Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: The wrong way to look at things [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"natural law"? as in, the animal kingdom type of "natura" and sex as reproduction?




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
. 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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"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.
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [Tyrius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | 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...)
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
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.)
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"
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

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.


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

A: Parents.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: The wrong way to look at things [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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."
Quote Reply

Prev Next