Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century

  • Thread starter Thread starter wanner47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not say that the Pope made the decision. I have no idea how it came down. It was, however, widely reported that the Church refused to cooperate with the authorities, and that it was claiming diplomatic immunity. Was this report false? I know that this is a touchy subject, but there is no need to be defensive. Everyone understands that institutions have problems, and that one as large as the Church might have “employees” who don’t act according to policy. How the Church handled the problem is relevant to its moral authority, though, in my opinion. That is why I brought it up in a thread which touches on the topic of whether the Church changes its moral teachings.
So basically you ARE saying that you just accepted that media report without bothering to find out what the Church said about it. . .

and it still has NOTHING to do about changing moral teachings.

Moral authority? As I said, we aren’t Donatists. Individual people are sinners. The CHURCH is not simply individual people though.
 
Also, Rock, it is rather. . .um, shall we say interesting. . .that you post this ‘list’ of Popes, dates, and a ‘summary’ of what was said. . .without giving the actual bulls themselves?

May one inquire exactly where you ‘got’ that list from?

If YOU made it all yourself, mind posting the bulls in their entirety? (Since you must have read them all in order to make your own summary).

If you DIDN"T make that list yourself as I said we would be VERY interested to know where it ‘came from’. . .
No Tantrum, I don’t read Latin. I did not summarize them. The dates are there, along with the title of the bull and the name of the Pope. Feel free to look them up and tell us if you disagree with the summaries.
 
So basically you ARE saying that you just accepted that media report without bothering to find out what the Church said about it. . .

and it still has NOTHING to do about changing moral teachings.

Moral authority? As I said, we aren’t Donatists. Individual people are sinners. The CHURCH is not simply individual people though.
Nice try as misdirection there… so you don’t deny the report.
 
No Tantrum, I don’t read Latin. I did not summarize them. The dates are there, along with the title of the bull and the name of the Pope. Feel free to look them up and tell us if you disagree with the summaries.
DIsingenuous. They are 'where?" From which web site did you take this list, Rock?
 
Also, Rock, it is rather. . .um, shall we say interesting. . .that you post this ‘list’ of Popes, dates, and a ‘summary’ of what was said. . .without giving the actual bulls themselves?

May one inquire exactly where you ‘got’ that list from?

If YOU made it all yourself, mind posting the bulls in their entirety? (Since you must have read them all in order to make your own summary).

If you DIDN"T make that list yourself as I said we would be VERY interested to know where it ‘came from’. . .
Here is a catholic apologetics page which mentions many of those bulls. Hard to believe that this is the first time you are hearing of the history of Catholic antisemitism.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/holysee.htm
 
Nice try as misdirection there… so you don’t deny the report.
The ‘report’ has nothing to do with the changing of Church teaching.

um, MISDIRECTION? Why are you asking me in such ‘terms?’

That’s like asking if I’ve stopped beating my husband yet --you know, answer yes or no ONLY. . .
 
The ‘report’ has nothing to do with the changing of Church teaching.

um, MISDIRECTION? Why are you asking me in such ‘terms?’

That’s like asking if I’ve stopped beating my husband yet --you know, answer yes or no ONLY. . .
Nice try. I asked you a direct question. The news report I heard was on the BBC which has a high degree of accuracy. You failed to answer my question. Was the report true or was it false? Answer please, and not with a question, with an answer which has more authority than the BBC which does verify its stories.
 
I may seem adversarial, but I am not, except that I am skeptical of some of the claims made. I actually admire your faith and devotion, though I challenge some of the notions that you have which I disagree with. I am also learning a lot, and I appreciate what you have to say. I just don’t see this unchanging doctrine thing. The deeper I dig, the more I find that the doctrine changes.
 
Nice try. I asked you a direct question. The news report I heard was on the BBC which has a high degree of accuracy. You failed to answer my question. Was the report true or was it false? Answer please, and not with a question, with an answer which has more authority than the BBC which does verify its stories.
I asked YOU to open a separate thread.

This is going off topic and derailing the thread.

I have not ‘failed’ anything. I will NOT be bullied into responding to a topic which I have already stated is NOT applicable to this thread and in which I have ALREADY asked you to open a separate thread on.

And I know it’s late. . .actually I’m going to turn in soon. . .

I really think a separate thread would be good and we can get back to addressing the doctrinal changes on this one. . .

No hard feelings. . .
 
I asked YOU to open a separate thread.

This is going off topic and derailing the thread.

I have not ‘failed’ anything. I will NOT be bullied into responding to a topic which I have already stated is NOT applicable to this thread and in which I have ALREADY asked you to open a separate thread on.

And I know it’s late. . .actually I’m going to turn in soon. . .

I really think a separate thread would be good and we can get back to addressing the doctrinal changes on this one. . .

No hard feelings. . .
so your own tactics are not bullying, but when they are turned around on you they are. Very interesting. We can drop this, as we are at a stopping point. Your position would be that the moral actions of a person or institution have no bearing on their moral authority as a teacher of morality, as long as the magesterium is in agreement. I would disagree, and claim that in order to have moral authority, a moral leader and a moral institution should act morally. I would posit (to use an extreme example) the Hitler is not a moral teacher because of his immoral acts. You would say, that he could very well be infallible while the ovens were running, as long as he had certain authority behind him. Am I misstating your position? I find this very incongruous, if I understand you.
 
benidict

Brother, if you are not agreeing with the party line. Prepare to be slandered and have your sources bypassed. Even if what you are saying is true, It will not matter. My prayers for you, and Hopes that people will listen to what you are saying.

And my prayers for you, that you will cease and desist in nearly every thread you enter sowing discord and false teachings about the Catholic Church of which you claim to be a member.
 
Ok, I can go along with this. They proclaim Christ doctrine. infailably. But their moral theology is far from infailable.
Theology: From the Greek, = The Study of God
logos = “words,” “cause,” “sayings,” “discourse”
Code:
           +
“Theos” = God

Theology, including moral theology, is the conceptualization and systematic explanation of concepts about God, with moral theology being the teaching about behavior… Theology is not behavior. Thus, the following is a non sequitor:
This is very evident, from the scandle that has rocked the Church.
Scandals = behavior.
Scandals =/= “theology” (ideas, concepts, study of God, teaching about God)
Scandals =/= “moral theology” (teachings about human behavior)
 
So… when are papal bulls considered infallible? Here are some summarized regarding the Church’s opinion of Jews. Would those who believe that the Church has not changed its moral teachings over time then agree that all of these bulls fail to contradict each other, and also are in accord with current teachings? This is 500 years worth of papal bulls on Jews. There are also quite a few during this period on neophytes, dowries…

Honorius III
Ad nostram Noveritis audientiam
April 29, 1221
Jews are obliged to carry a distinctive badge and forbidden to hold public office.

Gregory IX
Sufficere debuerat perfidioe judoerum perfidia
March 5, 1233
Jews forbidden to employ Christian servants.

Innocent IV
Impia judoerum perfidia
May 9, 1244
French King ordered to burn the Talmud. Jews forbidden to employ Christian nurses.

Benedict XIII
(Anti-Pope)
Etsi doctoribus gentium
1415
A collection of anti-Jewish church legislation that served as an inspiration to other Popes.

Martin V
Sedes apostolica
June 3, 1425
Jews obliged to wear distinctive badge.

Eugene IV
Dudum ad nostram audientiam
Aug. 4, 1442
Forbade Jews to live with Christians or fill public functions, etc.

Calixtus III
Si ad reprimendos
May 28, 1456
Confirmed the preceding Bull of Eugene IV forbidding Jews to live with Christians.

Sixtus IV
Numquam dubitavimus
1482
To Ferdinand of Aragon, to appoint inquisitors to extirpate heresy and investigate backsliding of Jewish converts to Christianity. The Spanish
Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain followed.

Paul IV
Cum Nimis Absurdum
July 14, 1555
Jews forbidden to live in common with Christians, to practice any industry, etc

Pius IV
Dudum e felicis recordationis
Feb. 27, 1562
Bull confirming that of Paul IV.

Pius V
Romanus Pontifex
April 19, 1566
Bull confirming that of Paul IV

Pius V
Cum nos nuper
Jan. 19, 1567
Jews are forbidden to own real estate

Pius V
Hebraeorum gens
Feb. 26, 1569
Accuses Jews of many evils including magic. Orders expulsion of Jews from Church States except Rome and Ancona.

Gregory XIII
Sancta Mater Ecclesiae
Sept. 1, 1584
Obligatory preaching of Christian sermons to Jews;100 men and 50 women must be sent every Saturday to listen to conversion sermons delivered in a church near the ghetto.

Sixtus V
Christiana pietas
Oct. 22, 1586
Privileges granted to Jews by relief of former edicts. These were reversed. by Clemen VIII.

Clement VIII
Cum saepe accidere
Feb. 28, 1592
Jews of Avignon forbidden to sell new goods.

Clement VIII
Caeca et obdurata
Feb. 25, 1593
Confirmation of the Bull of Paul III. Jews forbidden to dwell outside of Rome, Ancona, and Avignon.

Clement VIII
Cum Haebraeorum malitia
Feb. 28, 1593
It is forbidden to read the Talmud.

Innocent XIII
Ex injuncto nobis
Jan. 18, 1724
Prohibits sale of new objects.

Benedict XIII
Emanavit nuper
Feb. 14, 1727
Necessary conditions for imposing baptism on a Jew.

Benedict XIII
Alias emanarunt
March 21, 1729
Forbidding the sale of new goods.
I was sniffing around to get a sense of what papal authority is, and I was surprised by these. Previously, I was under the mistaken impression that ghettos for Jews, deprivation of a means to live, and marking them with a badge had been new to the 20th century. It turns out that the Church may have invented those ideas.
 
I was sniffing around to get a sense of what papal authority is, and I was surprised by these. Previously, I was under the mistaken impression that ghettos for Jews, deprivation of a means to live, and marking them with a badge had been new to the 20th century. It turns out that the Church may have invented those ideas.
Bolding added.

There is nothing wrong with your interest/discussion on papal bulls or papal authority as long as you are able to connect it as it relates to, or in the context of, the OP, which is about the purported change of Church teaching on the purpose of sex in the 19th century. I believe this was what Tantum Ergo was explaining earlier to you.

Now, you are inserting a topic that is further away from the OP: the history of the Jewish badge, which sounds like an insinuation of some unsavory connection by the Church with the item (of the Jewish badge).

One only has to read a sampling of your posts (not that hard to do as you are a new CAF member) to glean that you are no fan of the Catholic Church nor her teachings.

Although I don’t see the relation of the Jewish badge in this thread, I offer at the end of my post a linked article for your review to augment your efforts in “sniffing around” for the specific topic that you brought up. It is always good to get a balanced account of controversial issues that non-Catholics like to raise in this forum.

If you are talking about the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 which decreed identifying badges for Jews, you would be served by a good and balanced research of the historical account of the Crusades. That is the backdrop of the said ‘anti-Jewish’ decree.

The discussion of it is past midway in the linked article, The Church And The Jews In The Middle Age

On this note, I hope we all can go back to discussion of the OP.
,
 
Bolding added.

There is nothing wrong with your interest/discussion on papal bulls or papal authority as long as you are able to connect it as it relates to, or in the context of, the OP, which is about the purported change of Church teaching on the purpose of sex in the 19th century. I believe this was what Tantum Ergo was explaining earlier to you.

Now, you are inserting a topic that is further away from the OP: the history of the Jewish badge, which sounds like an insinuation of some unsavory connection by the Church with the item (of the Jewish badge).

One only has to read a sampling of your posts (not that hard to do as you are a new CAF member) to glean that you are no fan of the Catholic Church nor her teachings.

Although I don’t see the relation of the Jewish badge in this thread, I offer at the end of my post a linked article for your review to augment your efforts in “sniffing around” for the specific topic that you brought up. It is always good to get a balanced account of controversial issues that non-Catholics like to raise in this forum.

If you are talking about the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 which decreed identifying badges for Jews, you would be served by a good and balanced research of the historical account of the Crusades. That is the backdrop of the said ‘anti-Jewish’ decree.

The discussion of it is past midway in the linked article, The Church And The Jews In The Middle Age

On this note, I hope we all can go back to discussion of the OP.
,
Is this too uncomfortable an issue for you? I guess Rock Happy can start at thread on this if you would like. I would like too, but He has alot more knowledge about this it seems. 🙂
 
benidict

Brother, if you are not agreeing with the party line. Prepare to be slandered and have your sources bypassed. Even if what you are saying is true, It will not matter. My prayers for you, and Hopes that people will listen to what you are saying.

And my prayers for you, that you will cease and desist in nearly every thread you enter sowing discord and false teachings about the Catholic Church of which you claim to be a member.
The reason you and others are hoping for this to happen, is because way deeeep down inside, you know I and others are correct in our views. That is what you fear. That somehow you may actually on some level, be forced to agree. Even if you do not do so publicly. Think it does not happen? I have already had it happen here, where people who shall remain nameless, agree with me, Yet debate against me publicly. They fear their own. And do not wish to be nailed on CAF. Cant say that I blame them. Its not easy putting your neck out there. And its not easy taking an unpopular view. I never have sought popularity anyhow, so its What ever.
🤷
 
Taunts are not proof, nor are insults.
Not taunting or insulting you. Just making an observation. Taunts and insults would be cussing someone out, calling them a tool of the devil, or playing the devil, all of which has happened to me. I dont really take it personally. Fundamentalist Muslims do the same thing when they feel threatened. Its in a fundamentalist nature to resort to personal attacks when they are being beaten in the arena of idea. Yall use the same tactics of the ultra left. Im surprised your two sides dont get along more. 😃
 
My apologies, I thought your post said “baptist” and not “former baptist.”

Actually, you’re not a “Catholic who questions,” you are a “Catholic who protests against the Church’s teaching authority” – a.k.a., a Protestant.

I am, however, a former Protestant (ELCA) who believes 100% in the teaching authority of the Church as established by Jesus Christ. 👍
No, I question. Why are you so afraid of people who Question? What is your fear? Are you afraid to examine yourself, and your beliefs? Heres another thing. If A Bishop by himself is failable, then a group of Bishops is a failable group. There is no way they are Infailable. sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top