truth about what happened to the ones killed or disappeared.
IMHO the note coming from the Vatican denouncing the accusations of what the current pope did in Argentina during the dark days sounded more like a “how dare you made us tell to posterity that we actually did good?”. Gee, how bad it is to make the ones that supported those regimes to reflect on how wrong they were and to be alerted on what to do if the situation arises again.
The point here is that even in El Salvador, were I do have direct interaction, the current Church only touches on this subject by declaring the priests that died opposing the military regimes martyrs. Unfortunately everything else done by the ones that did not oppose the regimes during the dark days of the repression is denied, ignored or hidden.
The thing is that it should be instilled among all of the clergy, is that the church will not be complicit and forgiving to future or present military or pseudo military regimes, even though overall the church will have to remain quiet at times and work towards peace it has to be reported to all that not even spiritual support to the oppressors will come if repression and murder become the rules of the land again.
Worldwide except for Chile and Brazil? Or are they just the good kind of criminal there?
Yes I can. I expect someone who considers himself worthy of being Pope to have the guts of his convictions. like many lesser priests did.
As for your second point. Wow. Awesome debating tactic. It’s like you’re the reincarnation of Cicero. Really.
It actually does - although in the typical bureaucratese.
The “certain” period of time would be people who decide not to have another child until the baby is 2 or until the father graduates in 3 years, etc . The “indefinite amount of time” would be people who decide not to have more children until they can afford it or until one parent’s health improves, etc. The encyclical is attempting to draw a distinction between those who decide not to have additional children until some condition changes (although that condition may in fact never change) , and those who simply do not want any more children regardless of their ability to care for them.
I thought it was the other way around.
Po-TAY-to . . .
For those who may be interested (both of you), an SDSAB column on Jesuits and education. I went to a Jesuit high school rather than college, but the description applied there as well. Except for the beer. 
In other words, you consider the only good Catholic to be a dead Catholic. Wow, that’s pretty… nasty.
No, seriously, if you feel so strongly that open, vocal, and even violent dissent is the only moral response to dictatorship why aren’t you on the front lines, too?
It is simply not realistic to think that the roman catholic church should be apolitical. An organization of its breadth and influence is by its very nature political, the spirituality part is merely a tool for facilitating their influence. I mean, priests, IIUC, take a vow of poverty, but they sure do a pathetic job of making their poverty evident.
The ends of the church are fundamentally the same as the ends of a given government, to secure and effect influence over commoners. In that respect, they must step carefully around the detritus of an oppressive regime lest they come to be recognized as a serious competitor to the regime. If the church is not explicitly targeted by the government, it will attempt to calculate the optimal course for survival and maintenance of its own influence.
Hence, the archbishop might explain that the basic survival of the church would be more important than provoking a confrontation, because if a potentially hostile government were to raze the church, who then would be left to vend morality in a way that only the church is fit to handle properly?
From what I understand, the Catholic faith relies on the church itself in ways that most other christian sects do not: a good Catholic must receive the holy sacrament from a priest in the correct setting, after confession and penance, or they might not gain salvation. Strong Catholic indoctrination, such as is pervasive in Latin America, bolsters the perceived importance of the church in the minds of the masses, so they will understand that Jorge’s behavior was an effort to preserve the church in a potentially unstable situation.
In the end, what most of us consider due morality is of no consequence, Catholics will get that the church had to be kept safe and healthy, so how the archbishop behaved will be accepted/forgiven.
If one is an unwanted child it will not receive the love and care that can be given if wanted. The couple should be able to decide for them selves if they want children or how many. Children from a happy marriage have less health problems and better emotional health then those who don’t. If the couple want more or less ( or no Children) it should be their choice not form any other source. A couple who love their children will look to their children’s future happiness and should have the right to decide for themselves.