Yea, and that seems to be covered in the part quoted by doreen that you excluded.
Look, I’m not a fan of natural family planning (which again, is used by non-Catholics), but it is an effective method of birth control (again, ask some Dopers who practice it). That the typical very poor Catholic doesn’t practice them, or know they exist, or how to use it, is a problem, and is due in part to lack of education. Hmm… what Catholic group is well known for championing education of the masses?
As to the comments regarding the new Pope, the article on BBC cites a couple of civil rights spokepersons in Argentina who admit that the he was NOT involved with the junta, there are no ties with him to the junta, and that while he may not have been vocal opponent, there are examples of others who kept asking the military “Don’t do this” or “Release X person”, and the military simply refused to pay attention to them. So even IF he had say anything, he may still have been ignored, as others were.
The guy is conservative, I do not like him that much (I’d rather have my favorite priest be Pope ), but to consider him the worst of the worst, it is an overstretch. If he focuses more on education and helping the poor (which means a lot of education), and gives some austerity back to the church, that may be more than what the previous Pope did.
I’m mixing my homilies here, but someone should point out that Jesus encouraged people to support Rome via paying their taxes. There was no suggestion of impeaching Caesar.
Rome is pretty much the yardstick against which other murderous dictatorships are measured, and I don’t recall Jesus speaking up directly against it- aside from the subtext of, “you could have had a more informative Messiah had this regime been less murderous.” OTOH, Jesus is kind of the ultimate example of the positive side effects of a murderous regime- there’s no crucifixion without it!
Not that Jesus’ execution at the hands of a dictatorship, as such, is required in doctrine, right? Really any suffering death could have worked, because the redemptive value of it wasn’t dependent on Roman agency.
I have lots of doubts that his tax position was to support Rome, IMHO the constant going to houses of the publicans was to subvert the tax collectors, and I can not see the deal in Acts of having the rich members to give all his possessions as not causing any problems to the job of the publicans. His classic retort to the pharisees regarding taxes seems to me as just an acknowledgment to the then current state of affairs, but in context his overall message was that Rome was going down when the kingdom came. Not much of a problem to say that they should pay to the rulers to keep your enemies off track on what was going on in the background.
And I think that there were more reasons why the **Romans **crucified him, they also finally did notice what Jesus was doing with the publicans.
In a world where there is one acre of arable land for each and every living human, we have left no margin for error. Practically speaking, no, natural family planning is not acceptable anymore.
Well, I read that but didn’t interpret it quite that way, but if this is so, then it goes back to what I was saying earlier when I doubted Christians & Catholics really ever do anything they don’t feel like doing even if it comes right from the Pope’s mouth. He can preach 'til he’s blue in the face but if it isn’t also easy and trendy, it’s not getting done.
If they don’t want any children then it is likely that they won’t be good parents, It is acting like a dictator if the church can make a couple think they have to have children when they are not wanted!
The sad thing is what the RCC calls natural is really not natural, Waiting 'till one takes their temperature , etc. is not natural. Nor is it a way for couples to enjoy their sexual pleasures when it is the best time for them. Humans have and need the use of their sexuality for more than just conceiving a child. It makes for a better Marriage if they can be spontaneous.
IIRC correctly, you know that according to Church teaching ( whether you or I or anyone else agrees) married couples must be open to having children. It would be at least as accurate (perhaps more accurate )to say that the Church teaches that those who don’t want children should remain celibate
I just wish the pope would stand up and say “ya know, we definitely fulfilled that “be fruitful and multiply” commandment and since we now have a surfeit of people it is now officially OK to prevent conception and have sex at the same time”.
I don’t want to read too much into his presentation of himself as the “humble servant” and all that. A lot of what he’s being noted for this last week is a pose, sincere or not, and easy enough to fake. We’ll see what he does over time.
Ah. You’re from the pick and choose to suit myself branch of Christianity. Got it.
The Jesus I grew up with and the Jesus who told the parable of The Good Samaritan was not one who turned a blind eye to suffering. And again to note - the RCC in Argentina has acknowledged their wrong-doing. They, unlike their colleagues in Chile and Brazil, did not practice what they preached. The RCC is Agentina, unlike The Good Samaritan and the RCC in the face of other brutal South American dictatorships, passed by on the other side.
I beleive Jesus would have big issues with this. Your Jesus doesn’t give a damn either way.
:eek: I stand corrected. Having said that, my wife’s best friend got married six months ago and converted to Catholicism. They tried NFP and failed miserably at it; they announced her pregnancy last month. She’s an obstetric nurse, so I have to assume she was doing it properly, too.
There is one very big and important difference between FAM and NFP, which is that with NFP (aka, the Catholic church’s recommended method), you are supposed to completely abstain from sex during the woman’s fertile periods. With FAM you can just use a barrier method instead.
Completely abstaining from sex during the exact time that a woman is most likely to be interested in sex seems like a terrible idea to me, for a lot of reasons.
Also, that study was based on people who use the method correctly. I think you’d agree that there’s a rather steeper learning curve, and much more potential for error, with symptothermal charting than there is for using a condom or a birth-control pill.
She’s an obstetric nurse, so I have to assume she was doing it properly, too.