Can a couple who don't want to have children get married under the grace of God?

[Sum_Fidelis]

A person who is not open to children cannot validly marry.

OK.This is one of “those” questions. Personally,I understand that there are people who don’t want children,that for a number of reasons. (When my kids where small I had a few thought about that to!) But marriage is a complicated thing. You are married to your spouse,and as a catholic to the church,and thees two don’t always mix. I reckon I will be the most hated catholic on this site after the following “statement”. What you want is “permission” to have sex without the possibility to get children,I do understand,I guess. However,the church,and here comes the part that will lead to my punishment at this site,I don’t understand what the church has to do with it. But it has,and there is nothing we can do,maybe hope for “better” times. I confess to all of you here that I am a devoted catholic,born in Ireland,and I need God more then He needs me,but I have all my life have this strange feeling that the church and the Bible is not walking hand in hand thru this valley of sorrow. In my personal view the church teaches very different from what Jesus did. Jesus is kind and loving,ready to help us more then judge us,and that gives me hope,faith and life. As lawyer I do know that there must be rules,laws and order,but to what price?. If we love God as I do,that is not enough for the church,we can say we love God only by following the church,and that is wrong! I want to follow Jesus and show that thru my deeds and life,but that is not enough for Rome. No,I must obey the church even when it is against what we can call human. People who can’t “preform” in bed can’t be married,which means that all over 60 either must live in sin or forget the whole thing. Where is love and understanding in a case like that? Oh,but I did forgot that it is very likely right in Gods eyes but the church want to say the final word,which is no in most cases. Love? Nope. But I am catholic,and can’t think for my self. Even in court when I defend someone I must remember that I have no permission to make own conclusions,not even when they serve justice in a fair way. I understand you,both. You don’t want children and the reason may well be good and valid,and it is possible that God understands them,but no,no children,no marriage,and I don’t think that Jesus wanted that,by the way,where in the Bible does it read that a marriage is to get a family? Two is a family,and two people who love each other and very likely have a good explanation to why they don’t want kids is,if Jesus is what I think He is (loving and understanding) I do think He may see it in a different light. But,I am catholic,so I do as the church says,even when I think it is not right. Question: we can’t serve two masters,so who do we choose? God or the church? I rather serve God,that is for sure. God bless you.

 

[heart4home]

To the OP, I think it is a good thing that you are trying to work through and understand the Church’s teachings. It’s very few of us that don’t struggle with some teaching at some point in time.

One request I’d like to make and please don’t answer with “Oh that definitely will never happen or there is just NO way that could happen” because you have no way of being sure of that.

What if your prospective spouse has a change of heart? What if you marry, both agreeing to never have children and suddenly he decides he just has to try and have one? Or maybe even yourself. Maybe you’ll hit 40 and your biological clock will suddenly go off and you’ll be desperate for a baby. It’s happened to many, many couples.

When you enter into a marriage with such a barrier on your relationship, it can lead to many more problems down the road that despite thinking you are sure it could never happen, could, because God can change any and all of us in ways that we never saw possible.

To me that is a very real EXTRA reason(besides the obvious going against our Natural design and the Church’s teachings of procreative and unitive) why you should not enter into a marriage without being open to children.

 

[heart4home]

Sorry…I meant “A man”…not “this man”…I was kinda fired up when I was typing.

If everything in the Bible was “correct” then why has it been rewritten, edited, added too and subtracted from over the year. The Bible is a book of FAITH!!! If it was a true history book then it would be taught in Public Schools instead of having been banned

Yes, which is exactly why we have the CHURCH to lead us and teach us, because the book can be confusing and even seem conflicting at times.

 

[GraceDK]

Sum Fidelis;
OK.This is one of “those” questions. Personally,I understand that there are people who don’t want children,that for a number of reasons.

GraceDK: Thats all fine… Some people are incapable from birth, others are called to celibacy for some reason. But if you wanna have a conjugal life… sexual life with a spouse, then you have to say yes to the intrinsic nature of the conjugal embrace as a function of both unity and procreation. You can’t divide sex from procreation and maintain its dignity… Culture attempts this move and the result is perversion which comes from reduction of sexuality, based first on a reduction of human nature to that of mere biology.

What you want is “permission” to have sex without the possibility to get children,I do understand,I guess. However,the church,and here comes the part that will lead to my punishment at this site,I don’t understand what the church has to do with it.

"Go back to the beginning", as Jesus says: The conjugal act has to be a human act and a full giving of self. Its an act which co-creates… as is written; the image of God is spread through conjugal love.
I come from a church which wishes not to speak of what goes on with married sexuality and this omission leads to a whole lot of perversion and objectification in married life as well as among unmarried couples.
God has from the beginning had full interest and laws governing human sexuality, precisely primarily for the sake of children.
The well being of society rests on how man and woman relate to each other… so of course its an important question for the Church.

But it has,and there is nothing we can do,maybe hope for “better” times. I confess to all of you here that I am a devoted catholic,born in Ireland,and I need God more then He needs me,but I have all my life have this strange feeling that the church and the Bible is not walking hand in hand thru this valley of sorrow. No,I must obey the church even when it is against what we can call human.

Please give an example brother. And how does your wife feel? Does she share your oppinion? As a woman I am so grateful to have become Catholic because I feel that the sanctity of my human and female sexuality is only understood and respected by the Church.

People who can’t “preform” in bed can’t be married,which means that all over 60 either must live in sin or forget the whole thing. Where is love and understanding in a case like that?

???

You don’t want children and the reason may well be good and valid,and it is possible that God understands them,but no,no children,no marriage,and I don’t think that Jesus wanted that,by the way,where in the Bible does it read that a marriage is to get a family?

Jesus said: Who ever looks at a woman with lust (reduction to a sexual object) has already comitted adultery with her in his heart.
God commanded the first couple to “be fruitful and multiply”. The fall then happens and after that they fail to see each other in the fullness of their personal and sexual indentity. This is also what I think you experience. You wanna be able to live out concupiscence, because it seems normal to us now. Indeed contraception seems natural to fallen nature… . but Jesus directs us to the beginning. The contraceptive mentality has lead to so much suffering and vice all over the world… more than anything this utilitarian materialistic view of sex has led to detroyed youth and destroyed marriages. 100 years ago people understood the connection between sex and procreation much better because they were not tempted by artificial products that attempt to change the very nature of the reproductive act .
Remember what CS. Lewis writes: they thought they concured nature by contracepting… but actually that’s where nature conquered man… man became slave to his passions when he thought he had won. Because he refuses to master his passions, the passions master him. Christ teaches us there is no other way to heaven than the path of virtue… self mastery and death to the flesh… its a hard way… but the only way to authentic happiness.

Two is a family,and two people who love each other and very likely have a good explanation to why they don’t want kids is,if Jesus is what I think He is (loving and understanding) : we can’t serve two masters,so who do we choose? God or the church? I rather serve God,that is for sure. God bless you.]

Jesus is not only loving and understanding. He is also the Son of the Creator who made the world as a gift for Him. The natural world has intrinsic nature and laws. We cannot change the nature of humanity or sexuality because its pleasurable in our youth to do so.

 

[catharina]

1. In my personal view the church teaches very different from what Jesus did. Jesus is kind and loving,ready to help us more then judge us,and that gives me hope,faith and life. As lawyer I do know that there must be rules,laws and order,but to what price?. If we love God as I do,that is not enough for the church,we can say we love God only by following the church,and that is wrong!
2. You don’t want children and the reason may well be good and valid,and it is possible that God understands them,but no,no children,no marriage,and I don’t think that Jesus wanted that,by the way,where in the Bible does it read that a marriage is to get a family?
3. Two is a family,and two people who love each other and very likely have a good explanation to why they don’t want kids is,if Jesus is what I think He is (loving and understanding) I do think He may see it in a different light. But,I am catholic,so I do as the church says,even when I think it is not right. Question: we can’t serve two masters,so who do we choose? God or the church? I rather serve God,that is for sure. God bless you.

1. Impossible premise.
   We are within the church JESUS founded.
   He protects it, He leads it.
   So YES, we must follow the teachings of the Church.
2. Jesus is well-known for HIs love of children.
   Do you remember that? His very words?
   “Suffer the little children to come unto Me,
   and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
3. We serve GOD or we serve man (even self).
   The Creator said: “Go forth and multiply!”
   Furthermore His only begotten Son instituted the Church!
   You are trying to create a separation/U] betwen the will of GOD
   and the existence of the Church, the Church we are to obey.
   It seems to me your attempt has failed.

Sounds like you might be ready for a spiritual retreat - 
you know, an actual upgrade of your fading faith.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

I am catholic,and as such I obey the church,there is no “if” or buts" about that. The thing that bother me is that it is like we would not have a mind of our own anymore. I do understand that. I know there must be a church,it is like a head-office,someone who keep it clean and tidy,I guess all religious “groups”,that is a bad example I know,have one. But what bothers me is that almost,to be fair,everyone is quoting what people in connection with the church have said. When I was a young lad I learned that the Bible comes first,that from a catholic priest. And that was how my life-long “love story” with the Bible started. I do know that many many wise people have made a huge job keeping all together ,but that has happen with a price tag on it. I find my self often thinking “who do I believe in? The church or God?” What happen to all those beautiful Bible-quotes I love so much,and when did we stop thinking and when did we stop doing what is right? And why? God loves us,and I bet He don’t think we are stupid,He gave us a brain,and a more or less free will with the main point in “doing what is right and how we want to get treated”. As a catholic I am worry over all this. God want us to have a good life,not one with only “no-no’s”. The God I love and serve did create the catholic church,that we have Christs words as evidence,(Matt.16:17-19) That church I love,serve and obey,and I am sure that we sadly believe more in the church now. Read the Catechism. What can we do? Well,not to much,in fact,very little,not even marry one you love only because he or she can’t have sex,or those who for,as I hope,valid reasons don’t want children. I am sure that most couples wants kids,and it hurts me to see those who try and try but can’t. Some who don’t want kids might have a good (and valid) reason,there might be some illness in the family they don’t want to pass on to their children,I can think of many medical conditions and I reckon so can the readers to. That is a act of love. And what is the punishment? “Sorry,can’t marry you,no kids,no blessing”. Or two old persons that lost contact for many years and then find that again,at the age of 80. “Sorry,can’t marry you,I think you can’t have sex,live in sin and go to hell or forget the whole thing.” Or the man (or woman) who gave his or hers health fighting a war somewhere in the world believing that it was right and are now in a wheel chair and the girl/boy he/she loves and wish to marry,“sorry,can’t marry you,no sex,no children,no marriage,try to feel better and stop loving.” If this is what we believe in I am rather a good Christian then catholic. But I can’t,I am catholic,first,second Christian,and that is wrong. As I said,I obey the church as I as a lawyer do my best to uphold the law and make sure that people are treated as they should be,what I wonder about is that how right we are. What and who do we believe in? God? Or the church? I am sure that here will be a lot of angry people at me,but as I speak in court for people,I do here,and now. If a couple love each other enough to promise to love in sickness as in health but for a reason don’t want kids,what wrong can it be in letting them become husband and wife? Seek your heart and soul,pray if you need,and read the word that Jesus said,and then give me a verdict. God bless you all,and may He give you a heart that is full of understanding,love and above all,the ability to see what is right.

 

[catharina]

I am catholic,and as such I obey the church,there is no “if” or buts" about that. The thing that bother me is that it is like we would not have a mind of our own anymore. I do understand that. I know there must be a church,it is like a head-office,someone who keep it clean and tidy,I guess all religious “groups”,that is a bad example I know,have one. But what bothers me is that almost,to be fair,everyone is quoting what people in connection with the church have said. When I was a young lad I learned that the Bible comes first,that from a catholic priest. And that was how my life-long “love story” with the Bible started. I do know that many many wise people have made a huge job keeping all together ,but that has happen with a price tag on it. I find my self often thinking “who do I believe in? The church or God?” What happen to all those beautiful Bible-quotes I love so much,and when did we stop thinking and when did we stop doing what is right? And why? God loves us,and I bet He don’t think we are stupid,He gave us a brain,and a more or less free will with the main point in “doing what is right and how we want to get treated”. **There is no such thing as “the Church or God.” You’ve created a false theory and it serves no one but those inclined to selfishness. ** As a catholic I am worry over all this. God want us to have a good life,not one with only “no-no’s”. The God I love and serve did create the catholic church,that we have Christs words as evidence,(Matt.16:17-19) That church I love,serve and obey,and I am sure that we sadly believe more in the church now. Read the Catechism. What can we do? Well,not to much,in fact,very little,not even marry one you love only because he or she can’t have sex,or those who for,as I hope,valid reasons don’t want children. I am sure that most couples wants kids,and it hurts me to see those who try and try but can’t. Some who don’t want kids might have a good (and valid) reason,there might be some illness in the family they don’t want to pass on to their children,I can think of many medical conditions and I reckon so can the readers to. That is a act of love. And what is the punishment? “Sorry,can’t marry you,no kids,no blessing”. Or two old persons that lost contact for many years and then find that again,at the age of 80. “Sorry,can’t marry you,I think you can’t have sex,live in sin and go to hell or forget the whole thing.” Or the man (or woman) who gave his or hers health fighting a war somewhere in the world believing that it was right and are now in a wheel chair and the girl/boy he/she loves and wish to marry,“sorry,can’t marry you,no sex,no children,no marriage,try to feel better and stop loving.” **Again these are issues spun from fantasy, not even close to what the Church teaches. ** If this is what we believe in I am rather a good Christian then catholic. But I can’t,I am catholic,first,second Christian,and that is wrong. As I said,I obey the church as I as a lawyer do my best to uphold the law and make sure that people are treated as they should be,what I wonder about is that how right we are. What and who do we believe in? God? Or the church? Again, a false opposition!

I am sure that here will be a lot of angry people at me,but as I speak in court for people,I do here,and now. No anger but I surely do pity you. If a couple love each other enough to promise to love in sickness as in health but for a reason don’t want kids,what wrong can it be in letting them become husband and wife? **So you have a need to change Church teachings to suit YOU. Nope! **Seek your heart and soul,pray if you need,and read the word that Jesus said,and then give me a verdict. God bless you all,and may He give you a heart that is full of understanding,love and above all,the ability to see what is right.

In the future, PLEASE post in pargaraphs.
It’s tough for older eyes to read one big run-on sentence. Thanks.

 

[samiam1611]

[Suncatcher] Additionally, the Catechism says this:
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

It says nothing about being “open to life” or “making babies” or anything. It just says “not granted children”. Could it be that you can *choose *not to have children? The statement quoted does not imply that one must be open to life. I’m just seeing way too many contradictions.

I’m glad to see this thread hasn’t died. I want to comment on this post.
That particular quote does not say open to life, but it is in the Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (USCCB Catechism, p. 409). Just wanted to point that out. Well as you say, the statement quoted does not imply it. The “God said be fruitful and multiply” thing is an oft quoted line in Catholicism that I take some issue with, just in regards to the fact that it doesn’t have an adverb or any type of superlative suggesting it is not an option - and therefore, I feel the neccessitation the Catholic Church places on procreation is wrong. If the quote was “God insisted that we all MUST be fruitful and multiply [if physically able]” I could see why necessity of procreation would be an unbreakable rule. But it doesn’t say that, so I feel like maybe it could just be a suggestion hehe. It seems that me and Plinko feel similarly on the subject of not liking how only Catholics in general don’t get to interpet the bible. I understand that y’all only give the Church fathers the authority to do this.

I find that to be… it’s hard to describe the word I’m looking for… maybe primeval? This is one example of many where the Church has shrugged at modern medicine instead of applying knowledge to teaching and even saying, “hey, we might need to take a fresh look at this”.

I could not agree more. In fact, if you think about it, that’s what this thread is about. The Vatican or whoever might not be willing to take a fresh look at things (or rather, they stick to their primeval ways when they do look at them); I wanted to see if any Catholic people (the general public, not Church authority) would be able to disregard their primeval ways and develop their own opinion about the individual situation, instead of applying archaic rules to every situation without exception as that seems to be Catholic way of things.
Plinko, you did what I hoped some would. Note to those of you who were/are not willing or able to make an exception, I don’t respect your views any less. I mentioned it before but would like to say again that getting to hear your individual responses on the subject was my intention (still is) and puts me one step closer to understanding Catholics, even if I may never understand Catholicism.

 

[dans0622]

…I feel the neccessitation the Catholic Church places on procreation is wrong. …I understand that y’all only give the Church fathers the authority to do this.

… I wanted to see if any Catholic people (the general public, not Church authority) would be able to disregard their primeval ways and develop their own opinion about the individual situation, instead of applying archaic rules to every situation without exception as that seems to be Catholic way of things. … Note to those of you who were/are not willing or able to make an exception, I don’t respect your views any less. …

Hello again Samiam1611,

If one thing should be clear, the Catholic Church does not consider procreation to be a necessity. I am also not sure why you would say that only “the Church fathers” have the authority to interpret the Bible. I’ve never heard that before.

I take some exception to the accusation/presumption that I have not come to my own conclusion/opinion on this issue but am, instead, just parroting the vatican party line. Not only that, I’m not even medieval anymore (which I’ve been called by others). I’ve gone back to primeval. I find that rather humorous, actually.

Anyway, it seems that the reason for disagreement here is that not everyone agrees on what marriage is. It’s not even clear that everyone agrees that the consent of the couple (i.e., their intentions) makes a marriage. That’s fine. But, it also seems that people think the Church defines marriage in a way she does not.

Finally, I’m surprised that some look for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions on who can marry, based on a misunderstanding of one of the “ends” of marriage (procreation).

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[samiam1611]

Hello again Samiam1611,

If one thing should be clear, the Catholic Church does not consider procreation to be a necessity. I am also not sure why you would say that only “the Church fathers” have the authority to interpret the Bible. I’ve never heard that before.

I take some exception to the accusation/presumption that I have not come to my own conclusion/opinion on this issue but am, instead, just parroting the vatican party line…

…But, it also seems that people think the Church defines marriage in a way she does not. I don’t know about other people but that certainly is true for me. That’s what started my endeavor to learn about it bc it contrasted quite starkly with my beliefs on marriage and family planning

Finally, I’m surprised that some look for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions on who can marry, based on a misunderstanding of one of the “ends” of marriage (procreation).

eh, the medieval thing was someone else’s term, not mine originally…I feel that it’s not unfitting so I decided to use it too. (I thought it might be okay since the person who said it was Catholic hehe, maybe not?

I can tell you specifically where I got the idea that only the Church fathers have the authority to interpret the bible. The person works for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the Natural Family Planning department. I will copy and paste my questions to this person and her responses pertaining to this. As you will see, it is very similar to the questions I have posed to you all. Keep in mind people, this was my very first time questioning certain aspects of Catholicism (I still am very new to it) so forgive me for my ignorance - I’m working on it!

Me: There are no adverbs in there declaring that the attempt or openness to procreate be required in order for a sexual experience to be a noble act that God would approve of. Perhaps that statement is, as you say, “not made up,” but the resulting interpretations that have formed the basis of the Church’s teachings on family are just that - human interpretation…

----No. This is where you are wrong. Remember, Jesus gave His followers the ability to discern what is from God and what is “human made.” Although we use words like “Church teaching,” the expression does not mean that it is merely human interpretation. Church teaching is a statement of the faith of Christ’s believers in the truth of the Holy Spirit. The bishops hold the sacred gift of Christ’s authority.

Me: In other words, yes it is true that God said be fruitful and multiply, but why don’t you get to make your own interpretation?

-----This is what Protestants do. They rejected the teachings on Apostolic Succession back at the time of Martin Luther (late 1400s, early 1500s). In general, they say that individual baptized Christians can interpret Scripture. This is problematic because eventually people disagree on what God has revealed and then it is nearly impossible to figure out what Jesus gave us in His teachings.​

Regarding the necessitation of procreation, I don’t mean I think that the Catholic Church wants everyone to have kids (i.e. priests, single people), I just meant they want people who want to get married to procreate, if physically able. I am basing that on statements such as “Entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong…” and “The Catholic Church may refuse to marry anyone unwilling to have children, since procreation by “the marriage act” is a fundamental part of marriage.” ~From Humanae Vitae

 

[GraceDK]

I am catholic,and as such I obey the church,there is no “if” or buts" about that. The thing that bother me is that it is like we would not have a mind of our own anymore. I do understand that. I know there must be a church,it is like a head-office,someone who keep it clean and tidy,I guess all religious “groups”,that is a bad example I know,have one. But what bothers me is that almost,to be fair,everyone is quoting what people in connection with the church have said. When I was a young lad I learned that the Bible comes first,that from a catholic priest. And that was how my life-long “love story” with the Bible started…

Indeed I agree with you… I see the same tendency… some preach Church instead of preaching Christ… That is a problem. People spread themselves out over too many things, loose sight of the essential… can quote canon law but not preach the Gospel message to their friends and co-workers…

As for the rest of your post… I truly think you have misunderstood a lot of Church teaching. The Church doesn’t teach the things you write there. if it did, I understand why you’d be upset…

 

[plinko]

Finally, I’m surprised that some look for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions on who can marry, based on a misunderstanding of one of the “ends” of marriage (procreation).

Thanks for your time.
Dan

I feel like this may have been directed at me, so I guess I’ll respond. I’m not looking for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions. I’m trying to point out what seems to be a glaring contradiction in the hopes that the Catholic Church would loosen their restrictions on marriages, namely with barrier birth control (condoms). The language that the Church uses just doesn’t make sense. We have the technology to test and 100% confirm that a person is infertile and yet as long as they’re “open to life”, the marriage is valid?! Am I the only one who sees how silly that is? It’s a way for the Church to skirt the issue and allow infertile couples to still marry while enforcing the no condoms policy it has.

Additionally, I’d like to make another observation. It seems like a lot of the argument is that we are higher beings with the power to rationalize and think through things beyond the abilities of our primate cousins. Thus, we should be able to not give into lust and temptation (because, sex outside of marriage or with a barrier is totally abusive and lustful ). But at the same time, people are saying that sex boils down to procreation and that’s why the Church is right. You can’t say that we have the cognitive capacity to transcend animal behavior and then compare a highly emotional act to its bare bones (pardon that pun). It is because we are higher creatures that sex is more than just making babies and, I posit, an act that needs no procreation whatsoever.

 

[catharina]

I feel like this may have been directed at me, so I guess I’ll respond. I’m not looking for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions. I’m trying to point out what seems to be a glaring contradiction in the hopes that the Catholic Church would loosen their restrictions on marriages, namely with barrier birth control (condoms). The language that the Church uses just doesn’t make sense. We have the technology to test and 100% confirm that a person is infertile and yet as long as they’re “open to life”, the marriage is valid?! Am I the only one who sees how silly that is? It’s a way for the Church to skirt the issue and allow infertile couples to still marry while enforcing the no condoms policy it has.

Additionally, I’d like to make another observation. It seems like a lot of the argument is that we are higher beings with the power to rationalize and think through things beyond the abilities of our primate cousins. Thus, we should be able to not give into lust and temptation (because, sex outside of marriage or with a barrier is totally abusive and lustful ). But at the same time, people are saying that sex boils down to procreation and that’s why the Church is right. You can’t say that we have the cognitive capacity to transcend animal behavior and then compare a highly emotional act to its bare bones (pardon that pun). It is because we are higher creatures that sex is more than just making babies and, I posit, an act that needs no procreation whatsoever.

So then is this it?
You belong to the Plinko religion?

Just making sure I understand your posts.

 

[plinko]

So then is this it?
You belong to the Plinko religion?

Just making sure I understand your posts.

I never said I belong to my own religion, but if you will read post #113, you will see that I’m uncertain that the Catholic Church is where I belong. I’m just trying to piece it together as best I can. Every counter to my stance is being filed away in my personal memory bank so that I can be more assured that Catholicism is or is not for me. Who knows? Somebody may say something that completely turns me 180. But I’d like to think that I also provide a fresh point of view for believers to solidify their arguments as well.

Now that you “understand my posts”, do you have anything more worthwhile to contribute than inane and condescending retorts?

 

[catharina]

I never said I belong to my own religion, but if you will read post #113, you will see that I’m uncertain that the Catholic Church is where I belong. I’m just trying to piece it together as best I can. Every counter to my stance is being filed away in my personal memory bank so that I can be more assured that Catholicism is or is not for me. Who knows? Somebody may say something that completely turns me 180. But I’d like to think that I also provide a fresh point of view for believers to solidify their arguments as well.

Now that you “understand my posts”, do you have anything more worthwhile to contribute than inane and condescending retorts?

from Post # 113 wherein you state:

“I know I don’t have the majority’s outlook on this forum. I only bring these things up to see if I can be persuaded. The more that I am here on this forum, though, the more convinced I am that I’m no longer a Catholic; I don’t think my beliefs are budging. This, and condoms, and gay marriage, and the scandals… I don’t know if this is the place for me. But I digress. Thanks for your intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut and putting up with a (presumably annoying) dissenter.”

Faith never rests on "being persuaded."  If you're Catholic, you're Catholic.  
If, on the other hand you choose to be in dissent, then that's the issue.
Yet faith is still a gift and it does NOT rest on persuasion.  

At the moment, your are depending on your own version of "religion."
Yes?  Yes - or so it seems.

I hope you don't consider this post condescending too.

 

[plinko]

from Post # 113 wherein you state:

“I know I don’t have the majority’s outlook on this forum. I only bring these things up to see if I can be persuaded. The more that I am here on this forum, though, the more convinced I am that I’m no longer a Catholic; I don’t think my beliefs are budging. This, and condoms, and gay marriage, and the scandals… I don’t know if this is the place for me. But I digress. Thanks for your intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut and putting up with a (presumably annoying) dissenter.”

Faith never rests on "being persuaded."  If you're Catholic, you're Catholic.  
If, on the other hand you choose to be in dissent, then that's the issue.
Yet faith is still a gift and it does NOT rest on persuasion.  

At the moment, your are depending on your own version of "religion."
Yes?  Yes - or so it seems.

I hope you don't consider this post condescending too.

Instead of using logic and reason to arrive at a reasonable belief system, you are telling me to just believe. Where is the helpfulness in that? According to the RCC, I must follow certain guidelines, but I’m provided with only backwards or circular logic to arrive at those rules.

I just don’t understand. The Church has archaic rules. I realize the Church has been around for 2000 years and I’ve only been around 20 something, but just because something is old does not make it right. That’s an appeal to tradition and it’s a logical fallacy. And I feel that the Church has put in these “exceptions to the rule” so it doesn’t have to change its stance.

God, I still am on board with. Jesus, same story. But when you get into the interpretations of their words by humans, I think it stands to reason that maybe there are some things that need to be rethought. It takes faith to believe in God, but it should not take faith to understand the rules that members of the Church have made.

 

[catharina]

Instead of using logic and reason to arrive at a reasonable belief system, you are telling me to just believe. Where is the helpfulness in that? According to the RCC, I must follow certain guidelines, but I’m provided with only backwards or circular logic to arrive at those rules.

I just don’t understand. The Church has archaic rules. I realize the Church has been around for 2000 years and I’ve only been around 20 something, but just because something is old does not make it right. That’s an appeal to tradition and it’s a logical fallacy. And I feel that the Church has put in these “exceptions to the rule” so it doesn’t have to change its stance.

God, I still am on board with. Jesus, same story. But when you get into the interpretations of their words by humans, I think it stands to reason that maybe there are some things that need to be rethought. It takes faith to believe in God, but it should not take faith to understand the rules that members of the Church have made.

The Church’s “rules” are based in the Church’s authority, given to Peter and passed on to each and Pope since then. We are to live by Faith, a virtue. “All depends on faith, everything is grace.” We are to cherish and guard our faith - not expect to be “persuaded.” The Church with 2000 yrs behind it has a better grasp of truth than you (in your 20s) do. Faith does not equate to understanding.

With maturity comes more understanding and wisdom.

 

[plinko]

The Church’s “rules” are based in the Church’s authority, given to Peter and passed on to each and Pope since then. We are to live by Faith, a virtue. “All depends on faith, everything is grace.” We are to cherish and guard our faith - not expect to be “persuaded.” The Church with 2000 yrs behind it has a better grasp of truth than you (in your 20s) do. Faith does not equate to understanding.

With maturity comes more understanding and wisdom.

OK.

 

[GraceDK]

God, I still am on board with. Jesus, same story. But when you get into the interpretations of their words by humans, I think it stands to reason that maybe there are some things that need to be rethought. It takes faith to believe in God, but it should not take faith to understand the rules that members of the Church have made.

Brother, do you believe in the Bible?
Like you I have problems conforming to the Church sometimes… I definately test everything and find it dangerous when people just “obey” any belief system. Maybe Im a sceptic because I have been in another system that was equally sure of its infallibility.
I test things on reason, on the Bible and on the wisdom that the Holy Spirit gives to those who have a born-again experience…

I have found that the Bible is the heart of my faith. Everything is measured thereon. Some might not like it but I’m just being honest about the status quo.

You mention the scandals, homosexuality and such things. I hope you will open some threads here about these questions. I would like to engage in them and give you some useful answers in those areas.

 

[samiam1611]

I just don’t understand. The Church has archaic rules. I realize the Church has been around for 2000 years and I’ve only been around 20 something, but just because something is old does not make it right. That’s an appeal to tradition and it’s a logical fallacy. And I feel that the Church has put in these “exceptions to the rule” so it doesn’t have to change its stance.

…But when you get into the interpretations of their words by humans, I think it stands to reason that maybe there are some things that need to be rethought. It takes faith to believe in God, but it should not take faith to understand the rules that members of the Church have made.

You have identified the root of my problem with Catholicism: the faith that people place in the rules the Church made. I feel like Catholicism is so strict! Like, you really are not “allowed” to disagree! At least in the sense that if you disagree, you’re not being a good Catholic, you’re not placing your faith in the Church fathers’ authority. I see what catharina is saying when she says you can’t expect to be persuaded to have faith. The fact that you are requiring persuasion is evidence in itself that Catholicism may not right for you. I feel like “Faith does not equate to understanding” is very right…and by extension, I think you are being very mature and wise to reject it - by seeking what is right for you, seeking something that you can understand. (catharina, am I reading that wrong? If you feel like it, could you elaborate on that?)
I recommend checking out religioustolerance.org. I dunno why it’s called that, it’s not about tolerating others’ religions. It just has all these religions on there I never heard of and explains them well. Who knows, maybe you’ll find something you never even heard of as right for you! If you are certain you are Christian, I’d suggest checking out Humanistic Christianity/Christian Humanism.

Does that come across as proselytizing? It is not meant to but if it is, can someone just tell me? Don’t report me, I’ll delete it.