A debate with fellow Catholic who dissent with some Church teachings (i.e. contraception)

[cho_pilo]

I am debating with a fellow Catholic who is advocating contraception. He dissent with some Chuch teachings, and yet he remain a Catholic.
Please examine his argument. Let me know if you found flaws, and the best rebuttal.

He said,

Remember, 97% of US Catholics do not follow the Church’s teaching on contraception and yet they stay with the faith. And it’s about the same percentage among the Catholics in progressive countries like Poland, Italy, Spain, etc… Would you rather that we all leave the Catholic faith? Let me tell you why we don’t, from my point of view. We are patient and confident that eventually, for the sake of malnourished, hungry, thirsty, suffering children around the world, the Church will change its stand and ruling on artificial means of birth control. Why do we think so?

Let me cite a few precedents and hopefully, some people’s curiosity will be satisfied. We (the majority of Catholics) are “wrong” now, but who knows? Remember, the word “nice” used to mean “bad”, and “being bad” now is really “nice”. Frequency of usage and users’ preference made the change possible.

For half a millenium before Pope John Paul II, all the popes were Italian, for he had to be, otherwise it would not be a “Roman” Catholic Church. Is Pope Benedict XVI Italian?

Before 1948, the Church had an official “List of Forbidden Books”, including early books about artificial contraception. That list has been delisted. Thank you very much.

In the 15th century, there was a primer or manual for hunting witches, “Malleus Maleficarum”. Hundreds if not thousands of women, men and children were burned at the stake, tortured, imprisoned, ostracized, etc… before they found out there weren’t any 'WITCHES" after all. Thank you for the change of thought.

There used to be a book “On Heresies” by which Galileo’s celestial findings were judged as heretical. Well, that book, is what we call now “HERESY” because as we now know, our world actually turns and revolves at the same time. But who knows, in some religious books, the earth is still flat as a CD, so there’s a good chance we go back to that perception.

Somewhere in the old Paco Cemetery are four unmarked graves of four Church-dissenting Filipinos of not too long ago. Their remains did not merit a proper burial. Nobody cared about their graves for a long time, no pro or con about their advocacy cared for a long time. Just in case we forget, their names are Father Gomez, Father Burgos, Father Zamora, and Dr. Rizal, who would have been another Jesuit Father had it not been for GOMBURZA. They were all dissenters.

So, you see, we can dissent against a current religious teaching and live with our choice because, like Martin Luther King, Jr, like GOMBURZA. like Rizal, WE HAVE A DREAM.

Your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am debating with a fellow Catholic who is advocating contraception. He dissent with some Chuch teachings, and yet he remain a Catholic.
Please examine his argument. Let me know if you found flaws, and the best rebuttal.

He said,

Your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated.

The Church can and does change Devotions and Disciplines.

She cannot change Doctrines, and Artificial Birth Control is something that cannot be changed.

End of story.

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks, Randy.

I was going to comment but you pretty much summed it up.

 

[beth40n2]

Catholics need to study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. They will see that the marriage act is for procreation and to give love, not for any self pleasure.

 

[mark_a]

Your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated.

Let me tell you why we don’t, from my point of view. We are patient and confident that eventually, for the sake of malnourished, hungry, thirsty, suffering children around the world, the Church will change its stand and ruling on artificial means of birth control.

The malnourished, hungry, thirsty, suffering children are victims of distribution (political) problems, not productivity problems. Even Jimmy Swaggert acknowledges the earth could support 100 billion. And he’s not even anti-contraception.

For half a millenium before Pope John Paul II, all the popes were Italian, for he had to be, otherwise it would not be a “Roman” Catholic Church. Is Pope Benedict XVI Italian?

I’m just not sure what this has to do with milking ducks.

In the 15th century, there was a primer or manual for hunting witches, “Malleus Maleficarum”. Hundreds if not thousands of women, men and children were burned at the stake, tortured, imprisoned, ostracized, etc… before they found out there weren’t any 'WITCHES" after all. Thank you for the change of thought.

That’s odd, because I hear plenty about witches today, there was even a local news story about witches on the tube a couple of months ago.

Now for the bad news: I agree that these folks shouldn’t leave the Church because if they do, how will they ever know they were wrong? The Protestants will just use Mary as a whipping boy to divert attention from their own shameful contraceptive mentality.

 

[Apollos]

• US Catholics do not follow the Church’s teaching? Imagine that. Priests who sexually abuse 17yo boys are also not following Church teaching. Should the Church change its teaching on pedophilia?
• Poland, Italy, Spain, etc. are progressive? They kill fetuses there. How is that progressive?
• World hunger will change Church teaching on contraception. I thought starvation was caused by lack of food, not surplus of people. How do Hong Kong, Dubai, and Manhattan Island manage to avoid it?
• Popes must be Italian if the Church is to be Roman. False. If you’re that ignorant why bother with the rest of this conversation?

I’m not going to bother. But … Index of Forbidden Books delisted. And? Textbook of witch hunting, bazillions of innocent children burned to death. Well, that solves the world hunger problem, doesn’t it? Galileo was wrong, but you won’t trouble yourself to actually read anything that isn’t on a computer screen, sooo… Gomburza. Well, Wikipedia tells a different story.

Now let me tell you why the pro-contraception camp is going to stay in the Church:

• They hate God and everything he creates, especially human life.
• They hate the Church and want to destroy it from the inside.
• They hate dark-skinned children and want to eliminate them so that they can preserve the political and economic power of the white Western world.
• There was a book Mein Kampf, can’t remember the author’s name, but it said we should get rid of burdens on society. Thank you.
• And in Russia they used to put people in prison camps in Siberia.

So there.

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, Apollos, I respectfully bu strongly disagree with this statet by you:

"Now let me tell you why the pro-contraception camp is going to stay in the Church:

"They hate God and everything he creates, especially human life.
"They hate the Church and want to destroy it from the inside.
"They hate dark-skinned children and want to eliminate them so that they can preserve the political and economic power of the white Western world.
"There was a book Mein Kampf, can’t remember the author’s name, but it said we should get rid of burdens on society. Thank you.
“And in Russia they used to put people in prison camps in Siberia.
So there.”

–and you say the “pro-contraception camp” is hateful? Hate practically leaps off the lines you wrote.

The problem with this IMHO is that it complely flies in the face of reality. Why? Precisely because so many Catholics favor contraception. Do you really, REALLY think those who use contraception ALL “hate God and everything he creates?” “Hate the Church?” “Hate the dark skinned children,?” ad infiniteum?

Or perhaps instead those who use contraception go to church…and love God…and sincerely try to keep his commandments…but just don’t want 12 children?

While we’re at it, Apollos, how many children do YOU have?

Try a little understanding, friend, and less sweeping condemnations.

–VdT

 

[Ron_Conte]

Pontifical Council for the Family: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.” (Vademecum for Confessors, n. 4)

Pope Pius XI: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)

Pope Pius XII: “Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.” (Address to Midwives)

Pope Paul VI: “Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14)

Compendium of the Catechism: “What are immoral means of birth control? Every action – for example, direct sterilization or contraception – is **intrinsically immoral **which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.” (Compendium, n. 498)

Cardinal Stafford: “the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage cannot be separated. Consequently, to deprive a conjugal act deliberately of its fertility is intrinsically wrong.” (Francis Cardinal Stafford, Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, speech to American Academy of Fertilitycare Professionals, 11 June 2008)

Pope John Paul II: “This is the reason for the intrinsic unlawfulness of contraception: it introduces a substantial limitation into this reciprocal giving, breaking that ‘inseparable connection’ between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive and the procreative, which, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, are written by God himself into the nature of the human being (n. 12).” (Speeches, 27 Feb. 1998)

Pope John Paul II: “With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

 

[edwest2]

I suggest you pass this article along to this other person:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[camerong]

Challenge him to find a single instance of an infallible doctrine–of which there are plenty–that the Church has changed–of which there are none.

To me, its really a silly dispute. A news program on “Will the Church accept homosexual marriage” is as pointless as one saying “Will gravity cease.” Come up with all the arguments that such a change would be good that you like (“floating around would be fun, less people dying in sky diving accidents…”) but that doesn’t mean such a change will ever occur. Every single Catholic, priest, bishop, and the pope could want desperately to change the doctrine on contraception, and the Holy Spirit would not let it occur. I tell my CCD class that the Pope trying to change an infallible doctrine would be something like in Liar Liar when Jim Carey’s character, under a spell of truthfulness, tries in vain to say a blue pen is red. “This pen is rr… rrr… rrrr… rrrrrROYAL BLUE!”

 

[yosephdaviyd]

I am debating with a fellow Catholic who is advocating contraception. He dissent with some Chuch teachings, and yet he remain a Catholic.
Please examine his argument. Let me know if you found flaws, and the best rebuttal.

He said,

Your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated.

Hey Cho Pilo

You might find some useful Catholic and Natural Law arguments in this article I wrote on the ‘Four Reasons why Artificial Birth Control is Immoral and Unnecessary’:
davidlgray.info/a4reasonsbc.html

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

Fellow Catholic:

Remember, 97% of US Catholics do not follow the Church’s teaching on contraception and yet they stay with the faith.

No, those who use artificial means of contraception do not “Stay with the faith.” Those who use artificial contraception have left the faith. The theological virtue of faith is a concious decision to believe that which has been revealed to us by God through his Holy Church. You do not have faith. You demand understanding but you do not have faith. Faith - a concious decision to believe that which God has revealed to man through his one true Church - comes before understanding.
Fellow Catholic:

Would you rather that we all leave the Catholic faith?

You already have.
Fellow Catholic:

We are patient and confident that eventually, for the sake of malnourished, hungry, thirsty, suffering children around the world, the Church will change its stand and ruling on artificial means of birth control.

God has willed that this is not possible. Jesus Christ - and therefor God himself - has established a Church so that mankind may know his will. That Church is the Holy Catholic Church and it is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. For that Church to change it’s teaching would mean that God’s broke his promise, or doesn’t exist, or…
Fellow Catholic:

Remember, the word “nice” used to mean “bad”, and “being bad” now is really “nice”.

Unintelligable gibberish, as is the rest of his argument.

I hear that the RiverRidge Fellowship Church over on highway 64 has a great coffee bar.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Or perhaps instead those who use contraception go to church…and love God…and sincerely try to keep his commandments…

Try a little understanding, friend, and less sweeping condemnations.

–VdT

VdT, please try to understand me for a moment friend.

The Church has very good biblical, moral and theological reasons for teaching that artificial means of contraception are sinful. I would point you to Dueteronomy 25:5-10 where the penalty for not raising an heir to your brother’s widow was public humiliation. I would then point you to Genesis 38:10 where Onan did exactly that but instead of public humiliation, God demanded his life for “Wasting his seed.”

This is very clear biblical evidence in favor of the sinful nature of artificial means of contraception. I would also suggest that there are good moral and theological reason which many have simply not taken the time to explore and learn.

I am willing to go as far as suggesting, with regard to the morality of contraception in line with Catholic teaching, that those who use artificial means of contraception are directly contributing to the culture of recreational sex which has brought about the demand for abortion, the rise in teen pregnancy, fatherless children, addiction to porn, etc. Widespread use of artificial contraception has created a society where unlimited sexual gratification without consequences is seen as a right and this has directly resulted in the demand for abortion.

I’m trying to be gentle here but at the end of the day there really is no gentle way to say it - those who use artificial means of contraception, or council its use, bear some of the blame for abortion.

I would like to offer you the artilce “Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul” by Judy Brown for your review and hope that you not just dismilss my words out of hand.

-Tim-

 

[mark_a]

I am debating with a fellow Catholic who is advocating contraception. He dissent with some Chuch teachings, and yet he remain a Catholic.
Please examine his argument. Let me know if you found flaws, and the best rebuttal.

He said,

Your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated.

And just in case these links haven’t been posted yet, here are two excellent articles that make the case for the CC teachings.I have yet to see anyone refute these articles from within historical Protestantism.

How the Protestants ran off the tracks: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

The Jewish roots of the Catholic teachings about contraception: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

 

[VonDerTann]

TimothyH:

Some thoughts:

1. My earlier post went to Apollos, who point blank said that all those who use contraceptives “hate God,” “hate the Church,” “hate dark skinned children” and are Nazis (given the reference to Mein Kampf. My point was…No, lots of people are not Nazis, do n hate God, or do they hate the Church…they’re often just people doing the best they can to get through this insane and often hard life, and just…don’t want 12 kids. Saying they are Nazis who hate God and the Church is IMHO offensive, obnoxious, uncharitable, and displays complete lack of understanding of the realities that many families face.
2. Now. as to the remainder of what you write, there is some truth to the reality that artificial contraception can lead to a variety of moral breakdowns, “sex with no consequences,” etc. It can. However, the issue to me is more complex than that, because the Church itself recognizes that there are often valid reasons for “spacing children,” etc. – which suggests that some limits can be placed on childbearing.
3. If some limits can be placed on childbearing, we’re on a slippery slope as to when its permissible. There is a huge difference between 2 unmarried 16 year olds fooling around due to the availability of ABC, and, for example, 2 42-year old married folks, with 4 kids, a home in foreclosure, Dad out of work. and they just don’t want more kids. Must they be forbidden to use ABC because it contributes to some vague immorality by others? Some will argue there is no difference between the 16 year olds and the married couple; usually that argument is not put forth by anyone who’s actually been there.
4. IMHO, it is really, really hard to come up with a compelling reason why, in #3 above, Mom & Dad can’t lawfully use ABC absent having to say, “because the Church says so.” If we resort to, “because the Church says so,” then the person making that argument needs to explain why a “rule” created by “unmarried men supported by the Sunday collection” should be allowed to make that rule.
5. We can’t really rely on the OT as a source of morality, unless we’re going to also allow whatever else the OT allows, like slavery…or sleeping with your slave since your wife is too old to have more children…etc.
6. Finally, when you write, “Those who use artificial contraception have left the faith” I must say I find that statement chilling, as well as theologically unsupportable. No offense, TimothyH, but when we allow you or anyone else to decide who has left the faith, or who is Catholic and who is not, the end result inevitably is a “Church” which excludes essentially everyone (since we’re all sinners). Have I “left the faith” because, for example, I criticise Rome? Or a parish? Or a particular priest? When he is a convicted pedophile? I suspect someone somewhere will think I’ve “left the faith” merely for what I’m writing here – and that’s why we don’t get to decide who’s left and who hasn’t, much less make sweeping statements like yours! I’m sorry, NO ONE is in any position to say, across the board, “those who use ABC have left the faith,” EVER, and such a position cannot IMHO be supported.

-VdT

 

[georgemiller]

I think your friend would be much wiser to put his trust in the Church, the same Church the Bible teaches in 1 Tim 3:15 to be the pillar and foundation of truth. The doctrinal teachings of the Church are very much like Jesus, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Those teachings like Jesus will never change. God bless.

 

[camerong]

TimothyH:

1. Now. as to the remainder of what you write, there is some truth to the reality that artificial contraception can lead to a variety of moral breakdowns, “sex with no consequences,” etc. It can. However, the issue to me is more complex than that, because the Church itself recognizes that there are often valid reasons for “spacing children,” etc. – which suggests that some limits can be placed on childbearing.
2. If some limits can be placed on childbearing, we’re on a slippery slope as to when its permissible. There is a huge difference between 2 unmarried 16 year olds fooling around due to the availability of ABC, and, for example, 2 42-year old married folks, with 4 kids, a home in foreclosure, Dad out of work. and they just don’t want more kids. Must they be forbidden to use ABC because it contributes to some vague immorality by others? Some will argue there is no difference between the 16 year olds and the married couple; usually that argument is not put forth by anyone who’s actually been there.
3. IMHO, it is really, really hard to come up with a compelling reason why, in #3 above, Mom & Dad can’t lawfully use ABC absent having to say, “because the Church says so.” If we resort to, “because the Church says so,” then the person making that argument needs to explain why a “rule” created by “unmarried men supported by the Sunday collection” should be allowed to make that rule.

Recognize that the Church has never established a doctrine regarding ABC use outside of marriage. Such a rule would be as pointless as stating that oral sex between unmarried couples than vaginal sex because it is further from God’s true intentions for marriage–both are infinitely removed from holy acts. So there’s really no point in arguing about ABC outside of marriage. And thus your slippery slope disappears.

 

[TimothyH]

for example, 2 42-year old married folks, with 4 kids, a home in foreclosure, Dad out of work. and they just don’t want more kids.

Abstinence inside of marriage is possible. People don’t want to hear it becuase they were raised in a culture where widespread availablity and use of contraception has created a “Right” to recreational sex on demand. Self control is no longer demanded, nor is it even taught that it is possible. There are methods of natural family planning which are effective.

Even within marriage, sex on demand without consequences is not a right.

Must they be forbidden to use ABC because it contributes to some vague immorality by others? Some will argue there is no difference between the 16 year olds and the married couple; usually that argument is not put forth by anyone who’s actually been there.

Artificial contraception is not “Vague immorality”. Contraception is a sin. The Church established by Jesus Christ - and therefor by God himself - with absolute singular authority to interpet Sacred Scrpture and Sacred Tradition and to teach on matters of faith and morals based on that interpretation has said so. In so far as the Church which operates under the authority of Jesus Christ has said officially taught (Magesterium) anything on any matter of faith and morals, it has spoken the last word.

You can term it a “Vague morality” or a “Slippery slope” but artificial contraception is a mortal sin which causes loss of sanctifying grace and therefor carries the punishment of eternal damnation in Hell, unless one confesses and repents.

IMHO, it is really, really hard to come up with a compelling reason why, in #3 above, Mom & Dad can’t lawfully use ABC absent having to say, “because the Church says so.” If we resort to, “because the Church says so,” then the person making that argument needs to explain why a “rule” created by “unmarried men supported by the Sunday collection” should be allowed to make that rule.

The rule is not made by “Unmarried men supported by the Sunday collection.” The rule is made by God and is taught to the faithful through God’s visible kingdom on earth which was established by Jesus Christ so that mankind might know his will. That visible kingdom is the Holy Catholic Church.

The fact is that there is clear biblical basis for teaching the sinfulness of artificial contraception but nobody wants to hear it. It is contained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Genesis 38:8-10. There are also clear moral and theological basis’ for teaching that artificial contraception is morally wrong.

IWe can’t really rely on the OT as a source of morality, unless we’re going to also allow whatever else the OT allows, like slavery…or sleeping with your slave since your wife is too old to have more children…etc.

Laughable. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Throw out the teaching of Abraham, Noah, Moses and Elisha for that matter as well.

Have I “left the faith” because, for example, I criticise Rome?

What you call “Criticizing Rome” is public disobence and advocating others to disobey a magesterial teaching of the Church established by Jesus Christ. The conduct of a priest has nothing to do with it.

The fact is that the Church has valid reasons - Biblical, theological, and moral reasons - for teaching that contraception is a sin. But people with iPhones connected to the internet don’t have enough time to read up on it, I guess.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Recognize that the Church has never established a doctrine regarding ABC use outside of marriage.

Contraception is a sin inside and outside of marriage.

Humanae Vitae stated that the teaching on contraception is “Based on the principals of human and Christian marriage” but does not restrict it to marriage.

See vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html, paragraph 14.

-Tim-

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, TimothyH, we are going to have to disagree on some items.

In a way, that’s too bad, because a basic point – that ABC may lead to “sex without consequences,” and other ills – is a given in some respects.

However, let’s circle the wagons back to the OP, who came here with questions regarding those who may not agree with 100% of the Catholic Church’s teachings. Apollos called those people “haters of God” and equated those people with Nazis. We appear to have lost Apollos on this thread.

However, in no less rigid terms, what you appear to be espousing can be distilled to “Rome says it, and if you don’t agree you have left the faith so get out.”

The problem is that “Rome” (in this case, the Church) never generally says what you’d like it to say…

…and when it does – i.e., ABC within marriage – it has a hard time saying WHY, beyond, “because we’re the Church and we say so.”

Some cases in point:

1. As to the 42 year olds who don’t want 12 kids, you write, “Abstinence inside of marriage is possible.”

–Lots of things are possible but “possible” does not mean “desirable.” As to your example, the Church does not say, and has NEVER said, “if you don’t want kids, abstain within marriage.” To the contrary, it states that there may be valid reasons for limiting or spacing births…in which case, people will inquire, “then why not allow ABC within marriage?”

2 You state, “…artificial contraception is a mortal sin which causes loss of sanctifying grace and therefor carries the punishment of eternal damnation in Hell, unless one confesses and repents.”

–Theologically this is false, false, false. The Catholic Church has never said that any particular act – i.e., using ABC; abortion, etc. – is a mortal sin, across the board. Mortal sin requires grave matter and full consent of the will…but full consent requires a subjective element of knowing what you are doing is wrong. Since the latter element is (generally & probably) lacking for the Catholics who use ABC within marriage, there is no mortal sin. The Catholic Church NEVER says what mortal sin is…only GOD does that.

1. You write, “The rule [no ABC within marriage] is not made by “Unmarried men supported by the Sunday collection.” The rule is made by God and is taught to the faithful through God’s visible kingdom on earth which was established by Jesus Christ so that mankind might know his will. That visible kingdom is the Holy Catholic Church.”

–which boils down to “Because the Church says so.”

1. I stated that “We can’t really rely on the OT as a source of morality, unless we’re going to also allow whatever else the OT allows, like slavery…or sleeping with your slave since your wife is too old to have more children…etc.” You said that was “Laughable. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Throw out the teaching of Abraham, Noah, Moses and Elisha for that matter as well.”

–Saying something is “laughable” does not constitute a refutation, does it? I mean, why CAN’T we sleep with our slaves, if we can rely on OT law? In fact, Tim, as Catholics we DO “throw out” the law of Moses and the OT, to the extent Jesus came and so radically changed the “old law.” We’re not jews and are not required to adhere to Mosaic law.

1. As to my question, “Have I “left the faith” because, for example, I criticise Rome?”, you responded, “What you call “Criticizing Rome” is public disobence and advocating others to disobey a magesterial teaching of the Church established by Jesus Christ. The conduct of a priest has nothing to do with it.”

–What if “Rome” (or its agents, i.e., bishops) ignores the problem of pedophile priests (which it may have)? Now the conduct of a priest is quite relevant, no?

–Tim, you don’t want a living, vibrant Church. Instead, you want a cult: One which a) says what exactly is a mortal sin, on pain of eternal hell, across the board, with no allowance for individual consciences; b) allows no dissent or any form of “public disobedience”; and c) if you show public disobedience, you’ve “left the faith.” That sounds a lot like a cult to me.

I also notice the non-response to my earlier comment (#6 above) about how if the Church really did allow others to kick out those who do not agree with 100% of its views, the Church would soon be empty.

Thankfully, the one Catholic Church is open to all – just as it should be.

Why? Because we’re all sinners, that’s why.

As an aside, your comments about the “church with the coffee bar,” and “people with iPhones connected to the internet” who “don’t have enough time to read up,” really convince no one of anything.

–VdT