Challenge to Protestants: Why the Bible?(2)

[mercygate]

arieh0310:

Well put, thank you. Also, lets stay on topic. The reason I reposted this thread is that I am genuinely interested in the strongest argument for Biblical inspiration that Protestantism has to offer.

If you are looking for a strong protestant argument – or at least as strong as I have ever seen – look at R. C. Sproul’s discussion on canonicity, which you might find via his web site, Ligonier Ministries.

Basically, he constructs the case for the canon and admits that the NT canon was not agreed upon until the late 4th Century. Up to that point, he states the case just as a Catholic would. Then he says that after the canon was closed, we no longer need the Church to interpret it. Because Sproul is a Protestant and rejects the authority of the Church, he is honest enough to state the authority of Scripture this way: For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books but for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

 

[Contarini]

ChrisR246:

In the moments just after Christ Ascended into Heaven, not one word of the NT had been written, but the Church existed.

True enough, but that’s not the claim that is often made.

In the 20 years or so between the Ascension and the writing of I Thessalonians (or whatever the first NT book was), the Church still had the Scriptures because it had the OT. However, it’s far more impressive for Catholics to waive that tricky point (namely how significant was it that the Church existed for a couple of decades without any NT) and speak as if anything short of a fully formed and accepted canon constituted “not having the Bible.” That’s the line of argument I was attacking.

ChrisR246:

Has there been some instance where you wanted to throw a drowning man a condom and some priest stopped you? Condoms do not “save lives”. A condom user is only in danger because he is engaging in a risky behavior. Abstain from the behavior and his life would not be at risk.

That’s both naive and heartless. You know perfectly well that sexual passion can lead people to do all sorts of foolish and unhealthy things. Essentially your argument amounts to saying that people should be condemned to death for committing fornication (or for being married to someone who has committed fornication).

ChrisR246:

I always find it amazing that “Rome” is the reason people are dying under these circumstances. These people don’t listen to Rome when she says no sex outside or marriage or no homosexual acts, but saying “no condom” everybody hears that and obeys.

This argument has a superficial plausibility, but there are many reasons why it doesn’t hold water.

1. Strong animal passions impel us to engage in sexual activity. No similar passion impels us to use condoms. Because of human weakness, orthodox Catholics have been committing fornication for centuries, and I see no reason to think they are about to stop. People who commit fornication are not necessarily saying “I don’t agree with the teaching of the Church” or “I don’t care about doing what is right.” Rather, they are swept away by their passions. Procuring a condom, however, is a deliberate act, and the Church (rightly) teaches that deliberate acts are far more sinful than acts committed under the sway of passion. It’s my opinion (based on at least some experience) that some Catholics have a tendency to presume on this, giving themelves a certain amount of license to sin under the influence of passion while refraining from doing deliberate acts such as buying condoms. But even if you think that’s an unfair charge, my main point remains.
2. Many men don’t like to use condoms, and will leap at any excuse not to.
3. The Church does not limit itself to teaching that use of condoms is a sin. If I were suggesting that the Church should tell unmarried people to use condoms, then you would have an excellent point. But all I’m suggesting is that the Church should follow the example of St. Thomas Aquinas and refrain from attempting to influence governmental policy and social mores on this point. In other words, teach chastity all you like, but don’t prevent secular organizations from giving condoms to those who disregard your teaching. (St. Thomas of course did not take this approach to condoms–I’m thinking of his teaching regarding the legalization of prostitution. He thought that this was legitimate government policy because not every sin needed to be illegal, when the welfare of society required its legalization. I don’t think he should have applied this to prostitution, but as a general principle it’s very sound.)

And of course the really difficult cases are those of married people when one spouse has AIDS. It seems to me that both the duty of preserving life and the obligation to pay the “marriage debt” are more important than the prohibition of condoms. But beyond that, the points I raised above apply here as well, but with added emotional force since we’re talking about an act that in normal circumstances would be a good one.

Edwin

 

[E.E.N.S]

Contarini:

Essentially your argument amounts to saying that people should be condemned to death for committing fornication (or for being married to someone who has committed fornication).

Which is worse, death of the body or death of the soul? The Church is looking out for the best for man.

 

[arieh0310]

Contarini:

I myself would be fully willing to submit to the Catholic Church on this particular point, although there are legitimate questions to be raised about the differences between nonabortifacient ABC and NFP, and most seriously about Rome’s refusal to allow condoms even to save lives.

Alfred Kinsey once observed, “We have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently used contraceptives.”

The same applies to STDs. If the Catholic Church were to permit condom use they would condone risky behaviour.

 

[Philthy]

Contarini:

But there are plenty of things in papal teachings that are a bit harder to reconcile. Try for instance Clement XI’s bull Unigenitus, issued 1713. As you can see, Clement condemned a hundred propositions from the Jansenist writer Quesnel.
Worse … are the condemnations of propositions 79-85. These really amount to nothing more but the patristic maxim (from St. Jerome) “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” This maxim, as you probably know, is explicitly cited by Vatican II and by the Catechism–a very encouraging sign from a Protestant point of view, but hardly a mark of the perfect consistency you claim.

And again, what’s wrong with proposition 86? All the liturgical reforms that issued from Vatican II had this principle in mind. Again, you have to choose between the Fathers and the modern Catholic Church on the one hand, and Clement XI on the other.

Edwin

Hi Edwin-

I enjoy your knowledgable and balanced posts. I would say, however, that in this particular instance you may have oversimplified things a bit. Certainly it was an oversimplification to equate the condemnations you cited with the statement"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" The biggest part of the problem is that you don’t know why the statements were condemned. Without that, we are simply guessing. I looked at each of the statements you mentioned, and agree that ON THE SURFACE they appear unobjectionable. However, they also contain potential ambiguities which rendered them potentially harmful to the faithful. For example:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

This seems innocent enough - and hard for us to disagree with. But it has elements of ambiguity in it - probably unintentional- which render it potentially harmful. Here’s what I mean: does this statement mean that all of the Christian faithful are bound of NECESSITY to learn to read Sacred Scripture? At ALL times? In ALL places? Even if they are ILLITERATE? Mentally challenged?
Just my thoughts. You can go through each one of these statements and see a potential problem due to interpretation. And without knowing the reason for rejecting the statement, you really can’t judge it.
I agree, however, that we should stick to the thread…

Again, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut-

Phil

 

[ChrisR246]

Contarini:

True enough, but that’s not the claim that is often made.

Maybe I’m too literal, but my understanding is that Christ founded ONE Church at the Ascension. That Church He founded could not have been relying on Scriptures not yet written for their authority.

Contarini:

In the 20 years or so between the Ascension and the writing of I Thessalonians (or whatever the first NT book was), the Church still had the Scriptures because it had the OT.

At that time the Christian Church had Scriptures with no mention of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. Certainly it could not, at that time, be a Christian Church based on Scripture.

Contarini:

That’s both naive and heartless.

Not at all. Because I love them I do not want to encourage them to engage in sinful behavior.

Contarini:

You know perfectly well that sexual passion can lead people to do all sorts of foolish and unhealthy things.

And your position assumes that people are animals limited by their impulses. If they would accept God’s grace they could overcome those temptations. Furthermore where else do we encourage people to enage in risky behavior and simply take precautions? I missed the “Just Smoke Filtered Cigarettes” campaign. Or the “Well, if you are going to use drugs stick with pot or coke instead of meth.” Or “Drink and drive slow with your hazards on so everyone else stays out of your way.” Or “Well, at least make sure the safety is on before you point that at someone.”

Contarini:

1. Strong animal passions impel us to engage in sexual activity. No similar passion impels us to use condoms.

Do you believe fornication is sinful?

Contarini:

People who commit fornication are not necessarily saying “I don’t agree with the teaching of the Church”

No, they are saying “I don’t care what God says.”

Contarini:

Rather, they are swept away by their passions. Procuring a condom, however, is a deliberate act, and the Church (rightly) teaches that deliberate acts are far more sinful than acts committed under the sway of passion. It’s my opinion (based on at least some experience) that some Catholics have a tendency to presume on this, giving themelves a certain amount of license to sin under the influence of passion while refraining from doing deliberate acts such as buying condoms.

The condoms are deliberately purchased with the intention of committing (or wanting to commit) the sexual act, which makes it just as deliberate. They may be in the heat of passion, but they went there willingly.Everyone tries to justify their sins.

Contarini:

1. Many men don’t like to use condoms, and will leap at any excuse not to.

If they were only engaging in the sexual act within the confines of their marriage, it wouldn’t matter.

Contarini:

But all I’m suggesting is that the Church should follow the example of St. Thomas Aquinas and refrain from attempting to influence governmental policy and social mores on this point.

IMO, there is a difference between government policy and social mores. Government policy relies upon force of arms for compliance and, ultimately, a willingness to kill violators. I’d agree that some issues do not reach this level. Condom use is probably one. But I’m not aware of the Magesterium advocating that SWAT teams storm drug stores with automatic weapons, and a willingness to use, them to seize condoms.

OTOH, social mores do not rely on violence for compliance. People can choose to comply or not. The Church is called to be a light to the world. If she is not supposed to try to evangelize people and bring them God’s word, just what exactly is she supposed to do?

So, I see nothing wrong with Catholics and like minded others from boycotting a drug store because they sell condoms, pornography, etc. I think our priests and bishops should be exhorting us to. I don’t think it would be right to drag a pharmacist out and lynch him, then raze the store, because he was selling condoms, etc.

Contarini:

In other words, teach chastity all you like, but don’t prevent secular organizations from giving condoms to those who disregard your teaching.

You’ll have to give an example of where the Church had the force to prevent a secular organization from distributing condoms. And even so, it would only make the method wrong, not the teaching.

Contarini:

And of course the really difficult cases are those of married people when one spouse has AIDS. It seems to me that both the duty of preserving life and the obligation to pay the “marriage debt” are more important than the prohibition of condoms.

A married couple has an obligation to be open to life when engaged in the sexual act. There is no obligation to take part in the sexual act - Mary and Joesph didn’t.

 

[Contarini]

E.E.N.S.:

Which is worse, death of the body or death of the soul? The Church is looking out for the best for man.

But it’s not an either/or. Aquinas thought it was OK to have legalized prostitution. From where I stand, allowing the giving out of condoms seems a lot less serious (I recognize that Aquinas would disagree).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

Alfred Kinsey once observed, “We have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently used contraceptives.”

The same applies to STDs. If the Catholic Church were to permit condom use they would condone risky behaviour.

First of all, assuming that Kinsey’s statement is accurate (it sounds probable to me, but what do I know?), it does not therefore follow that those people would have fewer abortions if they didn’t use contraceptives. That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying: the people who are most frequently hospitalized have more health problems; therefore hospitalization causes health problems. Correlation is not causation. That’s a basic logical principle.

Second, you have not established that the same thing is true for STD’s. It’s quite possible that it is, but you haven’t shown this. So we have a logical fallacy based on an unfounded extrapolation from a single quote by (what I regard as) a highly unreliable source.

I’m all in favor of less use of contraceptives, just as I’m sure Aquinas wanted young men to stop going to prostitutes. But in the mean time, living in a fallen world, there are places and times where a condom may mean the difference between life and death. I don’t see why the Catholic Church can’t teach chastity while allowing secular organizations to distribute condoms, and let the most effective method win.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

ChrisR246:

A married couple has an obligation to be open to life when engaged in the sexual act. There is no obligation to take part in the sexual act - Mary and Joesph didn’t.

Indeed. If my spouse acquired HIV either via a transfusion or from caring for someone with AIDS, I know he would never again come near me for sexual intimacy. HE would ask that we live in continence out of love for me . . .

Endorsement of condoms by whatever “lesser-evil” justification merely muddies the water. Sucha a rationale reduces sexuality to its animal base. That is not a view which affirms the full dignity of the human person. It is not a view which expresses the virtues of faith, hope or charity.

 

[Contarini]

Philthy:

Hi Edwin-

I enjoy your knowledgable and balanced posts. I would say, however, that in this particular instance you may have oversimplified things a bit. Certainly it was an oversimplification to equate the condemnations you cited with the statement"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" The biggest part of the problem is that you don’t know why the statements were condemned.

I do know something about it, actually. I’m pretty sure that what Quesnel was criticizing, and the Pope was defending, was the documented policy of the Catholic Church of regulating lay reading of Scripture in times and places where heresy was rampant. (And yes, I know that the Catholic Church did not have a blanket policy of forbidding lay people to read Scripture. But it did try to regulate this reading, and not only by forbidding heretical translations. At certain periods in the Middle Ages, vernacular translations were banned outright, and Pius IV in 1564 restricted the reading of the NT by laypeople to those “who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.” Even this was to be regulated by the bishop–in other words, a bishop could choose to ban lay Bible reading altogether. (From what I can tell the OT was even more strictly limited.) I’m getting my info from the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “Scripture” (sec. 6). (Granted, the picture is a bit more complicated than I described, since according to the CE there was a further rule that some interpreted as superseding Pius IV’s rule, and others as further restricting it.) There’s some more good info on the French context in this article on St. Louis de Montfort.

Philthy:

I looked at each of the statements you mentioned, and agree that ON THE SURFACE they appear unobjectionable. However, they also contain potential ambiguities which rendered them potentially harmful to the faithful. For example:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

This seems innocent enough - and hard for us to disagree with. But it has elements of ambiguity in it - probably unintentional- which render it potentially harmful. Here’s what I mean: does this statement mean that all of the Christian faithful are bound of NECESSITY to learn to read Sacred Scripture? At ALL times? In ALL places? Even if they are ILLITERATE? Mentally challenged?
Just my thoughts. You can go through each one of these statements and see a potential problem due to interpretation. And without knowing the reason for rejecting the statement, you really can’t judge it.

But Philthy, I do know something about the context, as I said. I’m open to correction. But I see no evidence whatever that Quesnel was denying that mentally challenged people could be saved (since he actually said that they should study and know the “spirit, the piety, and the mysteries” of Scripture, you can’t argue that he’s condemning the illiterate who could have Scripture read to them). This is a typical example of the kind of reading required to defend all the Church’s pronouncements of the past. You come up with a completely hypothetical meaning that justifies the statement, when we do know enough about the context to have a pretty good guess at what the Pope actually meant.

The question was not whether mentally challenged people could be saved, but whether the study of Scripture was necessary for all Christians in such a way that restriction of such study was necessarily wrong. The Church’s position was that for some simple people, particularly in areas exposed to heresy, it was better not to read Scripture at all but rather to hear it explained in the Mass and to participate in popular devotions. That goes flatly against the teachings of the Fathers. It is in fact downright heretical. And the only way you can justify this statement is by trying to make it mean something other than, in its historical context, it clearly does.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

ChrisR246:

Maybe I’m too literal, but my understanding is that Christ founded ONE Church at the Ascension. That Church He founded could not have been relying on Scriptures not yet written for their authority.

But they clearly did rely on the OT. However, you misunderstand the Protestant position. Protestants have historically taught (see Martin Chemnitz who is particularly clear on this) that the Church is founded on the Word of God. No one denies that the Word of God was proclaimed for years before it was written down. The Protestant claim, historically, is that all of it was eventually written down in the NT.

The basic assumption–that the Word of God is over and above the Church–is a wholly orthodox one explicitly endorsed by Vatican II and the Catechism. The only question is whether all of it was eventually written down in the NT or not. You can’t resolve that issue by appealing to the condition of NT Christians before the writing of the last inspired book. In the Protestant view, of course they had authoritative oral tradition to rely on. And in a sense we do too–it’s just that that oral tradition is identical in content with the teachings found in Scripture–it doesn’t go beyond it.

I don’t think you can disprove this view logically. The main disproof of it is in the patristic appeal to certain doctrines, like infant baptism, that are not found in Scripture but were claimed to be apostolic traditions. Also, the traditional Protestant view is a bit naive in its distinction between Word and interpretation (the line between interpreting and adding new content is a lot more porous than either side realized at the time–Trent is also naive, or if you prefer it’s intentionally vague).

ChrisR246:

At that time the Christian Church had Scriptures with no mention of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. Certainly it could not, at that time, be a Christian Church based on Scripture.

I think the Apostles would tear their clothes in horror if they heard you say that. They were quite confident that their proclamation of Christ was deeply rooted in OT Scripture.

ChrisR246:

And your position assumes that people are animals limited by their impulses.

I assume absolutely nothing of the kind. Silly caricatures like this get us nowhere. I’m not saying that sexual temptation is irresistible. I’m simply saying that it’s powerful, and that people often give into it on impulse rather than through careful deliberation. The use of a condom, on the other hand, is by necessity an act that requires careful planning. Therefore, it’s quite possible that there are large numbers of people who wind up having “unprotected” sex due to their desire to be faithful Catholics combined with their inability to control their passions.

ChrisR246:

If they would accept God’s grace they could overcome those temptations.

Maybe you find resisting temptation easy. Most of us mere mortals don’t, and historically the Church has recognized this. If it’s stopped recognizing it then it’s in big trouble. (I don’t think it has, but your ideology is blinding you to basic reality here.) Of course God’s grace is available. But “accepting God’s grace” in a situation of temptation often requires a very difficult struggle against some pretty strong desires. I am not saying that giving in is inevitable at all. I’m just saying that as a matter of fact many believing Christians are going to fall down quite frequently.

ChrisR246:

Furthermore where else do we encourage people to enage in risky behavior and simply take precautions?

I’m not suggesting that we should encourage people to engage in risky behavior. That’s another silly straw man. But we do regularly encourage people to take precautions if they choose to engage in less than ideal behavior. If you must eat unhealthy food, then try to cut down on how much you eat. If you have been at a party and have drunk too much (surely not a good thing on any account), make sure someone is able to drive you home. If you do take drugs, make sure you use a clean needle. And so on, and so forth. This is very common in our society, and only someone with no understanding of or compassion for human weakness would say that it’s a bad thing.

 

[Contarini]

ChrisR246:

Do you believe fornication is sinful?

Of course I do. How on earth is this relevant? It’s very discouraging to have a conversation with someone who keeps trying to smear me as advocating immorality instead of answering my concerns.

ChrisR246:

No, they are saying “I don’t care what God says.”

They don’t care enough, true. But that’s not to say that they don’t care at all. You are talking as if people were computers. We are more than animals, true. But we are animals, not machines.

ChrisR246:

The condoms are deliberately purchased with the intention of committing (or wanting to commit) the sexual act, which makes it just as deliberate. They may be in the heat of passion, but they went there willingly.Everyone tries to justify their sins.

You completely missed my point. My point is precisely that buying a condom is a far more deliberate act than the act of intercourse itself. You seem to have completely reversed what I actually said.

ChrisR246:

If they were only engaging in the sexual act within the confines of their marriage, it wouldn’t matter.

Again, you’re essentially saying that because people’s lives are in danger through sin (their own or other people’s), no measures should be taken to protect them. This is particularly offensive when we’re talking, for instance, about the innocent spouse of someone who has contracted AIDS through illicit sexual activity.

ChrisR246:

IMO, there is a difference between government policy and social mores. Government policy relies upon force of arms for compliance and, ultimately, a willingness to kill violators.

That’s just not true. Plenty of government policies have no force of arms behind them. If you’ve read anything about the actual situation in Africa, you know that there are all sorts of government initiatives to fight AIDS that rely on encouragement and incentives rather than coercion. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.

ChrisR246:

OTOH, social mores do not rely on violence for compliance. People can choose to comply or not. The Church is called to be a light to the world. If she is not supposed to try to evangelize people and bring them God’s word, just what exactly is she supposed to do?

That’s an empty rhetorical question. The point here is that since we live in a sinful world, and we are never going to eliminate all sinful behavior short of the Second Coming, social structures need to make some allowance for this behavior even as the Church teaches people not to sin. Again, contrary to your claims, we do this with regards to other sinful behavior all the time. Drunkenness is a sin, but we don’t say “Go ahead and drive home because if you hadn’t sinned you would be able to drive.”

ChrisR246:

So, I see nothing wrong with Catholics and like minded others from boycotting a drug store because they sell condoms, pornography, etc.

I think there’s a huge difference between condoms and pornography. I think boycotting a drug store because it sells condoms is just plain dumb. (Disciplining Catholics who sell condoms is quite a different matter.)

ChrisR246:

You’ll have to give an example of where the Church had the force to prevent a secular organization from distributing condoms.

I don’t know if force has been used or not. I do know that the Church has used its considerable social influence to discourage the distribution of condoms. And again, I think this is highly questionable policy.

ChrisR246:

A married couple has an obligation to be open to life when engaged in the sexual act. There is no obligation to take part in the sexual act - Mary and Joesph didn’t.

So you say!

But granting that point (I’m not willing to deny the PV flat out, though I do have questions about it), the Holy Family were a special case. The Catholic Church teaches that normally sexual intercourse is part of marriage, and that in fact it is a debt that the spouses owe to each other. Abstinence must be a mutually agreed-on practice.

Mercygate,

Like Chris, you’re confusing social tolerance with encouragement. I’m not saying that the Church should tell people to use condoms. I’m saying that the Church should not try to prevent condoms from being made available in areas where sexual disease is rampant, in order to protect not only those who sin sexually but also those innocent people whom their sin endangers.

Edwin

 

[John666]

arieh0310,

arieh0310 Can any Protestants offer a convicing argument why the Bible should be considered inspired?

First of all I AM sorry to have participated in taking this thread off your topic. I sum up this thread in agreement with the Catholic Church. Answer- “Because the Catholic Church says so.” I truly do not see ANY contradition saying otherwise.

Contarini, I think agrees with this also.

ContariniQuote:
Originally Posted by But for Grace
John666 & Contarini - not to steal your guy’s wind, but isn’t it intresting how a conversation about what is esentially the origin of Sola Scriptora has become a debate over Luther?

Well, you should ask John666 about that, not me.Like many conservative Catholics, he seems to think that any discussion of the Protestant-Catholic division resolves into a discussion of the merits of Luther. I simply made the remark that Protestants who think as I do would be quite willing for reunion with Rome if it were not for the conditions Rome places on such reunion. And of course he took that to be an attack on Rome, which it wasn’t particularly. I’m willing to follow the discussion where it leads, but I’m also quite happy to get back to the original topic.

Nooooo. I was merely pointing out the fact that Luther “cut HIMSELF off” of the Catholic Church. Which he CONSCIOUSLY did. Go back and re-read it.

I give Contarini credit for not being Catholic. He rightly says he can be 95% Catholic and still be Protestant. Some reasons (mistakenly) Papal Infalibility etc… So, he at least accepts some of the Church’s Authority, the canon for one thing, rightly so.

Blessings,

Joe

 

[mercygate]

Contarini:

Mercygate,

Like Chris, you’re confusing social tolerance with encouragement. I’m not saying that the Church should tell people to use condoms. I’m saying that the Church should not try to prevent condoms from being made available in areas where sexual disease is rampant, in order to protect not only those who sin sexually but also those innocent people whom their sin endangers.

Edwin

I confuse absolutely nothing. Everything the Church says is taken down and used against her in evidence. To waffle on this would be to give the impression that the Church condones a view of humanity that is sub human.

 

[ChrisR246]

I think the Apostles would tear their clothes in horror if they heard you say that. They were quite confident that their proclamation of Christ was deeply rooted in OT Scripture.

Certainly the Apostles were. Modern Protestants who rely on Scripture alone do not rely on OT alone to proclaim Jesus.

Contarini:

Silly caricatures like this get us nowhere.

Oh. As opposed to hurling epthets like naive and heartless. Please.

Contarini:

I’m simply saying that it’s powerful, and that people often give into it on impulse rather than through careful deliberation. The use of a condom, on the other hand, is by necessity an act that requires careful planning.

My point is, the sex can not be fully impulsive if condoms were purchased beforehand. They are bought with the intention of being used, or at least the hope of being used.

Contarini:

Maybe you find resisting temptation easy.

Not at all.

Contarini:

Most of us mere mortals don’t

Pouty sarcasm like this gets us nowhere.

Contarini:

I’m just saying that as a matter of fact many believing Christians are going to fall down quite frequently.

Certainly. But that is no reason to stop preaching the truth to them.

Contarini:

only someone with no understanding of or compassion for human weakness would say that it’s a bad thing.

:tsktsk: remember what you said about silly caricatures.

 

[ChrisR246]

Contarini:

Of course I do. How on earth is this relevant?

Because I don’t understand how you would hold an act that in your own words is very difficult to resist as sinful, but an act that is rather easy to resist should be changed.

Contarini:

me:

No, they are saying “I don’t care what God says.”

They don’t care enough, true. But that’s not to say that they don’t care at all. You are talking as if people were computers. We are more than animals, true. But we are animals, not machines.

You missed my point - the “rule” against condoms was not made up by the Church. It’s God’s rule. This is why it can not simply be put aside now.

Contarini:

You completely missed my point. My point is precisely that buying a condom is a far more deliberate act than the act of intercourse itself. You seem to have completely reversed what I actually said.

No, what I’ve been trying to point out is that if someone goes out and buys condoms, then the subsequent sex act involving the condom is not impulsive. It was planned.

Contarini:

Again, you’re essentially saying that because people’s lives are in danger through sin (their own or other people’s), no measures should be taken to protect them.

Not at all. Abstinence will protect them better than a condom will.

Contarini:

Plenty of government policies have no force of arms behind them.

All government action relies, ultimately, on force.

Contarini:

If you’ve read anything about the actual situation in Africa, you know that there are all sorts of government initiatives to fight AIDS that rely on encouragement and incentives rather than coercion. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Andf if you would think just a little deeper you’d see that the funds for those initiatives come through force. Try not paying the taxes used to fund these initiatives and see what kind of encouragement the government uses.

Contarini:

The point here is that since we live in a sinful world, and we are never going to eliminate all sinful behavior short of the Second Coming social structures need to make some allowance for this behavior even as the Church teaches people not to sin.

When God reveals to the Church that He has changed His mind and it’s Ok to use condoms, I’m certain she’ll pass it on. She does not have the authority to free us from conditions he sets out.

Contarini:

Drunkenness is a sin, but we don’t say “Go ahead and drive home because if you hadn’t sinned you would be able to drive.”

There is a difference. A designated driver is employed after a person has committed the sin of getting drunk, to prevent further harm to themselves or others. A condom, or other ABC is used prior to the act and so the act can still be avoided.

Contarini:

I think there’s a huge difference between condoms and pornography.

I think there are a number of similarities. One chief one being that both serve to move the sex act from procreation to recreation.

Contarini:

I think boycotting a drug store because it sells condoms is just plain dumb.

Now see, here you go again. You act all hurt at slights that in some cases weren’t even intended, then you in turn say things like this. Truth be known, I don’t mind. I’m a big boy and I can roll with the punches.But I’ll give as good, or better, than I get (that’s one of those sins I have a hard time resisting). But please either stop throwing the jabs or learn to take them.

Contarini:

(Disciplining Catholics who sell condoms is quite a different matter.)

Disciplining them? How? And why, if you seemingly would not discipline a Catholic for using them?

Contarini:

I don’t know if force has been used or not.

Then stop implying it has.

Contarini:

I do know that the Church has used its considerable social influence to discourage the distribution of condoms. And again, I think this is highly questionable policy.

And I think it’s part of Her call to evangelize.

Contarini:

The Catholic Church teaches that normally sexual intercourse is part of marriage, and that in fact it is a debt that the spouses owe to each other. Abstinence must be a mutually agreed-on practice.

So you say. You seem to have a great deal of familiarity with Catholic documents, etc. Please show show one that directs a spouse risk his or her life by engaging in sexual intercourse when it would threaten their life.

 

[Ignatius]

arieh0310:

I am currently a Protestant that is seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. One of the big reasons for my lack of faith in Protestantism is that the Catholic Church seems to have a better argument as to why the the Bible should be considered inspired. Can any Protestants offer a convicing argument why the Bible should be considered inspired?

That is a most excellent question. I would like to see it posted at christianforums here: christianforums.com/f80-general-theology.html. If you are not going to, would you mind if I do? Thank you.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Edwin_

Contarini:

I do know something about it, actually. I’m pretty sure that what Quesnel was criticizing, and the Pope was defending, was the documented policy of the Catholic Church of regulating lay reading of Scripture in times and places where heresy was rampant.

I don’t see any great evil here or inconsistency with respect to Vatican ll. It sounds - and Im simply trusting your historical perspective - that the Pope felt there was just cause for placing a limit on people’s access to Scripture outside of the Church’s supervision at that point in time based on experience and the social climate of the time. The statements condemned were seen as potentially exascerbating the situation.

Contarini:

But Philthy, I do know something about the context, as I said. I’m open to correction. But I see no evidence whatever that Quesnel was denying that mentally challenged people could be saved (since he actually said that they should study and know the “spirit, the piety, and the mysteries” of Scripture, you can’t argue that he’s condemning the illiterate who could have Scripture read to them).

Actually that is precisely what one could conclude(among other things) from Quesnels statement ,if taken out of context, due to its ambiguity. That was my point, along with the fact that the reason for the condemnation remains unknown.

Contarini:

The question was …whether the study of Scripture was necessary for all Christians in such a way that restriction of such study was necessarily wrong. The Church’s position was that for some simple people, particularly in areas exposed to heresy, it was better not to read Scripture at all but rather to hear it explained in the Mass and to participate in popular devotions.

Outrageous? I think not.

Contarini:

That goes flatly against the teachings of the Fathers. It is in fact downright heretical. And the only way you can justify this statement is by trying to make it mean something other than, in its historical context, it clearly does.
Edwin

You are probably right, but I don’t think so. First off, no “statement” was made - only a condemnation of the statements made by Quesnel. Right? Could you sight an ECF in support of independent scripture study during a period of time deemed inappropriate by the Church? Or perhaps an ECF supporting independent Scripture study as superceding Church teaching? Again, I could be wrong - it wouldn’t be the thousandth time - but it seems like the condemnations occured in a climate that warranted caution.

Phil

 

[Mystophilus]

arieh0310:

I am currently a Protestant that is seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. One of the big reasons for my lack of faith in Protestantism is that the Catholic Church seems to have a better argument as to why the the Bible should be considered inspired. Can any Protestants offer a convicing argument why the Bible should be considered inspired?

Join the Catholic Church: unity is more important.

 

[Contarini]

mercygate:

I confuse absolutely nothing. Everything the Church says is taken down and used against her in evidence. To waffle on this would be to give the impression that the Church condones a view of humanity that is sub human.

But as it stands the Church is being accused of responsibility for the deaths of millions. The supply priest at my church gets livid about this. I regret getting into this discussion, because on the whole I agree with Catholic teaching on sexual morality. But since arieh specifically asked, I was trying to be honest in listing the few points where I do have questions.

Anyway, the Church’s strict stance is certainly being used against her. Of course a more pragmatic policy (following the lead of St. Thomas’s view of prostitution) would be used to show that the Church is “backing down” or is being inconsistent or something. But that doesn’t really matter–you couldn’t be vilified worse than you are already being. The question is what is the right position.

Edwin