Just a guess: there haven't actually been any advances by women in the Catholic Church?

(I know, I'm an atheist, so I should butt out, but I can't resist)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The New Testament of the Bible hasn't changed since it was "assembled" from the various writings of the time of Jesus.

What got in, what didn't? Why would some gospels be included and others ignored?

Clinton was quoted as saying that the Pope will have a "mixed legacy" when asked by reporters.

Mixed legacy? This coming from a man who cheated on his wife and lied to the world and was impeached?

As society changes and their religion no longer fits their lifestyle they suddenly decide that the religion must be wrong because they themselves must be right. It means that the doctrines and methodologies that religions subscribe and preach aren't up with the times so it's time to leave and find one that suits their tastes.

Pope John Paul II remained faithful to his cause and his message and never once wavered.

Willy's quote was pretty funny.

Something like the Pope increasing the number of Catholics worldwide by some 250 million, but did not really grow the number of priests. Like a lot of us he will probably have a mixed legacy.

Him trying to draw a connection between lying under oath about getting a bj from an intern in the oval office and the pope not being to grow the priesthood in proportion with the number of new Catholics is pretty amazing.

Apologies for ignoring all the good things he said and good things he helped make happen, but I want to focus on the last part of your comments:

"Pope John Paul II remained faithful to his cause and his message and never once wavered. "

There are some (in and out of the Catholic Church) who would argue that this isn't necessarily a good thing. That's obviously open to interpretaion, and clearly open to argument. But I just want to note that strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

I know, I'm an atheist, so I should butt out

Probably, but I'll play along with you anyway. What do you figure would be an "advancement" for women in the Church?

(Casey's answer was spot on, by the way.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I realize that his was the "correct" answer.

A question for you (no hidden agenda, really!): Is there more to not allowing women priests than the idea that the Apostles were all men?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

<reply 1> strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing. <reply 1/>

<reply 2> It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth. <reply 2/>

You are correct if the belief is the true TRUE religious truth. There has been more than one view over the years on some secondary views in Christianity alone (I'll view a belief in God and in Jesus to be primary, and other things secondary). When allowing for all the religions that have existed over time, we're talking about a pretty wide margin of error in religion.

The problem is that as fallible humans we are succeptable to not only believing in non-truths, but to even create and conceptualize non-truths, both scientifically and religiously.

I'm not saying the Pope was wrong to have strict adherence to the ideals of hope, and life and equality in humanity. But as an example, there are people in the Church who would say that there's no true reason why women can't be Priests (maybe not the best example, but I'm neither Christian nor Catholic).

There have been a lot of religious truthes throughout the history of man that haven't been very good in retrospect. I'm just saying we must allow for that.

Is there more to not allowing women priests than the idea that the Apostles were all men?

Before we get into the theology of it, let me ask you this: Does there need to be?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"strict adherence and unwavering to a goal isn't always a good thing.

It is if what you're adhering to is religious truth.
"

It isn't when that religious thruth didn't advance with the rest of humanity.
That's not just the problem of Catholic Church though.
Institutions in charge of running all major religions are stuck not only in the last century, but in the one before it.

What about religion has changed in the last century or the one before it that requires rethinking and possible change?

It isn't when that religious thruth didn't advance with the rest of humanity.

Perfect example of the flawed thinking that creates problems.

In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?

See, cause, in my view, truth is a constant, and the advancement of humanity should be measured by how closely humanity manages to adhere to truth.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nothing changed in the religion (well, most of them anyways). As Casey said, it's one of the attractions of some of the religions.

Lots has changed in the society though.
Will continue later, gotta run home.

The idea that the Jews have a collective responsibility for the death of Jesus?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm assuming that you mean "does there need to be more reason to the policy of not allowing women priests?". When a policy of an organization effectively shuts the door to a high level of involvement by more than half of its constituents, I'd say there has to be a pretty good reason for doing so.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

When a policy of an organization effectively shuts the door to a high level of involvement by more than half of its constituents, I'd say there has to be a pretty good reason for doing so.

And you wouldn't say that the example of Christ is a pretty good reason, I suppose.

Besides which, not being able to be a priest is not equivalent to shutting the door to high level involvement.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I said that I was asking a serious question, without hidden motives. You'll have to explain to this atheist what "the example of Christ" means. I haven't a clue.

As for your second statement, I don't think you're being honest. Tell me that the opportunities for women in the Church are equivalent to that of men. If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance. I don't buy it, and I don't think you do, either.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Uhhhh.... I thought you meant the english....

Mixing past tense with present tense in the sentance structure. Would read better without the word "Had"



Never mind...

Look at the Catholic Church and then look at how Jesus taught and lived as shown in the bible. Did Jesus wear the fancy robes. Did he preach in huge, exquisitely decorated cathedrals, did he worry about the specific forms of the service? I'd say the answer to all of those is no. The beginnings of the Catholic Church are vastly different from where they are now. As the Catholic Church grew and gained power it changed from its origins. Now to say that you must stick with the doctrine, strictures, rules, whatever you want to call them as they are set now because you can't change a truth does not follow logically as the Church had already changed to become what it is now.

I think I just talked myself in circles, but to get back to the crux of the argument you can't even say that the Church's view of the truth is constant as there have been some pretty major changes since Jesus's time.

The major truths should never change; belief in the Trinity, Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, etc., but to say that allowing women priests, priests to marry, etc would change the truth of the Church is not correct. Those "lesser" truths are typically interpretations and strictures that the Church has put on itself and were not set by Jesus.

That's what I meant to say!

I hate it when people are smarter than me, stop doing that.

You'll have to explain to this atheist what "the example of Christ" means. I haven't a clue.

Oh, come on- you're an atheist, but you're not slow.

What I mean is that Christ chose only men to be His Apostles, and that example shouldn't be flippantly dismissed. Presumably He had good reasons for doing so. (And please don't shoot back with a reply about the social conventions of His time- I really don't think that anyone who's at all familiar with the Gospel can claim that Christ was over-concerned with chauvinistic social mores.)

As for your second statement, I don't think you're being honest. Tell me that the opportunities for women in the Church are equivalent to that of men. If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance. I don't buy it, and I don't think you do, either.

I absolutely buy it. You don't buy it, I might guess, because you see the Catholic Church as a purely human institution, like some giant corporation in which women can't hold executive positions. But that's a misunderstanding of the Church, fundamentally.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The error is that we should be trying to reconcile our lives with the teachings of scripture, not the other way around.

to get back to the crux of the argument you can't even say that the Church's view of the truth is constant as there have been some pretty major changes since Jesus's time.

Such as?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Oh, please. So, why did the Second Vatican Council deem it necessary to explicitly state that the Jews did not bear this collective guilt?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance.

Interesting that you bring up Mother Teresa, too, and as an example of a woman excluded from power, no less.

You think, I guess, that because she wasn't a member of the Church heirarchy, she was denied the right to affect Church policy, or that she was denied the opportunity to have an impact on world affairs commensurate with her talents. I reject the conclusion. I think she had a tremendous impact, and she wasn't hampered in her ability to do so by the fact that she wasn't ordained, and couldn't say Mass.

Or if Mother Teresa didn't wield enough worldy power for you, how about St. Catherine of Sienna? Or St. Teresa of Avila? Or any religious sister we used to have teaching in our Catholic schools? Or every Catholic mother?

I won't even get into the importance and value of those women who serve the Church as cloistered nuns, Ken.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Cardinals, Popes, the Vatican itself

Huge expensive cathedrals and raiment for the priests in lieu of the homespun robes and simple churches. Why do I need to receive the Eucharist from a gold/crystal chalice when the money to buy said chalice would be better off serving the poor

Just because the Bible itself doesn't talk too much about women doesn't mean there aren't other writings from the same time period that DO talk about the women travelling with Jesus.

Change from Latin to the native language

The Inquisition

Treatment of nuns

Servers as participants in the Mass

Eucharistic Ministers

Holy Wars

Compare the Churches we worship in today to the way the Christ taught and tell me that you don't see some inconsistencies there.

That's just a few.

As a Christian, don't you think you should forgive Bill Clinton for his past human failings? and Jane Fonda for that matter? You seem to take distinct pleasure from constantly bringing Clinton into your messages. It is my understanding that forgiveness and acceptance are fundamental Christian values. WWJD?

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Just because the Bible itself doesn't talk too much about women doesn't mean there aren't other writings from the same time period that DO talk about the women travelling with Jesus.

Don't muddle the issue. The Bible itself talks about women being around Jesus, often putting the men to shame by their example. But He didn't choose any of them as His apostles. It doesn't mean they don't have value.

Compare the Churches we worship in today to the way the Christ taught and tell me that you don't see some inconsistencies there.

I don't see any inconsistencies there, because there aren't any. What there is a natural growth. You're complaining about it the same way someone might complain that an oak tree isn't the same as an acorn. Well, OK, but an oak isn't a perversion of an acorn, and it isn't a totally different entity than an acorn. It's the fulfillment of an acorn. (Not to mention the fact that none of the items you listed are points of doctrine, really.)

John Newman wrote a classic treatise called "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." I haven't read it myself (just finished reading his "Apologia," which any Lavender Room regular should love.) but I intend to, and I'd recommend the same to you.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm not going to get into this anymore. You know far more of the details of Cathlocism than I do, however, we'll both just disagre with our thoughts of where the Church is now versus when it was started.

I'll leave you with two of your own quotes from this thread

Quote 1 - "truth is a constant

"Perfect example of the flawed thinking that creates problems.

In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?

See, cause, in my view, truth is a constant, and the advancement of humanity should be measured by how closely humanity manages to adhere to truth. "

Quote 2 - "natural growth"

"I don't see any inconsistencies there, because there aren't any. What there is a natural growth. You're complaining about it the same way someone might complain that an oak tree isn't the same as an acorn. Well, OK, but an oak isn't a perversion of an acorn, and it isn't a totally different entity than an acorn. It's the fulfillment of an acorn."

I thought truth was a constant and did not change, but now it grows as an acorn into an oak tree?

"Religious truth"? That sounds like a fancy-dan way of saying "religious belief" to me.

since the exposure of the pedophilia scandals with priests(caveat: no, i don't equate all or even a statistically significant number of priests with pedophilia) and the related role of church leadership in covering these scandals by simply moving the priests to other dioceses where they could inflict additional harm on other kids, i've wondered how catholics can place the same amount of trust in church leadership. in shuffling around the pedophiles, it's my opinion, that catholic leadership showed a remarkable disregard for the well-being of their constituents/adherents. i am fully aware that the existence of these scandals does not in any way affect the substance of catholic doctrine. but i am curious how catholics can remain loyal to the church/vatican, donate money, etc. in light of these issues.

and also, why is birth control wrong? is it catholic doctrine that sex is only for procreation?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"why is birth control wrong? is it catholic doctrine that sex is only for procreation? "

That's about it. They can't fathom that it could also be pleasureable. Even though I had long left the church I still got married in a Catholic church the first time, mostly to keep my ex wife's Italian parents happy. We had to suffer through what the church calls "marriage lessons" with a priest before the guy would marry us. Sitting there listening to a celibate preist telling couples how to live their marriage. One of the most ridiculous experiences of my life.

"In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?"

I won't speak for Vitus, but I think the point is that although truth is constant, Mankind's understanding of the truth evolves and changes over time. Mankind does it's best to adhere to it's understanding of the truth, but if the best science we have says the Earth is flat, that's obviously not true to us now, but it was ground truth to men at the time.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"They can't fathom that it could also be pleasureable."

Well that's simply not true. Understanding that something could be pleasurable, and thinking it should be done just for that pleasure are two entirely different things.

"Sitting there listening to a celibate preist telling couples how to live their marriage. One of the most ridiculous experiences of my life"

No offense, but you shouldn't have done it. These types of "lessons" or counseling are common in many churches, and it is how they ensure they aren't blessing people with the holy sacrament of marriage who don't believe in what the church teaches about how a married couple should,..well, be married. If you just went through the motions, or didn't agree with what he told you and didn't adress those issues with him, then you were basically pulling a fast one on the Priest to get him to marry you.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Once again Cerveloguy, you're incorrect.

I'm beginning to wonder how long you were actually a Catholic because you really know nothing about the doctrines you profess to know as being an "ex-Catholic." Your hatred and spite for the Church is amazing.

The church's stance on birth control is consistent with their belief that life is precious and nothing should come between the beginning of a potential life.

I just finished a round of marriage classes with our church with my fiance' and found it a very helpful and spiritual experience in building the foundation of a strong marriage. Maybe you should've paid a bit more attention in class.

"Understanding that something could be pleasurable, and thinking it should be done just for that pleasure are two entirely different things. "

So sex can't be just for pleasure? Only for creation? Sounds like you've been away at sea on that ship way too long. :)

"No offense, but you shouldn't have done it. "

In retrospect, I'd hav to agree. But trust me it wasn't our choice, but it would have upset my ex's parents very much if we had married elsewhere. We were young then. If it was now we would have done different.

I'm sure it varies from priest to priest how these lessons are taught but the guy who married us was an older gentleman who was right out of the Old Testament in his thinking. In his lessons he was adament that church guidelines on birth control (or lack of it) be followed as well as all the other doctrine. There were "sins of the devil" everywhere according to him and we were to bring lots of children into the world. (we had two, which was plenty for us). He was a very old style authoritarian type priest and there was no room for discussion or debate. It was all "yes father" and "no father". If we pulled a fast one by not following the teachings exactly as he taught them, then we weren't the only ones. I'm sure virtually every other couple he married did also.

He wouldn't have been our first choice, but he was my inlaws parish priest so we were making them happy. Her parents were immigrants from the "old world" and quite set in their ways so we got married in their church for their sake even though it wouldn't have been our first choice. My ex as the old common classic story of the first generation born here that works hard, goes on to university and became a professional to find herself distanced from her parents culture and beliefs. In fact she's no longer a member of the Catholic church either but converted to a more liberal Protestant denomination.

I'm not an expert on the scriptures but it's my understanding that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that birth control is a no no or that priests have to be celibate. Celibacy for priests is something the RC church adapted a thousand years ago in the dark age period. It has become instilled as tradition but has no biblical basis.

Just do what the in-laws ask. The pain you avoid is worth anything.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Old joke.

I went to Catholic school for 12 years and my friends are always asking...

"If you went to Catholic school for 12 years why aren't you Catholic?"

I say "I went to Catholic school for 12 years."



Stop busting Cerveloguy's balls about this. In my exprience Catholics are the number one group to call themselves part of a religion and not go or even care about the church. Being catholic is kinda like being Jewish. Your born into it.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

It may be your experience but don't let your experience speak for the rest of the world.

His thoughts speak for my experiences. Raised in a nearly 100% catholic town where if you weren't catholic you were an "outsider". I no longer consider myself a catholic, but a christian. I don't see the big hang ups between the major christian religions and the "exclusivity" of catholicism really "turns me off".

Catholicism is a christian religion.

In addition, how is the Catholic faith "exclusive"?

I realize that Catholicism is a Christian religion. However, it seems to hold itself apart from all other Christian religions.

One instance of exclusivity being that members of other christian religions are actively discouraged from receiving the eucharist.

Yes, but "how" does it hold itself different from other religions?

In addition, do you know the significance the Eucharist holds in a Catholic service? The following is a good dialogue that explains the very question you ask.

Why Is Communion for Catholics Only?

By Kenneth J. Howell



This Rock
Volume 14, Number 2
February 2003

---

Frontispiece
By Karl Keating Letters Apologist’s Eye
Gazing on the Beauty of the Lord
By Fr. Thomas Dubay Come with Me and See Jesus
An interview with James Cardinal Stafford Salvation for Non-Christians Explained Sola Scriptura
By Joan Summers Yelling at Leslie
By Bonnie Landry Step by Step
Why Is Communion for Catholics Only?
By Kenneth J. Howell Fathers Know Best
Trinitarian Baptism Brass Tacks
Burial Box of St. James Found?
By Jimmy Akin Damascus Road
Our Prisons Can Be Instruments of Grace
By Jens Söring Review Classic Apologetics
The Disasters of "By Faith Alone"
By Fr. Leslie Rumble Quick Questions

---

Subscribe Permissions


OBJECTOR: Last weekend I went to a wedding of a Catholic friend. When it came time for Communion, the priest invited all non-Catholics to come forward with their arms crossed over their chest to receive a blessing. He implied that only Catholics could receive the bread and the wine. Why wasn’t I allowed to receive Communion? I am a Christian too, you know.

CATHOLIC: The priest probably invited you to receive a blessing because he didn’t want you to feel left out. You see, Catholics believe that a blessing can be given to anyone, Catholic or not, but they also believe that Holy Communion is only for those who profess the Catholic faith.

OBJECTOR: But I did feel left out. I still don’t understand why I was not allowed to take Communion. In fact, I asked a Catholic friend of mine after the wedding, and he said the priest was wrong and that he should have let me take Communion.

CATHOLIC: Unfortunately, not all Catholics understand the reasons for the practices of their Church. Your Catholic friend failed to understand that the Eucharist is only for those who believe it to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ in accord with the teachings of the Church.

OBJECTOR: Well, I believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. After all, didn’t Jesus say, "This is my body"? So why can only Catholics receive Communion? Does the Church think that I am not a Christian?

CATHOLIC: Oh, no. The Church makes no judgments about whether any person is a true Christian, not even about its own members. It knows that it cannot see into people’s hearts, so it has to have some outward way of distinguishing those who should take Communion from those who shouldn’t. The only way to do that is by whether a particular person is a member.

OBJECTOR: But in my church anybody who is a Christian can take communion whether he or she is a member or not. Our minister says that all Christians are welcome to come to the table of the Lord.

CATHOLIC: Given your belief in the nature of church, that makes perfect sense. You believe the church is invisible—that the church is only the members of the mystical body of Christ and that God did not specify what structure or form the church should have. Am I right in my understanding of your beliefs?

OBJECTOR: Yes, that’s basically what I believe.

CATHOLIC: And, if I am not mistaken, don’t you also believe that it doesn’t matter a lot whether different Christians hold different beliefs? Is it true, for example, that one person in your church may believe in the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ while another may not, and this difference doesn’t make much of a difference?

OBJECTOR: Yes. Even though I believe in the Eucharist the same as you Catholics, the man next to me in my church may not, and we don’t think that should keep him from receiving communion.

CATHOLIC: Well, you see, the Catholic Church teaches that it does make a difference—a huge difference—whether a person believes in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ.

OBJECTOR: Why should it matter? Aren’t we just splitting theological hairs?

CATHOLIC: The Church teaches it because Scripture teaches it. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul asks a couple of rhetorical questions: "Isn’t the cup which we bless a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn’t it a communion in the body of Christ?" Paul’s rhetorical questions assume that taking Communion is a union or a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Now, if Paul as an apostle believed this, and it is written in Scripture, shouldn’t we believe this as Christians?

OBJECTOR: Well, I do believe it, but I shouldn’t judge my brother about his beliefs. Didn’t Jesus say, "Judge not that you be not judged?" (Matt 7:1).

CATHOLIC: You’re right—and the Church does not judge others’ personal beliefs. That is precisely why the Church asks non-Catholics not to receive Holy Communion. If it allowed non-Catholics, the Church would have to investigate each person’s beliefs. It clearly cannot do that, so it assumes that all Catholics believe in the Eucharist in the way the Church teaches.

OBJECTOR: But why can’t the Church just say, "Come all Christians!" and make no further judgments?

CATHOLIC: Because the Church has a responsibility to teach what Scripture teaches. Think of it this way: If the Church allowed everyone to take Communion, it would be giving up its responsibility to teach what Christ and his apostles taught. If Scripture says that receiving communion is a fellowship or a sharing in the body and blood of Christ, and the Church allowed a person to receive it who didn’t believe in it this way, then the person is engaging in a act of lying, even if he is not aware of it as lying. By his actions he is saying that he believes what the Catholic Church says is true, but in his mind he doesn’t believe it. The Church does not want to put anyone in the position of having to lie with their actions, so it insists that a person receiving Communion must believe in the Eucharist in the way that the Catholic Church teaches.

OBJECTOR: Maybe such a person wouldn’t be lying because he doesn’t believe in it as the body and blood of Christ.

CATHOLIC: That is entirely possible, but remember the prior issue. Either the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ or it isn’t. What any individual believes doesn’t alter the truth of the matter. If a person receives the Eucharist, he is receiving the body and blood of Christ, regardless of what he believes. So if he receives the body and blood while not believing it to be the body and blood, he is placed in the position of someone whose actions belie his beliefs. The Church wants to spare a person that contradiction between beliefs and actions.

OBJECTOR: Okay, I suppose I see what you mean about a person who doesn’t believe in the Eucharist. But I do believe in it. Why couldn’t I take Communion?

CATHOLIC: Let’s not be too quick to say that we believe the same thing on this matter. The Church holds that to receive the Eucharist we must believe all that the Catholic Church officially teaches as coming from Christ. To take two examples, it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Do you believe these things?

OBJECTOR: Well, no—but I don’t see what that has to do with receiving Communion.

CATHOLIC: The Catholic Church follows ancient Christian practice on this matter. Ancient Christians believed that we cannot partake of the Eucharist unless we believe the Christian faith. You see this idea in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1:66), which is quoted in our current Catechism in section 1355: "Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist, we call this food Eucharist, and no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught." In other words, to receive the Eucharist you must believe that these teachings are from Christ.

OBJECTOR: You’re falling back on that old Catholic standby: tradition. Maybe Justin Martyr was just plain wrong. Anyway, I don’t see this idea in the Bible.

CATHOLIC: I think you see Jesus our Lord saying this truth in Matthew 28:20 when he said "teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you." Jesus is saying that all he taught is to be passed on. And you see Paul boasting to the leaders of the church in Ephesus that he had not "shrunk back from declaring to them the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

So, you see, the Church has the responsibility of teaching all of the truth that Christ taught. Whether you agree or disagree with all the Church’s teachings is beside the point just now. I only want you to see that partaking in the Eucharist requires one to believe all the Church’s teachings. You said earlier that we believe the same things about the Eucharist. I am only pointing out that we don’t, because for us Catholics receiving the Eucharist means embracing all of Christ’s teachings handed down through the Church.

"I'm beginning to wonder how long you were actually a Catholic "

Brian, I've never claimed to have ever been a devout Catholic, although I know a number of ex members who once were. It was something I was born into to and didn't have the option of chosing for myself. My parents were both Catholic but not particularly devout so when I told them at a young age that I wanted to attend church in another denomination it was no really big deal. My grandparents on both sides were very devout Catholics, but that is how they raised. They're all long gone now, but in later life they all seemed to become much less devout. I now don't consider myself a Catholic at all, but it was a part of my upbringing.

I'm not trying to critisize or challenge your faith, but am expressing my views of the Catholic church based upon my experience. The Catholic church in many ways is a church in crisis. It is certainly a church divided, especially in western culture. Normally I never discuss religion at all in my real life. For some reason I get drawn into discussion on this forum.

One thing stuck out in that long post.

"it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Do you believe these things? "

The Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived? I thought that was just Jesus. I don't remember the Church ever saying that Mary was also immaculately conceived. Also, where in Christ's teaching does it say that a pope even exists and that he will be the Vicar of Christ?

Oh, and many other Christian religions believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ as it says in this quote

"Eucharist is only for those who believe it to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ"

So now you have certain religions that have the same beliefs as the Catholic religion that are barred from receiving communion because of what?

I thought truth was a constant and did not change, but now it grows as an acorn into an oak tree?

Please tell me you're just playing a semantic game (poorly), and that you don't really think that's what I said.

The truth is a constant. It doesn't change. As such, it's possible to come closer to it, or move farther from it- it isn't something that advances inexorably with time, evolving into something higher over the years.

The Church is an organic institution- therefore it grows. It develops. Just as individual people do.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i've wondered how catholics can place the same amount of trust in church leadership. I think it's fair to say that in a lot of areas, Catholics don't have a lot of trust in Church leadership. I certainly don't place a whole lot of trust in most of the Church heirarchy in a lot of areas these days.

i am fully aware that the existence of these scandals does not in any way affect the substance of catholic doctrine. That's a rather key point.

and also, why is birth control wrong? is it catholic doctrine that sex is only for procreation? Catholic doctrine is that sex is primarily for procreation. Seriously, are they just not mentioning the idea of natural law in school these days?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"natural law"? as in, the animal kingdom type of "natura" and sex as reproduction?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

. I don't remember the Church ever saying that Mary was also immaculately conceived.

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, in fact.

Also, where in Christ's teaching does it say that a pope even exists and that he will be the Vicar of Christ?

Do ya really want the Biblical passages? ;)

So now you have certain religions that have the same beliefs as the Catholic religion that are barred from receiving communion because of what?

Because they don't share the same beliefs as the Catholic religion, obviously. If they did, they'd be Catholics.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

natural law"? as in, the animal kingdom type of "natura"

No. Good grief, I guess they're really not teaching this stuff anymore. Scary.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

ok, after brief research, it appears that "natural law" is a philosophical approach that says certain moral tenets/beliefs are objectively good, right, true(take your pick) regardless of context--i.e. they aren't good based on some arbitrary decision of an elected body. to use the most basic example, do good, avoid evil. we don't need someone telling us that. it's a 'natural' inclination based humans as rational beings. of course, it begs the question of who provides the 'natural' context that gives gradations of good/evil.

is that sort of the basics?

now, what does natural law have to do with sex as procreation and not using birth control?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"I don't remember the Church ever saying that Mary was also immaculately conceived.

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, in fact."

Well it looks like my wording was poor in my reply to the quote. Mary was immaculately conceived and gave birth to Jesus. That one I get. It's the Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother's womb that I don't get. According to that, Mary was born by immaculate conception, and then turned around and conceived Jesus immaculately. That's the part I didn't get and hadn't heard in any of my religion classes.

"Do ya really want the Biblical passages? ;) "

Enlighten me oh learned one. Actually, if there are biblical passages I would be interested in seeing them.



I'll leave the "semantics" post alone as I said I would in my earlier reply.

The immaculate conception doesn't refer to concieving a child without sex, like many people believe. The immaculate conception refers to Mary being born without original sin.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

is that sort of the basics?

Um . . . No, I don't think so. That is to say, while I think I recognize some points of similarity in that definition to the idea of natural law, I don't think the definition is accurate, as a whole.

The idea is that all actions have a proper end, and that the proper ends of man's actions are discoverable by man's rational nature. Here's how the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man's nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason.

what does natural law have to do with sex as procreation and not using birth control?

The natural end of sex is procreation- that's what sex is designed to accomplish. Divorcing the act of sex from procreation represents the same sort of perversion as the Roman food orgies, in which the proper end of eating was divorced from the act itself.

(I think I might have posted this before, but Chesterton had a witty line about birth control- something about how it's a concept that involves neither birth, nor control.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

are there medical exceptions to the no birth control rule?

does all catholic doctrine preach that marriage is only about family? is there nothing just for the couple themselves?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

What does the Church say about sex in a heterosexual marriage in which one or more of the spouses is infertile?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

are there medical exceptions to the no birth control rule?

I'm really not sure.

does all catholic doctrine preach that marriage is only about family? is there nothing just for the couple themselves?

To be honest, that's a silly question. It's like asking me if I think the purpose of eating is nourishment, can't we ever just enjoy good food?

Catholic teaching is that marriage is primarily about family. (A proposition I don't think can be reasonably argued against, really.) That doesn't at all mean there's "nothing" for the couple themself. Of course there is. Marriage is a grand and glorious thing for the couple. If you're going to argue that Church teaching somehow lessens the importance of marriage, or makes for unhappy couples, I'd suggest that you're not fairly considering the full Catholic case for marriage. Further, I'd suggest that what's probably the opposing view- that marriage exists only for the happiness of the couple- paradoxically leads to less happiness in marriage quite often.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What does the Church say about sex in a heterosexual marriage in which one or more of the spouses is infertile?

Haven't I answered this same question from you before, Ken? The Church says that's fine, since moral precepts aren't based on the exception, but rather the rule.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

ok then, there are things just for the couple. now supposing they weren't ready to start a family but as a married couple wanted to be physical. do they essentially "risk it" even though they don't feel adequately prepared for a fam? is it always caveat emptor when married couples have sex--i.e. if you do it, be prepared for an ankle biter or don't do it at all?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

ok then, there are things just for the couple.

Somehow, I think that's already an abuse of what I said.

now supposing they weren't ready to start a family but as a married couple wanted to be physical. do they essentially "risk it" even though they don't feel adequately prepared for a fam? is it always caveat emptor when married couples have sex--i.e. if you do it, be prepared for an ankle biter or don't do it at all?

Wow, that's a telling way to ask the question.

Anyway, the answer is basically yes- if you're not prepared to have children, the proper course of action is to refrain from sex.

Church teaching does, I guess I should point out, allow for natural family planning, which requires abstaining from sex during periods of fertility. In theory, this should really only be used in relatively extreme cases- when, for example, poverty is so severe that it would actually present a real impediment to the decent care of a child. In practice, I think, it's outrageously abused, and all too often employed simply because the couple doesn't "want" kids at a certain point in their marriage. Kids would interrupt all their plans so inconveniently. This represents, really, a violation of what marriage is really about.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

make no mistake, i like kids. they're enjoyable. will probably have some at some point. not right now though. i just know that i wouldn't be adequately prepared to be a parent at this point in my life. i fully recognize that a kid comes around and the parents have to make HUGE changes to lifestyle. i would prefer to be ready to make those changes rather than have the changes be forced upon me.

seems to me that people would be making a responsible decision not to have kids if they didn't feel prepared and that using birth control would be part and parcel to that decision. i can at least understand(although not agree with) a doctrine that says no birth control for unmarried folks because it certainly makes pre-marital sex more attractive, if not encouraging it. doesn't make as much sense to a married couple though.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Q: What do you call people who use the rhythm method of birth control?

A: Parents.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Q: What do you call people who use the rhythm method of birth control?

A: Parents.

Maybe. I'm not really concerned about the effectiveness of the method, anymore than I'm concerned with the effectiveness of condoms, or tubal ligation, or any other method of birth control, in so far as it doesn't really relate to the ethics of the question.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Q: What do you call people who use the rhythm method of birth control?

A: Parents.



Guess that's why they've always refered to the rhythm method as Catholic Roulette.

seems to me that people would be making a responsible decision not to have kids if they didn't feel prepared and that using birth control would be part and parcel to that decision.

It seems to me that people who don't think they're responsible enough to have kids have no business thinking they're responsible enough to be married, either. It also seems to me that people who make a show of nobly abstaining from having kids "for the kids' sake" usually aren't.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."