‘The Church is not against birth control at all’: Cardinal Walter Kasper

[Prodigal_Son]

What are we? 3 pages in and nothing wrong is shown with the article yet?

Thank you for showing YOU AND OTHER CRITICS CAN SHOW NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ARTICLE! Your analysis is BAD.

I have not criticized the article.

The website is sensationalist garbage. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

 

[Path_Finder]

I have not criticized the article.

The website is sensationalist garbage. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

EXAMPLE, PLEASE, EXAMPLE PLEASE. You nor the others can post one example.

“Oh, it’s sensational garbage” may sound knowledgeable but again, the critics of the website, those critics, post # 9, VeritasLuxMea, post # 10, DaddyGirl, post #14, TarpeianRock and post # 16 if we want to call that post a criticism, by Ringil, all of these posters and you STILL REFUSE TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE nor show how they are worse than a news agency CNN that reports major facts wrong, reports on one topic like the missing airliner and would be called sensational as well for doing such.

 

[Path_Finder]

lifesitenews.

Ringil

 

[Path_Finder]

I have not criticized the article.

The website is sensationalist garbage. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Thank you for being honest. You have not criticized the article. You are to be commended as well for answering versus the others.

You nor the others post one example.

“Oh, it’s sensational garbage” may sound knowledgeable but again that is not providing evidence or examples. Let it be known, the critics of the website as shown in this thread, post # 9, VeritasLuxMea, post # 10, DaddyGirl, post #14, TarpeianRock and post # 16, Ringil, if merely mentioning the obvious, the source of the news all do not show a specific example.

I wonder if one could look at the opinions reflected by the posts of those named and wonder if indeed, generally speaking, it really may well not be “sensationalism” that one would say is why people have come down on lifesitenews.

Again, CNN and other news outlets can be accused of sensationalism and error, yet, they often are not subjected to the same degree of criticism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thank you for being honest. You have not criticized the article. You are to be commended as well for answering versus the others.

You nor the others post one example.

“Oh, it’s sensational garbage” may sound knowledgeable but again that is not providing evidence or examples. Let it be known, the critics of the website as shown in this thread, post # 9, VeritasLuxMea, post # 10, DaddyGirl, post #14, TarpeianRock and post # 16, Ringil, if merely mentioning the obvious, the source of the news all do not show a specific example.

I wonder if one could look at the opinions reflected by the posts of those named and wonder if indeed, generally speaking, it really may well not be “sensationalism” that one would say is why people have come down on lifesitenews.

Again, CNN and other news outlets can be accused of sensationalism and error, yet, they often are not subjected to the same degree of criticism.

This is a bit absurd. Do you think I go to CNN for news? I wouldn’t watch TV for news if my life depended on it. Sure, I agree CNN is just as sensationalistic. I think most media organizations are trash.

But lifesitenews is trash. I am not interested in spending 20 minutes researching mistakes they’ve made. But I have read many articles where they tarnish people’s reputation by misleading reporting.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

As noted by others, birth control and contraception are NOT the same thing. There is licit and illicit birth control, the former being permitted, the later not. The general public doesn’t understand the difference.

I also found other comments interesting:

Asked about the situation of marriage in a largely post-Christian world in which most people are at best “baptised pagans,” Kasper said, “I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid.”

“Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith. And if the couple only want a bourgeois ceremony in a church because it’s more beautiful, more romantic, than a civil ceremony, you have to ask whether there was faith, and whether they really accepted all the conditions of a valid sacramental marriage—that is, unity, exclusivity, and also indissolubility.”

This is something I’ve never understood. One is determined to be Catholic solely through Catholic baptism, yet these people may have never otherwise been in a Church, nor understand Catholicism in any way, shape, or form. Yet an unbaptized person that is faithful to and completely understands Catholicism is treated as if they aren’t. The former is considered a believer, the later isn’t, but in reality it is just the opposite. I personally believe there is a major problem with this interpretation. This interpretation happens to cause major issues in particular with marriage and divorce.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As noted by others, birth control and contraception are NOT the same thing. There is licit and illicit birth control, the former being permitted, the later not. The general public doesn’t understand the difference.

I also found other comments interesting:

This is something I’ve never understood. One is determined to be Catholic solely through Catholic baptism, yet these people may have never otherwise been in a Church, nor understand Catholicism in any way, shape, or form. Yet an unbaptized person that is faithful to and completely understands Catholicism is treated as if they aren’t. The former is considered a believer, the later isn’t, but in reality it is just the opposite. I personally believe there is a major problem with this interpretation. This interpretation happens to cause major issues in particular with marriage and divorce.

But obviously you’re heterodox for saying such things, and you “just want to change the Church”.

 

[Path_Finder]

This is a bit absurd. Do you think I go to CNN for news? I wouldn’t watch TV for news if my life depended on it. Sure, I agree CNN is just as sensationalistic. I think most media organizations are trash.

But lifesitenews is trash. I am not interested in spending 20 minutes researching mistakes they’ve made. But I have read many articles where they tarnish people’s reputation by misleading reporting.

Your opinion is noted, we are now on page 4 and all you can do is express very desultory comments about a website whose views I would propose via the other post:

the critics of the website as shown in this thread, post # 9, VeritasLuxMea, post # 10, DaddyGirl, post #14, TarpeianRock and post # 16, Ringil, if merely mentioning the obvious, the source of the news all do not show a specific example.

Reflects me to believe there is more of a disagreement with the views because now we are in page 4 of this thread and not one person can cite an example from lifesitenews.

Now, we are now in page 4, I ask you to prove your point rather than just slinging mud. If that is your only point here, after 4 pages of this and it being shown the above can not prove their point, there is no reason to really continue on this subject.

The only thing You have proven is that you can use harsh descriptive accusatory language and then, not back it up.

Now, whatever that was written about CNN and not watching TV is nothing less than a diversion and a distraction from the topic. If you do not wish to debate this in a civil manner, then just say so please.

That’s rather funny, calling a website “trash”, then when asked to back it up, “oh, we can’t do so”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your opinion is noted, we are now on page 4 and all you can do is express very desultory comments about a website whose views I would propose via the other post:

Reflects me to believe there is more of a disagreement with the views because now we are in page 4 of this thread and not one person can cite an example from lifesitenews.

Now, we are now in page 4, I ask you to prove your point rather than just slinging mud. If that is your only point here, after 4 pages of this and it being shown the above can not prove their point, there is no reason to really continue on this subject.

The only thing You have proven is that you can use abusive descriptive accusatory language and then, not back it up.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that there was a forum rule that one must document the sources for all opinions.

Glad to know that I’m not alone in being abusive and accusatory, though! :yup:

For the record, I cannot think of a political issue that I disagree with lifesitenews on. My objection is to their journalism, not to their agenda.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that there was a forum rule that one must document the sources for all opinions.

Glad to know that I’m not alone in being abusive and accusatory, though! :yup:

For the record, I cannot think of a political issue that I disagree with lifesitenews on. My objection is to their journalism, not to their agenda.

I don’t see an example there!

Let’s push this to page 5!

Okay, so we concede critics can not back up there point. Other news agencies likewise make mistakes.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But obviously you’re heterodox for saying such things, and you “just want to change the Church”.

I don’t believe that Christ considered someone as a believer solely by their baptism (and in particular someone that did not consent); correct me if I’m wrong. That is a very, very important point when discussing nonbelieving Catholics receiving sacraments…IMHO, or course.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t believe that Christ considered someone as a believer solely by their baptism (and in particular someone that did not consent); correct me if I’m wrong. That is a very, very important point when discussing nonbelieving Catholics receiving sacraments…IMHO, or course.

I’m not sure if you caught the tone of sarcasm in my above comment.

 

[RPRPsych]

Some of these threads are so predictable that they merit their own bingo game.

When are fpt and RedCaves going to show up?

 

[chefmomster2]

Some of these threads are so predictable that they merit their own bingo game.

When are fpt and RedCaves going to show up?

For some reason I’m afraid I shouldn’t ask this, but I’ll throw caution to the wind and take the chance!

What are “fpt” and “RedCaves”?

 

[Joe_5859]

For some reason I’m afraid I shouldn’t ask this, but I’ll throw caution to the wind and take the chance!

What are “fpt” and “RedCaves”?

They are other CAF members. I think RPRPsych was implying they regularly participate in conversations such as this one.

 

[RPRPsych]

For some reason I’m afraid I shouldn’t ask this, but I’ll throw caution to the wind and take the chance!

What are “fpt” and “RedCaves”?

fpt is our resident (ahem) expert on the Theology of the Body. His posts are…well…interesting.

RedCaves is an old buddy of mine who would have gone ballistic on reading what the Cardinal said.

And since making such a statement necessitates stating my own opinion: meh. He could have worded it a lot better, but getting worked up over this in a world of Boko Haram, abortion, the gay agenda, and the potential rise of religious fundamentalism in my own country is really a storm in a teacup.

Now I feel like a nice cup of tea.