Church teachings you find difficult to swallow (even for practicing Catholics)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zaista
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zaista

Guest
Hello everyone! I’m new to this site and this is my first post. It’s “unfortunate” that I have to start off with such a controversial question but couldn’t help it. Well, I could but my curiosity to see the kind of replies I get, got the best of me.

QUESTION:1. What Church teachings do you find absolutely difficult to swallow and why?
** 2. If you had the power to change one church teaching/doctrine, what would it be and why?**

Please state whether or not you are a practicing Catholic or not

I suppose it would be polite to give my answers:

Q2. Teach teaching on oral sex and manual is a tough one for me. It’s not like I’m a sexual deviant chasing pleasure. I am a practicing catholic, 22 soon to be 23 and still a virgin, I’v given up masturbation, made a promise to save my virginity for my future wife when I was 16 and promised that I would not kiss again until my wedding day; so again, I am not a sexual deviant.

I just have a hard time accepting that oral sex is wrong, period. I know there has been some debate between some theologians and priest on the issue. From what I have gathered, church officials, priests, archbishops and cardinals seem to be saying that oral sex is still wrong even if it leads to a procreative act at the end.

I cannot fathom the thought of engaging in sex without ensuring my future wife gets at least one orgasm. It seems so selfish. I believe that a man should always ensure that his wife is pleased first, while engaging in marital relations. If you’re a guy it’s likely that you will “finish” long before she does. Some men have a refractory period of hours and still don’t get their wives to orgasm after ground 2 and 3 of marital relations. It seems like an unnecessary thing with red herring arguments against such acts. With marital relations there should be a balance between recreation and procreation.

Q2. I would allow the use of condoms for married couples who are at risk of spreading life threatening diseases like HIV, Hepatitis etc to an uninfected partner.

sorry for the typos. I’m in a hurry and need to get ready for Mass soon.
 
I thought oral sex was permissible if it ended in a procreative act?

Anyway, one of the only teachings I find hard to swallow is masturbation. I know, of course, that it’s wrong and why it’s wrong but I still don’t like it. The contraception teaching I actually have no issue with.

I also don’t like the Mass every Sunday obligation. Again, I get it and again, I understand but that doesn’t mean I like it.
 
First off, I am most certainly a practicing Catholic, loyal to the magisterium! 😃
Zaista said:
QUESTION:1. What Church teachings do you find absolutely difficult to swallow and why?
Click to expand...
Every one of them! The reason, of course, being my selfish human desire to reject our Lord (aka. concupiscence)
Zaista said:
** 2. If you had the power to change one church teaching/doctrine, what would it be and why?**
Click to expand...
None of them. I want to go to heaven! 😃
 
Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Relics … I think I need more knowledge to trust them … sometimes “according to tradition” just sounds like “according to human invention” …
 
1.Any type of foreplay that leads to procreation is fine as lomg as it leads to procreation and eoesn’t end with say oral sex to orgasm.
  1. Contraception is always condemned by the church because it does not leavew the door open to life. Once procreation is removed, anything becomes acceptable.
Good for you for saving yourself for marraige. I would like to see priests marry to answer your other question God bless you
 
MidnightSun12 said:
First off, I am most certainly a practicing Catholic, loyal to the magisterium! 😃

Every one of them! The reason, of course, being my selfish human desire to reject our Lord (aka. concupiscence)

None of them. I want to go to heaven! 😃
Click to expand...
Midnight Sun, I really liked your comment. 👍
 
@MidnightSun12: :hug1:

We cannot understand everything, but that’s why obedience is a virtue. The Church has Christ as Her head, is His body, and receives light from the Holy Spirit.

I like to think of each of us as the “sea” of this poem by Emily Dickinson.
“The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you: and they were afraid
Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters”

“Oh, Signor, Thine, the Amber Hand –
And mine – the distant Sea –
Obedient to the least command
Thine eye impose on me –”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“*And he turned the storm into a breeze: and its waves were still. *”
 
This, from the Catechism: 1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Things would sure be easier if we could just stop abortion preemptively by shooting the clinic staff.
 
  1. The Trinity. Why? Because I don’t get what three persons means in the context of one God. It it perhaps the most mysterious of the mysteries to me.
  2. I would be less restrictive in our burial requirements. There are other things I could pick, but that one sort of creeps me out. I’ll be dead, though, so I’ll have gotten over it by the time it happens. :cool:
I’m not interested in changing a doctrine, so I picked a legal thing, a practice. There’s a number of those I’d like to change, like how confirmation is handled. I am what most people would call a practicing Catholic.
 
MidnightSun12 said:
First off, I am most certainly a practicing Catholic, loyal to the magisterium! 😃

Every one of them! The reason, of course, being my selfish human desire to reject our Lord (aka. concupiscence)

None of them. I want to go to heaven! 😃
Click to expand...
Good answers. 🙂
 
Pug said:
  1. The Trinity. Why? Because I don’t get what three persons means in the context of one God. It it perhaps the most mysterious of the mysteries to me.
  2. I would be less restrictive in our burial requirements. There are other things I could pick, but that one sort of creeps me out. I’ll be dead, though, so I’ll have gotten over it by the time it happens. :cool:
I’m not interested in changing a doctrine, so I picked a legal thing, a practice. There’s a number of those I’d like to change, like how confirmation is handled. I am what most people would call a practicing Catholic.
Click to expand...
Which burial requirements? Do you mean cremation etc?
 
Zaista said:
Hello everyone! I’m new to this site and this is my first post. It’s “unfortunate” that I have to start off with such a controversial question but couldn’t help it. Well, I could but my curiosity to see the kind of replies I get, got the best of me.

QUESTION:1. What Church teachings do you find absolutely difficult to swallow and why?
** 2. If you had the power to change one church teaching/doctrine, what would it be and why?**

Please state whether or not you are a practicing Catholic or not

I suppose it would be polite to give my answers:

Q2. Teach teaching on oral sex and manual is a tough one for me. It’s not like I’m a sexual deviant chasing pleasure. I am a practicing catholic, 22 soon to be 23 and still a virgin, I’v given up masturbation, made a promise to save my virginity for my future wife when I was 16 and promised that I would not kiss again until my wedding day; so again, I am not a sexual deviant.

I just have a hard time accepting that oral sex is wrong, period. I know there has been some debate between some theologians and priest on the issue. From what I have gathered, church officials, priests, archbishops and cardinals seem to be saying that oral sex is still wrong even if it leads to a procreative act at the end.

I cannot fathom the thought of engaging in sex without ensuring my future wife gets at least one orgasm. It seems so selfish. I believe that a man should always ensure that his wife is pleased first, while engaging in marital relations. If you’re a guy it’s likely that you will “finish” long before she does. Some men have a refractory period of hours and still don’t get their wives to orgasm after ground 2 and 3 of marital relations. It seems like an unnecessary thing with red herring arguments against such acts. With marital relations there should be a balance between recreation and procreation.

Q2. I would allow the use of condoms for married couples who are at risk of spreading life threatening diseases like HIV, Hepatitis etc to an uninfected partner.

sorry for the typos. I’m in a hurry and need to get ready for Mass soon.
Click to expand...
  1. I am a sinner.
  2. not a teaching/doctrine thing but there needs to be more disciplines reinstated like fasting 12+ hours before communion and beautiful music in church etc…
Shalom
God bless
 
We don’t need any changes in doctrine or practice, what we need is better teaching of what we have.

People need to know that Hell is not just a town in Michigan.

JMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA
 
I am not a Catholic (practicing or otherwise). But here are my things
  1. Protestants are not the Church. I understand the reasons for saying this, and in an ideal world, I’d probably agree wholeheartedly. But as it stands, I have met too many good Protestants who seem to represent the Church too well, but remain Protestant by choice, for me to agree with this issue.
  2. I don’t have expertise in Catholic doctrine, so I can’t make an educated opinion. But I might think that the Church should (re?)instate the office of the deaconess.
 
GEddie said:
Which burial requirements? Do you mean cremation etc?
Click to expand...
I do not wish to be buried, interred, left on the bottom of the sea, etc. I understand on some intellectual level that many Catholics find these dispositions of the body to be evidence of respect. But these things impact my emotions in a negative way and I don’t wish them to happen to me, nor do I wish to have to do them to my husband. But I will.
 
DaddyGirl said:
I love Dickinson, but that poem always confused me…] Does the sea have a choice to conform? Hard to tell. Does it know the difference? Hard to tell.
Click to expand...
I am not too much into poetry :blushing: someone who was once read the poem to me and it remained engraved in my heart ever since. She knew a lot about this, I don’t.

However yours is a good question even in “my” metaphorical sense: does the “sea” have a choice? That is, is it really a choice to disobey God? 🙂 And if God commands something, can anything or anyone prevent His will from being done? :rolleyes:
 
None of the issues that I have questions about have any direct impact on me in real life, so I can’t say that there are any “difficult teachings.” There are a lot of things that I don’t really understand properly, but nothing “difficult” in the sense that I can’t live my everyday life in what I would consider to be a normal way. I am subject to the same temptations as the rest of the human race, but I also know how to go to Confession, so for me it’s not a huge issue.
 
Taestron said:
I am not a Catholic (practicing or otherwise). But here are my things
  1. Protestants are not the Church. I understand the reasons for saying this, and in an ideal world, I’d probably agree wholeheartedly. But as it stands, I have met too many good Protestants who seem to represent the Church too well, but remain Protestant by choice, for me to agree with this issue.
  2. I don’t have expertise in Catholic doctrine, so I can’t make an educated opinion. But I might think that the Church should (re?)instate the office of the deaconess.
Click to expand...
  1. Wrong. All the baptized are the Church. However, the Church subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with Him. Even those whose baptism is invalid or who are not baptized are mystically related to the Church - though not as formal members - in ways known only to God, for it is part of the wisdom of Sacred Tradition (you know, the one denied by protestantism) that “Deus non alligatur sacramentis”.
  2. There has never been a “deaconess” as someone with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. What we have received with that name was probably a very specific sort of ministry different from what today we call deacon. Nowadays Holy Church has allowed greater participation to the extent that She understands to have authority, but the Church has no authority to extend the Sacrament of Holy Orders to women. Their role and ministry in the world is different from the role and ministry of men. Only men receive the vocation to ministerial priesthood. Women may experience a similar calling - as, f. ex. st. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, mentioned at one point - but they fulfill their vocation through different paths. Let us not forget that the mother of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, had the holiest life a woman could have, and we do not read that she ever preached or went with the apostles performing healings or other signs…we do not find her alongside her son during His ministry like the Apostles…yet she was always near His divine son, in prayer. It was by her intercession that Christ filled unborn John the Baptist and his mom Elizabeth with the Spirit. It was by her intercession that Christ performed the first miracle. Her apostleship of prayer was one most hidden in Christ, for it is written that “the least shall be the first”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top