Circular NFP reasoning

[jegow]

Princess_Abby:

As for how you and jegow are interpreting the Human Vitae paragraph he referenced, I’m not sure I understand your point. It says…paraphrased, “IF there are just reasons to avoid pregnancy, such as emotional, physical or financial issues, then use NFP to guage your fertility and abstain when fertile.” That means, if there are NOT just reasons to avoid, do not have the intention of specifically avoiding a pregnancy during a wife’s fertile period. That is precisely what I have been saying all along, so what is the problem?

If jegow is only pointing out that the majority of Catholics don’t follow that teaching…well, okay. But that does that make the majority right over the minority? No.

I realize that there must have been some confusion judging from your remark. I did not mean that majority rules in the sense that if everyone is doing it then it must be ok - I thought I was clear on that, sorry. In fact I totaly agree with what you say below - which honestly helps clarify what you were saying in post # 82.

Princess_Abby:

We are, however, asked to discern whether or not it is God’s will for each of our marriages to abstain or avoid during fertile time each and every month. If we have just reason to avoid, then doing so is considered perfectly right with God. If we don’t have any reason (emotionally, physically or financially), then we are called by the Church to give our fertility to the will of God, and He will decide whether or not to bless our marriages with a pregnancy.

I really do like your explanation.

jegow

 

[char34]

So IF the decision to to never use NFP is wrong, what are we to make of children born of a providentialist couple? Could that couple possibly have more children than God intended them to? I always thought God would not give us more than we can handle.

#1. A woman has a life threatening illness, and is told she should avoid children, but she doesn’t chart her cycles and decides to trust in God and conceives.

#2. Same woman, yet practices NFP, yet conceives anyway, since as we know (especially me) NFP doesn’t guarantee that anyone will not conceive.

So is the second situation more admirable than the first?

I am genuinely curious about this, as after reading a Christopher West article, he seems to feel providentialism is wrong, implying in one situation a couple would have been better off if their children were spaced more. I tend to disagree, God’s ways are not our ways, regardless of how much we might struggle in a certain situation
christopherwest.com/article4.htm

 

[Scott_Waddell]

char34:

So IF the decision to to never use NFP is wrong, what are we to make of children born of a providentialist couple? Could that couple possibly have more children than God intended them to? I always thought God would not give us more than we can handle.

#1. A woman has a life threatening illness, and is told she should avoid children, but she doesn’t chart her cycles and decides to trust in God and conceives.

#2. Same woman, yet practices NFP, yet conceives anyway, since as we know (especially me) NFP doesn’t guarantee that anyone will not conceive.

So is the second situation more admirable than the first?

I am genuinely curious about this, as after reading a Christopher West article, he seems to feel providentialism is wrong, implying in one situation a couple would have been better off if their children were spaced more. I tend to disagree, God’s ways are not our ways, regardless of how much we might struggle in a certain situation
christopherwest.com/article4.htm

Thanks for that article link. I don’t see him attacking providentialism per se, but a certain providentialists who attack NFP use.

Scott

 

[bear06]

This conversation goes far beyond NFP, etc. There is obviously a clear lack of understanding and belief in our Church. Until this is cleared up, this conversation will be “circular”. If one does not understand, believe, etc. the basics about the teachings of the Church, then what is the point of going on here? Quite frankly, the reasoning I’m seeing is quite protestant in nature. Truth doesn’t lend itself to situation ethics. Truth is truth.

I, too, am starting to fall under the impression that some don’t really want answers or, rather, they want answers that correspond more to their beliefs than truths. I just did a little research and find it quite funny that the two people in this discussion that have the most trouble with Church teachings have NEVER once asked the Ask an Apologist forum to answer their questions. You might want to try it since they would probably be able to site you source and scripture and explain the teachings far better than any of us part-timers. I know it’s been suggested and ignored before on other threads. Heck, you might even want to call in to Catholic Answers. They do have apologists ready to take your call!

I really don’t mean to be so blunt but it’s gotten to the point of spinning wheels from one thread to another. I hope and pray that those who doubt the Church will come to understand and I hope and pray that those who are being “tested by fire” will follow God’s will. We can sit here and go toe to toe with our Bible verses but, in my opinion, our interpretations and implementations of these verses only count in the light of Church teachings. Obviously this opinion can’t be shared by those who don’t believe in the Church’s teaching authority. Unfortunately, this little hitch is what sets us apart from the protestants.

Many prayers.

 

[jegow]

bear06:

This conversation goes far beyond NFP, etc. There is obviously a clear lack of understanding and belief in our Church. Until this is cleared up, this conversation will be “circular”. If one does not understand, believe, etc. the basics about the teachings of the Church, then what is the point of going on here? Quite frankly, the reasoning I’m seeing is quite protestant in nature. Truth doesn’t lend itself to situation ethics. Truth is truth.

I, too, am starting to fall under the impression that some don’t really want answers or, rather, they want answers that correspond more to their beliefs than truths. I just did a little research and find it quite funny that the two people in this discussion that have the most trouble with Church teachings have NEVER once asked the Ask an Apologist forum to answer their questions. You might want to try it since they would probably be able to site you source and scripture and explain the teachings far better than any of us part-timers. I know it’s been suggested and ignored before on other threads. Heck, you might even want to call in to Catholic Answers. They do have apologists ready to take your call!

I really don’t mean to be so blunt but it’s gotten to the point of spinning wheels from one thread to another. I hope and pray that those who doubt the Church will come to understand and I hope and pray that those who are being “tested by fire” will follow God’s will. We can sit here and go toe to toe with our Bible verses but, in my opinion, our interpretations and implementations of these verses only count in the light of Church teachings. Obviously this opinion can’t be shared by those who don’t believe in the Church’s teaching authority. Unfortunately, this little hitch is what sets us apart from the protestants.

Many prayers.

I couldn’t have put it better.

jegow

 

[javelin]

bear06:

I, too, am starting to fall under the impression that some don’t really want answers or, rather, they want answers that correspond more to their beliefs than truths. I just did a little research and find it quite funny that the two people in this discussion that have the most trouble with Church teachings have NEVER once asked the Ask an Apologist forum to answer their questions.

I’ll assume that I’m one of the “two people” that you are referring to. If it makes any difference to you, I have posted several questions to AAA, and they never deigned to answer them. I was also turned off a bit when it seemed that a good number of the responses were too short to really address the heart of the question asked, and with no chance to reply, there was little gained. So I gave up on that forum, at least for the time being. To be completely honest, I went solely to that forum for several weeks before participating anywhere else.

PLEASE trust me that I am not just looking for answers to justify my own beliefs. I have no trouble giving complete deference to the Church’s teaching on all issues. Really. What drives my questioning and co-called “nit-picking” on some threads is that I am surrounded in my life by people (like my wife and father, for example) who hit me with the same types of questions. I can say “I will do it becasue that’s what the Church teaches”, to which someone responds “but what the Church teaches doesn’t make any sense. It seems logicaly self-contradictory.” The Church’s teaching on contraception/sterilization is the issue that is most prominently in front of me right now, and while the Church’s stance is clear, the support for it (outside of “because I told you so”) is not.

Thanks in part to (name removed by moderator)ut from people on this forum, my understanding of exactly what the Church teaches, and why, has grown immensely, and for this I thank all of you.

The most difficult thing in all of this is that virtually no one other than the very orthodox truly believes in the infallibility of the Church, so in discussing with them we are either forced to prove that point first, or show strong evidence aside from the Church’s word that a teaching is true. I am trying to find the latter because I have found “proving” infallibility to be very difficult for a variety of reasons.

I am truly sorry if this discussion has gotten tiresome to anyone. I very much appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut from Princess_Abby and bear06, who it looks like I’ve managed to annoy. Please forgive me. Please forgive me. Please forgive me.

The bottom line for me is that I’m trying to save my family, which is why I started coming to these forums to begin with. It is terribly trying to feel like you are being pulled apart from your spouse, and some of these very issues are at the heart of the spiritual separation that is taking place. I honestly don’t know how much longer I can “hold fast”.

javelin

 

[Princess_Abby]

read your PM, javelin!

 

[bear06]

Here’s a little tip on the AAA forum. The first time I tried to post I hit the send button and it said it would take me to my post which was not there. Of course, I hit the send button again before I noticed that on THAT forum they will read the question before they let it go through. It is more moderated. If you double post, it’s automatically deleted. If this was not your trouble, Javelin, I’d call them on the phone and talk to them. This might also save some time on the follow up questions. If you do have a follow up question, you can PM them too and they will respond. I’d suggest that if they didn’t respond, that the devil is trying to thwart your efforts. I’ve been fortunate enough to have dinner with Fr. Serpa and I can tell you he’s a fountain of knowledge and can roll Church teachings and scripture off of his tongue like nobody. Far more knowledgable than I’ll ever even hope to be.

As far as your family goes, you’ve been given plenty of ammo on the two threads. If it doesn’t work for them, then probably your only recourse would be to the Holy Spirit. In all reality, it probably won’t work because if they as unorthodox as you say, they will certainly put their daughter/ daughter-in-law above the Church. You my, may be left to lone if for awhile. As a matter of fact, I’m sure the worst will be thrown at you especially the label “sanctimonious”. God promises you: Your reward will be great in heaven! Remind them time and again that you have your wife’s interests first and if you didn’t, you would be fine and dandy with doing anything the doctors prescribed.

Maybe you can even get them to call an apologist.

Always praying!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear bear06,

Thank you for taking the time to post on this thread.

bear06:

You’re stretching to hold to a ridiculous argument to which answers have been provided ten fold.

Perhaps. Maybe one of these times it will make sense to me. I may give up asking, but I won’t claim to understand something when I don’t.

If we followed your line of reasoning then we would be sinning everytime we had sex and didn’t conceive since this would be “spilling seed”. I fail to find one place in the bible where anyone was punished for having sex in a time when a woman wasn’t fertile or for avoiding sex when a woman was fertile.

I agree that if “spilling seed” is a sin, one might reach the same conclusions you have here, and that those conclusions are silly. That argument is not mine, however. I was responding to the assertion by johnnyjoe that barrier methods are bad because the sperm does not get where it naturally goes during intercourse. My point was that abstinence does the same thing, in that it prevents the little buggers from getting where they want to go.

In another thread (I think it was another thread anyway) one poster was trying to sell me on the “spilling seed” argument, based on a story in the OT where some dude was supposed to impregnate his sister-in-law, but used the withdrawal method to shirk his duty in that regard and was punished. My view on that is, first, that having intercourse with one’s sister-in-law is no longer acceptable, and second, he was being forced to have sex for the specific purpose of producing an offspring since his brother died without doing so.

I don’t think we can extend the “spilling seed” argument into current thinking, and apparently neither do you. Therefore, I submit that the fact that sperm don’t get where they are designed to go does NOT mean a sin has occurred. You have simply taken it to the next step and added the absurd but logical conclusion that the spilling seed argument (used by johnnyjoe and others) against barrier methods also would make sinful an act which put them at the right place but at the wrong time.

ABC works against a woman’s fertility. NFP uses a woman’s fertility. It does not deny a woman’s fertility nor does it try and alter a woman’s fertility which both go against Natural Law as God designed it.

Perhaps a slight rephrasing would be acceptable?

ABC works against a woman’s fertility. Some methods alter her fertility, while other seek to avoid consequences of her fertility.

NFP, when used to aviod pregnancy, works against a woman’s fertility by seeking to avoid consequences .

Potayto, potahto.

Alan

 

[bear06]

BTW Javelin, I have 5 kids, parents, in-laws and an awful bout of morning sickness, I don’t annoy easily. :whacky: The conversation just doesn’t seem to be going anywhere due to some fundamental issues. It seems those would need to be squared away first! I’m not sure what kind of arguments would work with your parents since, from what you’ve said, it seems like a basic adult catechesis is needed.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

princz23:

Has anyone noticed how Alan chooses to respond to posts that he thinks he can pick apart with his logic and ignores the others. It is my premise that he doesn’t want an answer, but he wants to argue. He did this with me in a previous post and then disappeared instead of finishing the discussion.

Dear Jennifer,

There are a number of reasons I don’t answer all posts. First and foremost, I simply cannot keep up with all of you. (puff, puff!) The question is, which ones?

Sometimes I see that others have answered in a way that I would have, so I let their words stand because I do not want to be repetitous or (believe it or not) monopolize the discussion when others are doing a good job.

I am not against getting an answer. Most answers, though, are rehashing some doctrinal ruling that doesn’t really explain the dilemma. Actually from what I’ve learned so far on this post, i.e. that NFP is only to be used in grave circumstances, then I have a stronger objection than my original one to the way I often see NFP promoted.

Do I like to argue? Sort of, but I prefer having a positive discussion without receiving vibes like I am a trouble maker or otherwise put into a defensive position. I never used to argue at all, but would give in because I was always compliant and tried to envision scenarios which made everybody else (especially authority figures) right at the same time. Finally I’ve grown the strength to stand up for what I believe, so although I may walk away from an argument, I won’t concede one unless the opposition actually beats me. To me it’s a matter of principles; I do not equate the number of pounds of rhetoric and the credentials of who put an argument together as definitive evidence the argument is sound. Believe me, I can and do switch sides in an instant, the moment I am convinced that I am arguing on the wrong side.

With all that said, if you generate or see a post to which you would like to see my response, please feel free to send me a PM because I probably missed it or thought somebody else had handled it.

Alan

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

I agree that if “spilling seed” is a sin, one might reach the same conclusions you have here, and that those conclusions are silly. That argument is not mine, however. I was responding to the assertion by johnnyjoe that barrier methods are bad because the sperm does not get where it naturally goes during intercourse. My point was that abstinence does the same thing, in that it prevents the little buggers from getting where they want to go.

Look Alan, I missed the other thread but I’m not sure what you are talking about when you are talking about “spilling seed”. If you’re talking about masturbation, it is a sin. If you’re talking about the natural sloughing off of sperm and egg then you are once again missing the point. In fact, this argument would be silly since that is an involutary action.

I think you are talking about the story of Onan who has MARRIED his brother’s widow but I’m not sure. Couple to Couple League has an excellent booklet called Birth Control and Christian Discipeship that shows many Bible verses to back up that birth control is bad with many of the reasons you are probably looking for. ccli.org/catalog/cclcatalog.phtml

 

[bear06]

Hmmm…Right now I’m wondering if you’ve called the apologist yet?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

This conversation goes far beyond NFP, etc. There is obviously a clear lack of understanding and belief in our Church. Until this is cleared up, this conversation will be “circular”. If one does not understand, believe, etc. the basics about the teachings of the Church, then what is the point of going on here? Quite frankly, the reasoning I’m seeing is quite protestant in nature. Truth doesn’t lend itself to situation ethics. Truth is truth.

Speaking for myself, there are questions I have of the Church. I have seen first hand how Church politics corrupt her teachings and practices on a local level, and I simply cannot buy that the Church is guaranteed to be in 100% agreement with God at any given time in her teachings.

If you want to preach to the choir, that’s fine. If you want some exercise at real discussion and at the same time convince a nerd like me that I’m wrong when I’m honestly trying to consider your arguments but finding they all have the same flaws so far as arguments I’ve heard so far, then by all means continue. At some point I’m probably going to give up, but at this point I see a lot of people who either have not understood any of the point I have been trying to make, or have not been admitting to it for reasons I can’t begin to guess.

BTW, as a reminder, the “circular” reasoning I was referring to was specifically the juxtaposed facts I have seen in NFP literature: 1) NFP is more effective than ABC at preventing babies, and 2) NFP is “open” to babies while ABC is not, so therefore NFP is more moral than ABC. So far nobody has effectively countered my assertion that this is circular or self-contradictory. That’s OK, though. I’m still learning a lot.

You might want to try it since they would probably be able to site you source and scripture and explain the teachings far better than any of us part-timers. I know it’s been suggested and ignored before on other threads. Heck, you might even want to call in to Catholic Answers. They do have apologists ready to take your call!

Keeping up with the part-timers is a full time job. I suspect if they had the time and cared about my issues it would be called to their attention.

I really don’t mean to be so blunt but it’s gotten to the point of spinning wheels from one thread to another.

We can sit here and go toe to toe with our Bible verses but, in my opinion, our interpretations and implementations of these verses only count in the light of Church teachings. Obviously this opinion can’t be shared by those who don’t believe in the Church’s teaching authority. Unfortunately, this little hitch is what sets us apart from the protestants.

First, I trust you are trying to be blunt. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

The entire issue here is that I am questioning some of the things the Church ostensibly teaches, or that is being taught in the name of the Church. When I see something that doesn’t make sense and ask about it, there are two ways to win me over; one, by explaining to me how the Church is right and I am wrong, or two, by clarifying her teachings and showing me that I have not properly perceived the things that seemed to conflict.

It is great that so many people have stuck it out thus far in trying to help me resolve this, but I will understand if you think it is of no value to you. Of course, the reasons it has gone this far may not have anything to do with me, so I’ll not assume that it does.

Alan

 

[Princess_Abby]

Alan,

Out of curiosity, what is it you hope to gain from this thread? At least at this point?

Javelin has a clear cut, very heartfelt reason for being here and gleaning any insight he can into the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals. I feel that you, on the other hand, seem convinced that you might be the one person to “uncover” the purported error of Church teaching. You’ve talked in previous posts about being the “one” to stand against “many.” We aren’t just talking about a handful of people here tossing around ideas, we’re talking about the wisdom infused by the Holy Spirit to the Holy Mother Church for the last 2,000 years of tradition! There is no error possible. Jesus instituted this Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If God HIMSELF put together the magisterium, how is it that you deign to even consider your intellect beyond that of God’s? I’m very curious. The Church is not an arbitrary, manipulative institution. They teach the objective truth of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Why do you object to NFP being used for only just reasons? Why do you believe it’s moral to chemically alter our reproductive systems? Why do you believe it’s moral to erect contraceptive barriers between spouses? What exactly DO you believe, if it clearly isn’t what the Church teaches?

Why call oneself Catholic if we do not believe the basic catechesis? Truly, why align oneself with that which one does not believe? Questioning is fine, but one must make a concerted effort to find one’s answers and truly listen to what those answers might be. I’ve reccommended both documents and books to you, but your response was that you are too slow of a reader and that you have many other books to read first…

I find that a poor excuse for someone who truly thirsts for the truth. Just MHO.

Abby

 

[bear06]

Nice try Alan! This is why people think you don’t want to really find out an answer. You are going around the AAA forum because you don’t have time?! No offese to the rest of us but we are neophytes compared to the AAA folks. You don’t ask a 10 year old a physics question when an engineer is standing next to you. If you truly want the right answers, you should start with them. If you’ve still go questions, then through it to the rest of us.

I think I’ve said it more than once that the only infallible teachings by Church authorities are infallible pronouncements by the Holy See, canonizations, and all teachings on Faith and Morals that are made by the Bishops IN UNION WITH ROME or made by the Holy Father himself. All others can be thrown out. I live in a particularly liberal diocese (thankfully a very orthodox bishop has just taken over) where priests and even our old bishop contradict Church teachings all of the time. This is why we need to look to Rome to make sure that the teachings are in union.

I don’t have a problem with asking questions but I think it’s quite a dangerous thing to try and help someone else when you admit that you don’t grasp the Church’s teachings on the issue. It is a VERY dangerous thing to take the stance that the Church is wrong or illogical. You might want to start from the position that YOU are wrong and illogical and try and prove yourself correct in this assumption. This would be called humility.

I, actually, don’t really want to engage in discussions of whether the Church is right or wrong or illogical or logical. I simply want to state the Church teachings as they are. I don’t engage in my private interpretation. It’s useless because it would probably be wrong and the Protestant Church is a perfect example of this!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Hmmm…Right now I’m wondering if you’ve called the apologist yet?

And ask what? I have nothing at stake here. I have six beautiful children, none of which were “planned,” and that suits me just fine. On another thread I had some comments for javelin but it is clear that javelin doesn’t need my (name removed by moderator)ut any more, if ever.

By the way, I have ZERO problem with NFP or with anybody’s decision to use it to have more or fewer babies. I was just bellyaching about how NFP is advertised. Now that I understand it is only to be used for “grave reasons” I am more incensed that so many articles I’ve read use flowery language to obfuscate that truth and pass it off as “Catholic birth control” while at the same time claiming that it isn’t. Now it makes sense to me, and I know how to read between the lines; clearly those marketing NFP classes know this but don’t overtly state it in their ads. The next time I read a magazine or newspaper article singing the praises of NFP, I’ll not only look for hypocracy but for obfuscation. Perhaps now that I understand better I’ll realize there isn’t any!

Alan

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

My point was that abstinence does the same thing, in that it prevents the little buggers from getting where they want to go.

Using that line of reasoning we would have to be having intercourse all the time to avoid being in trouble (sin). Not using the vehicle isn’t the problem it is how you use the vehicle that is the problem. Nothing is inherently or intrinsically wrong with a couple deciding to take a walk instead of participating in the marital embrace. However, using an artificial method of birth regulation violates the Natural and Biblical Laws along with the Apostolic Authority of the Church to guard and defend the above.

AlanFromWichita:

Perhaps a slight rephrasing would be acceptable?

ABC works against a woman’s fertility. Some methods alter her fertility, while other seek to avoid consequences of her fertility.

NFP, when used to aviod pregnancy, works against a woman’s fertility by seeking to avoid consequences .

Potayto, potahto.

Actually, NFP works with a woman’s fertility the way it is and ABC seeks to change the way fertility works. Humane Vitae does not call us to be open to life (aperto) but calls us to use procreation per se destinatus–as it is destined.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew Sauer
P.S. Many thanks to Janet Smith for her re-translation of the Latin text to English instead of relying on the Italian and French texts.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

I would agree that at times some people (fallible and not impeccable) do promote NFP in a way that appeals to the worldly selfish desires of people. I have seen many people come to classes my wife and I teach and seen hearts changed. I agree that NFP can be used selfishly but that is a side issue of selfishness versus the idolatry (in redefining God-Designed Fertility Cycle) of Artificial Birth Control.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Nice try Alan! This is why people think you don’t want to really find out an answer. You are going around the AAA forum because you don’t have time?! No offese to the rest of us but we are neophytes compared to the AAA folks. You don’t ask a 10 year old a physics question when an engineer is standing next to you. If you truly want the right answers, you should start with them. If you’ve still go questions, then through it to the rest of us.

Would you believe I’m shy and afraid to ask professional apologists?

I think I’ve said it more than once that the only infallible teachings by Church authorities are infallible pronouncements by the Holy See, canonizations, and all teachings on Faith and Morals that are made by the Bishops IN UNION WITH ROME or made by the Holy Father himself. All others can be thrown out. I live in a particularly liberal diocese (thankfully a very orthodox bishop has just taken over) where priests and even our old bishop contradict Church teachings all of the time. This is why we need to look to Rome to make sure that the teachings are in union.

You might be right, but I’ve been told on this forum by many that somehow I have to believe everything whether infallible or not; plus it’s difficult to ascertain what is infallible.

I don’t have a problem with asking questions but I think it’s quite a dangerous thing to try and help someone else when you admit that you don’t grasp the Church’s teachings on the issue. It is a VERY dangerous thing to take the stance that the Church is wrong or illogical. You might want to start from the position that YOU are wrong and illogical and try and prove yourself correct in this assumption. This would be called humility.

First, I make no bones about the fact that I am not speaking for the Church. See my signature as evidence of that; I have seen very few others who make similar disclaimers.

Second, I don’t take the stance that the Church is wrong or illogical, just that it is possible for her to be. On the other hand, it IS a very dangerous thing for her to claim to be perfect in her teachings. She may have all the authority, and she can excommunicate me, but that doesn’t mean it’s in her best interest or pleasing to God for her to do so. Just like the U.S. government has authority over me and can imprison me for any of a million complicated rules, but that doesn’t make it right.

I am a trained crisis counselor and one thing I have learned is empathy. Not sympathy, but empathy. Empathy is where you try to understand the other person’s point of view, and reflect it back to them. One thing I see that troubled me and caused me to jump into the original discussion with javelin and a couple others, is that rather than empathy, they faced a barrage of judgments and advice that clearly indicated they didn’t fully understand the situation. When a person is in trouble or seeking help, it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions before jumping to conclusions and throwing arbitrary semi-related Bible and Church teachings at the person.

Please don’t challenge me to a humility contest. I have no idea what your life circumstances have been, but I know what mine have been and I can assure you, I look at myself as no better than others. Better at certain things, perhaps, but not better overall.

I, actually, don’t really want to engage in discussions of whether the Church is right or wrong or illogical or logical. I simply want to state the Church teachings as they are. I don’t engage in my private interpretation. It’s useless because it would probably be wrong and the Protestant Church is a perfect example of this!

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I thought you were willingly posting to the thread I started. If you prefer I will refrain from responding to any of your posts. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. You are welcome to send me a PM at any time.

Alan