Church's intervention

[Pag_Hingowa]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

I would say that they are blessed by the Catholic part on giving the partner the best for of sex possible, coupled with a NFP.
Pills? Take the desire on women.
Condoms? Like taking shower with an umbrella, for men.
I abstain from talking about the others, like abortion.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

Hi Pag;

The way the question is worded seems to suggest that the Church’s teaching on contraception is an arbitrary opinion among many, hence ‘prejudicial’. But no one would accuse the Church’s teaching against rape, for example, as being ‘prejudicial’ to rapists or against murder as being ‘prejudicial’ to murderers.

Contraception is objectively morally wrong. This is not just one opinion among many. Hence, to teach that contraception is wrong is the moral duty of the Church, regardless of people’s feelings on the matter or what other religions might say.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hokomai]

The question is if it is right for the Church to seek legislation against the provision of contraception (until recently defeated in Ireland), to oppose the provision of tax-funded services involving contraception, or aid programmes involving contraception. There is an obvious distinction to be drawn with abortion in that a true contraceptive prevents conception, so there is no (potential) human involved. I think that where the issue is one of morality dependent on religious thought, religions should not impede others by the power of the state, or seek to use democracy to prevent others living freely as they wish. I think it is rational to consider the unborn either citizens or potential citizens and that it is not simply a moral question, but one for the state. I do not feel that any such argument about contraception is valid. Within reasonable financial limits, the state should provide no impediment, and support, citizens’ free exercise of their morality about the limitation of birth. Catholics who oppose this view undermine the strength of the argument about abortion, which is then seen as a purely moral argument, and not one about the rights of (potential) citizens.

 

[puzzleannie]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

since the Catholic Church makes no dictate as to the actions of non-Catholics and in any case they would not obey her even if she tried, why would you even ask this? If artificial contraception is harmful and sinful in its very nature, it is harmful and sinful because it violates natural law, a law God put in place, not the Catholic Church. If it has harmful effects, those effects will ensue no matter who uses it, no matter why, and regardless of what any church says or does not say.

That is like asking why, if the Catholic Church says murder is a sin, she is not violating rights of non-Catholics in some way. Someone who is murdered is still dead, and there still is harm to society no matter what the church says about it.

 

[ardis3958]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

I don’t see what religion has to do with contraception. Contraception is a Natural Law issue, not a religious issue. Just because the Catholic Church speaks out on Natural Law doesn’t mean it’s trampling the rights of other religions. There is no right to contraception, regardless of your religion.

 

[Rence]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

I don’t have much of a reaction to it because the view that contraception is evil is purely a Catholic teaching, and non-Catholics are not going to obey it. The US government is not going to hinder other people’s rights contingent on the teachings of the Church because it represents all people, not just Catholics. Different religions have different teachings on birth control, and in the US they all have the freedom to practice their religion and live by the guidelines of their religion. Muslims and Jews can use contraceptives within specific guidelines, and of course Protestants are not opposed to it either.

Everyone, including Catholics, have the right to vote and to lobby for those things that are important to them. So Catholics who want Contraceptives to disappear are within their rights as citizens to lobby for those changes. But the rest of America is doing the same, and they won’t let that happen. They like having sex, they don’t want to have 12 kids, they like having sex without consequences, NFP has a very poor reputation, they’re not about to abstain, and married folks generally think abstinence between a married couple is ridiculous, so contraception is not going to just go away anytime soon. In fact, the government, in response to its citizens lobbying to make contracetpives more accessible, is doing just that, not the opposite.

I think the Church and Catholics should work towards getting more compliance within the Church before branching out to try and get non-Catholics to comply with Catholic teachings. In other words, the majority of Catholics are using artificial birth control and those folks should be the focus of the Church and other Catholics moreso than non-Catholics. But again, they’re within their rights to lobby and vote for those things that matter to them, like anyone else.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

since the Catholic Church makes no dictate as to the actions of non-Catholics and in any case they would not obey her even if she tried, why would you even ask this? If artificial contraception is harmful and sinful in its very nature, it is harmful and sinful because it violates natural law, a law God put in place, not the Catholic Church. If it has harmful effects, those effects will ensue no matter who uses it, no matter why, and regardless of what any church says or does not say.

That is like asking why, if the Catholic Church says murder is a sin, she is not violating rights of non-Catholics in some way. Someone who is murdered is still dead, and there still is harm to society no matter what the church says about it.

Because like what Rence said the view that contraception is evil is purely a Catholic teaching, and non-Catholics are not going to obey it. And if this principle does not exist, we might just have religions fighting with each other once again. So they argued that the State must take a neutral side, that’s why we have this principle.

 

[Bezant]

In the case of contraception, what is your reaction on the argument that the rights of non-Catholics are being prejudiced by the Catholic Church’s intervention along the way, not minding that there are several religions, not just one?

When this counterargument comes up, I also notice people tend to want to silence the Church’s argument altogether. You’ll be surprised that the most “progressive” people imply they want to strangle freedom of speech.

So I remind him / her, that provided freedom of speech the Church’s allowed to argue/criticism/support any matter in favour of/against another, even if it sounds like nonsense. And the Church’s allowed to do all of this, while assuming that it’s The Truth. Furthermore, while you don’t have to accept that the Church is The Truth, it’s argument is at least worthy of fair consideration, even if it sounds ugly.

 

[Castello]

Only one religion is true.

 

[Bezant]

Only one religion is true.

The problem is that your opponent doesn’t believe that. Since converting him to Catholicism is an unlikely shot, and philosophical debates over whether there’s only one truth will take ages, ages, and ages, it’s better IMO to gauge his opinion arguing that everyone’s free to speak, and the Church’s position is at least worthy of consideration.

 

[Bezant]

I think the Church and Catholics should work towards getting more compliance within the Church before branching out to try and get non-Catholics to comply with Catholic teachings. In other words, the majority of Catholics are using artificial birth control and those folks should be the focus of the Church and other Catholics moreso than non-Catholics.

I agree with you particularly here.

The Church has always been an awkward balancing act–it most both be the Light to the World, and it has to sort out its own internal issues.

IMO, the contraception matter’s where the Church is better turning inward than outward.

 

[thistle]

Because like what Rence said the view that contraception is evil is purely a Catholic teaching, and non-Catholics are not going to obey it. And if this principle does not exist, we might just have religions fighting with each other once again. So they argued that the State must take a neutral side, that’s why we have this principle.

The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church established by God and given authority by God in matters of faith and morals. It cannot make mistakes in teachings of faith and morals. The fact that non-Catholics do not believe such teachings is their problem because they are wrong.
This is an 85% Catholic country and its frankly ridiculous for Catholic politicians to support anything that contradicts a Church teaching.
If I had the authority I would declare all Catholic politicains supporting this Bill to be excommunicated.

 

[Bezant]

The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church established by God and given authority by God in matters of faith and morals. It cannot make mistakes in teachings of faith and morals. The fact that non-Catholics do not believe such teachings is their problem because they are wrong.
This is an 85% Catholic country and its frankly ridiculous for Catholic politicians to support anything that contradicts a Church teaching.
If I had the authority I would declare all Catholic politicains supporting this Bill to be excommunicated.

Imagine telling a married, non-Catholic couple who contracepts: “Sorry, but artificial contraception’s a moral sin and you’re putting your soul in danger. What’s a moral sin? It severs your relationship with God. You only need one to condemn you to hell. How do I know this? Because the Catholic Church says so. Yeah, I know you’re not Catholic, but it doesn’t matter because it’s your problem you don’t believe in the Church. How do I know the Church is right? Because it was established by God, of course and it can’t be wrong on matters of faith and morals…”

Do you think that’s an effective approach, even if it’s the only approach in your mind?

 

[thistle]

Imagine telling a married, non-Catholic couple who contracepts: “Sorry, but artificial contraception’s a moral sin and you’re putting your soul in danger. What’s a moral sin? It severs your relationship with God. You only need one to condemn you to hell. How do I know this? Because the Catholic Church says so. Yeah, I know you’re not Catholic, but it doesn’t matter because it’s your problem you don’t believe in the Church. How do I know the Church is right? Because it was established by God, of course and it can’t be wrong on matters of faith and morals…”

Do you think that’s an effective approach, even if it’s the only approach in your mind?

I repeat that this is a Catholic country. The vast majority of politicians are Catholic. They must never pass laws that contradict the teachings of the Church. If they do so that is at their own peril because they will have committed a grave sin and in my view should be excommunicated.
What also seems to have been forgotten in this entire debate is that condoms and other forms of contraception are available. They are not illegal here in the Philippines so non-Catholics have access to them.
The Bill being proposed is to encourage Catholics on a wide scale to use contraceptives. That is the evil of this Bill. Catholic politicians are rejecting Church teachings to encourage Catholics to contracept and thereby encourage Catholics to commit a grave sin.

 

[cho_pilo]

The arguments goes…

What also seems to have been forgotten in this entire debate is that condoms and other forms of contraception are available. They are not illegal here in the Philippines so non-Catholics have access to them.

But the ultra-poor women don’t. It is them that the RH Bill seeks to benefit…

The Bill being proposed is to encourage Catholics on a wide scale to use contraceptives. That is the evil of this Bill. Catholic politicians are rejecting Church teachings to encourage Catholics to contracept and thereby encourage Catholics to commit a grave sin.

And how about the non-Catholics? We are going back to that very issue (again and again). What about the choice of women not to give birth? We give too much emphasis on how evil it is yet we don’t know how these women go through with it. I can’t imagine life without sex. If priests can go through without it, not everybody can. Just to quote what Dean Raul Pangalangan said:

Let us debate the real issues. I am sure the Filipino clergy will find enough supporters, myself included, in its campaign to reassert the primacy of ethical perspectives, but they will have to junk their 15th-century notion that sex is inherently evil and is justified only if it is for the purpose of reproduction. They must attune themselves to the modern sense that sex is a way by which couples

express their deepest human feelings and by which the most meaningful human bonds are affirmed.

From opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080926-162946/The-clergys-all-out-war-on-contraceptives

For goodness’ sake, let us not limit these women’s Freedom of Expression by telling them to abstain. Allowing couples to avail FPMs that are not abortifacient is a win-win solution because:

1. It satisfies man’s urges and needs (Sex is a basic human need according to Maslow)
2. It is a form of expression. To limit it is to restrict the fundamental right of Freedom of Expression
3. Allows couples the freedom to choose the size of their families (remember that sources are scarce)
4. No killing happens. Life begins at fertilization
5. The effect is substantially the same as the Natural FPM (which the Catholic Church allows)

 

[davidv]

The arguments goes…

But the ultra-poor women don’t. It is them that the RH Bill seeks to benefit…

How is encouraging others to sin a benefit to them?

And how about the non-Catholics?

What about them? Sin knows no religious affiliation boundries.

We are going back to that very issue (again and again). What about the choice of women not to give birth?

When they choose to have sex, they give up their right to choose not to give birth.

We give too much emphasis on how evil it is yet we don’t know how these women go through with it. I can’t imagine life without sex.

Too bad. You are missing out on a lot of life.

If priests can go through without it, not everybody can. Just to quote what Dean Raul Pangalangan said:

From opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080926-162946/The-clergys-all-out-war-on-contraceptives

For goodness’ sake, let us not limit these women’s Freedom of Expression by telling them to abstain.

What’s wrong with abstaining?

Allowing couples to avail FPMs that are not abortifacient is a win-win solution because:

1. It satisfies man’s urges and needs (Sex is a basic human need according to Maslow)
2. It is a form of expression. To limit it is to restrict the fundamental right of Freedom of Expression
3. Allows couples the freedom to choose the size of their families (remember that sources are scarce)
4. No killing happens. Life begins at fertilization
5. The effect is substantially the same as the Natural FPM (which the Catholic Church allows)

License to commit evil encourages slavery to that evil. Self mastery and self control are doorways into a fulfilled life.

 

[cho_pilo]

How is encouraging others to sin a benefit to them?

How is RH Bill designed to encourage women to sin? That may just be one of the “incidental” effects of the bill.

What about them? Sin knows no religious affiliation boundries.

Only if that sin is universally considered as a sin. Plus, don’t impose morality on others.

When they choose to have sex, they give up their right to choose not to give birth.

That is not recognized by our laws. The Catholic Church does not mention rights, it mentions “sin.” Yes, it is a sin to have sex (w/o procreation), but it is not prohibited by our laws.

Too bad. You are missing out on a lot of life.

hahah. No. premature judgment. My life is wonderful. It is also a fallacy to attack the person of the one you argue with. And yes, let’s just ask the women if they need/want it or not. It is them to which this law would directly affect, not anyone, especially the Church

License to commit evil encourages slavery to that evil. Self mastery and self control are doorways into a fulfilled life.

Wut? Prove.