Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[PRmerger]

You are correct. No one has made that specific argument and I was not suggesting thy had.
I was merely trying to point out that regardless of how extensive Church teaching is, and no matter how well we learn church teaching, there comes a time when “Conscience” must enter the picture.
That is all.

Peace
James

I would only add the slightest tweak to the above: conscience must enter into the picture in all moral decisions we make.

 

[PRmerger]

To me, these matters reflect the need for a very careful walk with the Lord. If one goes too far one way, they become too “Lax”, too “comfortable”, too “presumptuous”. Go to far the other way and they become too “Legalistic”, too “Scrupulous”, too Pharasitic, too judgmental.
The one gives the conscience too much authority and ignores the need for “good formation” while the other gives the conscience too little authority and ignores the fact that the faith is a living breathing thing.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus ministry was to take “The Law” and make it alive and personal again.

Peace
James

Well articulated!

 

[Ubenedictus]

A lot of posts to answer. Whew. I think I’ll start with this last one to James.

I reject that God requires conforming our views to the Church. He may require me to do what the Church says to do (like Jesus told His followers to do) but do NOT act like them. And why not? Is it because they are so academic and judgmental and protective about their wonderful rules that they know the words that need to be spoken but they do not have any personal experiences to have the human empathy to truly be in communion with Christ?
I SORRY, I DON’T UNDERSTAND ARE U ACCUSING THE CHURCH OF ALL THAT?, ARE U EQUATING HER TO THE PHARISEES.
We’re trying to figure our way out of the situation. And there seems to be this presupposition that every single issue we encounter every minute of our lives is covered in detail in one way or another by Church teachings, and that if we only are clever and persistent enough, we can calculate the right thing to do.
THAT PRESUPPOSITION IS NOT CORRECT

Why did Jesus even send the Holy Spirit? How can the Holy Spirit guide us when our ego can’t let go of the false notion that it can calculate definitively from documentation, every single response that every person who ever lives should have to each and every possible stimulus. That’s crazy talk, and believe me I know crazy talk when I hear it.

One way is to advance until you are reborn in the Spirit.
NOW I’M CURIOUS, ARE U A CHARISMATIC? Then you will not sin, and you don’t need to know rules in advance to know what’s right to say or choose, as you get your head out of the way and let the Spirit guide you by the heart.
HERE IS A PROBLEM THE SPIRIT HAS A UNIQUE PLACE IN MY LIFE BUT I KNOW MANY WITH DIFFENT ‘SPIRIT LEAD’ VIEWS IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS, WHICH IS CORRECT? Here I NEED D CHURCH. You just have to quit using the carnal mind as a prophylactic against intimacy with God by raising shields to interfere with true learning, healing, and renewing that requires a fully open mind and heart to receive.
U MAY ALSO HAVE A MISINTERPRETATION OF D THAT INTIMACY
Think of this. God didn’t put us here to serve the Church. THE CHURCH IS D BODY OF CHRIST SO I SHOULD SERVE GOD, WORK 4 MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS (MEMBERS OF CHRIst body) So I’M SERVING THE CHURCH IN A SENSE JUST AS PAul diD. We alsO RENDER SERVICE
God put the Church here to serve us.
YES
We support the Church, but we’re the reason for it, not the other way around.
YES

The Divine Creator punished the entire human species because one man tried to do what we are doing here. We think that our knowledge of the Scripture and dogmatic obedience to it is going to get us into the kingdom, and that’s rubbish. KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION.
The Bible clearly speaks the opposite. For example, knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is hidden from the wise and learned, but know to little children. So what do we do? We keep trying to be more like the wise and learned and look to them for to figure out things with great complexity. What I want to know, is if honest scholars are a loggerheads for generation about what a particular teaching means in any given situation, is how do we pick which exclusively right answer that is the only answer, do we pick? (Hint: consider dualistic v. non-dualistic thinking.) I CAN ALSO SAY ON WHO REJECT HIS PARENT TEACHING IS NOT A GOOD CHILD BUT BEHAVING LIKE D WISE AND LEARNED

Again, the Church is not God, she is supposed to point us toward God. An arrow pointing to heaven, as one book is called. I accept the Church as a teacher and as a guide, but not as a commander. If we are the Body of Christ, and the Church is our bride, then aren’t we supposed to be the heads of households?
I THINK CHRIST IS D HEAD.
That makes sense, because the Church wouldn’t exist except for many people loving her and passionately giving their lives to her. So we are in charge of the Church in this world, not the other way around. CHRIST HELPS US 'GIVE OUR LIVE 4 D CHURCH. WE ARE NOT IN CHARGE HE IS AND WHAT HE SAYS GOES.

But with authority comes responsibility. If we are in charge of the Church, then we are also responsible for her failures. But I can’t be responsible for something over which I have no authority. Now remember, God told women to be subject to men, but for men to love their brides the way Jesus loved His bride. Duhh. We’re part of His body. That’s why we honor martyrs; no greater love for the church is there than to give your life for her?

Alan

i didn’t mean to be rude but christ said ‘he who hears u hears me’ he gave the church (and not theologians) that authority and because we hear him thru d church we should conform to her 'cos it follow that he who conform to what she says conform to to christ. Our conscience guided by the holy spirit guides us in making our everday actions but that is not a guarantee of infalliability, (contd)

 

[Ubenedictus]

We misinterprete , judge according to our standards,etc. That is why a well form conscience is needed.( i think thats one of d works of of the holy spirit)…we have to surrender to that same spirit constantly at work in the church, since we don’t have the infalliable guarantee of a perfect guidiance thru our conscience then we should thru the help of the holy spirit follow the alway right guidiance of the church.
Hope i didn’t lost u, it seems i used the word ‘holy spirit’ too much .
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I just can’t see Jesus standing 10 feet in front of me, telling me to my face, “Alan, tell your daughters that if they should sin, they should never use a condom because it offends Me enough that I’d rather see them at higher risk of being killed.” How about telling me, “Alan, you MUST vote for this candidate for governor because the pro-life organization said they were pro-life, even though they may have done untold damage to the condition of states they governed previously”

Sorry. Just can’t get either my head or my heart to buy into that. :nope:

Maybe the Church doesn’t exactly teach these things if you dig deeply enough, but you couldn’t prove it by anything I see posted much around here.

Alan

i remember vaguely there is a king,saint name louise whose mother said ‘i rather that u die than se u commit one mortal sin’ u may say she was too strict but her son and her self did become saints. Physical death is not the problem spiritual death is the real problem. Tell ur children NEVER to fornicate, IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. The principle of the lesser of 2 evils does not work. U don’t do what is wrong so that good will come of it. U should tell someone to commit sin to aviod the consequence of his/her sin. Now i see why it is said that he who reject one catholic doctrine reject all other because he call the authority that define them into question and has become a church unto himself. The same thing protestants do. Contraception is a sin and so is fornication tell your daughters not to fornicate so they have no need to contracept, that is how to be a good mother.
I’m sorry for been judgemental, trying to teach u your vocation and comparing/equating u with protestants. I’m sorry for anything i didn’t say charitably, i hope u get the point i’m trying to make, i have no intention to be uncharitable. Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Ubenedictus

 

[Jocko_VT]

i remember vaguely there is a king,saint name louise whose mother said ‘i rather that u die than se u commit one mortal sin’ u may say she was too strict but her son and her self did become saints. Physical death is not the problem spiritual death is the real problem. Tell ur children NEVER to fornicate, IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. The principle of the lesser of 2 evils does not work. U don’t do what is wrong so that good will come of it. U should tell someone to commit sin to aviod the consequence of his/her sin. Now i see why it is said that he who reject one catholic doctrine reject all other because he call the authority that define them into question and has become a church unto himself. The same thing protestants do. Contraction is a sin and so is fornication tell your daughters not to fornicate so they have no need to contracept, that is how to be a good mother.

Ubenedictus

Allow me to place a related, but different example.

A married couple.

One contracts HIV after they are married (how is irrelevant, but let’s just say it’s accidental, as with a health-care worker who is exposed on the job somehow).

Based on the reasoning above (and I concede that it’s consistent with the Church), the only options are A) accept with 99.9 percent certainty that both spouses will eventually end up HIV positive, or B) forgo sex altogether. Is this correct?

What is not an option is the use of condoms, which provide a “high degree of protection” against the transmission of HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

It’s a difficult spot. I’m guessing a marriage without sex will be difficult for the typical couple, and a difficult marriage is more likely to end in divorce. Thus, forgoing one sinful option actually sets one up for other sinful options–a bit of a Catch 22.

Likewise, it’s one thing to tell your children that it’s a sin to have sex outside marriage, and to encourage them to follow the teachings of the church; but it’s another, I think, to put them in a situation where they are at greater risk if they turn out to be pretty typical human beings, and do indeed have sex outside of marriage. Thus, we bank on our children being pretty unusual, and we don’t really fill them in on options like condoms, and we don’t get them vaccinated against HPV, and we accept the consequences that they will likely be at a higher risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease–which may increase the risks of several types of cancers if they contract HPV, in males and females–and the risk of pregnancy outside of wedlock.

Again, quite a conundrum.

 

[PRmerger]

Allow me to place a related, but different example.

A married couple.

One contracts HIV after they are married (how is irrelevant, but let’s just say it’s accidental, as with a health-care worker who is exposed on the job somehow).

Based on the reasoning above (and I concede that it’s consistent with the Church), the only options are A) accept with 99.9 percent certainty that both spouses will eventually end up HIV positive, or B) forgo sex altogether. Is this correct?

What is not an option is the use of condoms, which provide a “high degree of protection” against the transmission of HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

It’s a difficult spot. I’m guessing a marriage without sex will be difficult for the typical couple, and a difficult marriage is more likely to end in divorce. Thus, forgoing one sinful option actually sets one up for other sinful options–a bit of a Catch 22.

Likewise, it’s one thing to tell your children that it’s a sin to have sex outside marriage, and to encourage them to follow the teachings of the church; but it’s another, I think, to put them in a situation where they are at greater risk if they turn out to be pretty typical human beings, and do indeed have sex outside of marriage. Thus, we bank on our children being pretty unusual, and we don’t really fill them in on options like condoms, and we don’t get them vaccinated against HPV, and we accept the consequences that they will likely be at a higher risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease–which may increase the risks of several types of cancers if they contract HPV, in males and females–and the risk of pregnancy outside of wedlock.

Again, quite a conundrum.

I understand the conundrum and have posted on this on different threads.

One poster gave a response that made me go

It went something like this (although he was much more eloquent, to be sure): it’s all well and good to say that someone else (usually it’s brown or black people in this discussion) ought to be permitted to use condoms when engaging in the marital act with a HIV infected spouse. That sounds right, and perhaps even noble.

But when you take it to a more personal level it’s more difficult to say, “I’m quite comfortable telling my daughter to use a condom when engaging in the marital act with her HIV positive husband”, knowing that condoms are quite ineffective in preventing transmission of HIV. It’s fine to tell some people thousands of miles around the world to use a condom as the lesser of two evils…but when it comes to my own family, I’d be much more reluctant to risk a loved one’s LIFE with something so precarious as a thin latex barrier that probably won’t stop a DEADLY virus from infecting my loved one.



IOW: would you have sex with someone with AIDS and use a condom?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I understand the conundrum and have posted on this on different threads.

One poster gave a response that made me go

It went something like this (although he was much more eloquent, to be sure): it’s all well and good to say that someone else (usually it’s brown or black people in this discussion) ought to be permitted to use condoms when engaging in the marital act with a HIV infected spouse. That sounds right, and perhaps even noble.

But when you take it to a more personal level it’s more difficult to say, “I’m quite comfortable telling my daughter to use a condom when engaging in the marital act with her HIV positive husband”, knowing that condoms are quite ineffective in preventing transmission of HIV. It’s fine to tell some people thousands of miles around the world to use a condom as the lesser of two evils…but when it comes to my own family, I’d be much more reluctant to risk a loved one’s LIFE with something so precarious as a thin latex barrier that probably won’t stop a DEADLY virus from infecting my loved one.



IOW: would you have sex with someone with AIDS and use a condom?

1st: Condoms ARE effective. cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

You can ignore the CDC, but the burden is on you to show that condoms "probabily won’t stop HIV.

Certainly, they’re not guarantee, but I’d have a lot of trouble telling my sons to forgo sex with their HIV-positive wives since it’s a sin to use a condom, simply because I know that a sexless marriage is a difficult marriage for the average person.

The race card doesn’t really work here. I’m actually talking about *us *and our children, not the “brown people” elsewhere.

IOW: would you have sex with someone with AIDS and use a condom?

My example had to do with a spouse rather than just “someone.” My answer at this point is an absolute YES. Were I to convert–which it seems is virtually inevitable at this point–I’d find myself in the situation where I can A) use a condom, and commit a sin, but have a pretty good chance of remaining HIV-negative (it’s all a numbers game of course, the probability each time goes down with the use of a condom), B) forgo sex for the rest of my life, or C) have unprotected sex, guaranteeing I’d also become HIV positive.

Are only the means a moral issue? Are not the ends a moral issue? In other words, if I do something, or encourage something, which I know will have an immoral consequence, does that not make my action immoral, regardless of the morality of the means?

 

[Ubenedictus]

http://bestsmileys.com/party/5.gif
Not even the scholars can say that, for at least two reasons I can think of.

1. no one human being can possibly learn them all, much less internalize them, in even 100 lifetimes. We need to assign priorities.

[Probably most of the teachings don’t even apply to any given one of us, so we must find those that apply and which don’t. Why does it matter what we believe about those which don’t? For example, why must I understand and agree to Church teachings on homosexuality when I have neither expertise or experience in the matter and never had any inclination toward it – so that I can judge my brothers for their behavior? Why must my children hear about contraceptives when they are 7 years old and sitting in the pew? And we wonder how children lose their innocence?]

1. the scholars don’t understand it. They operate from an intellectual level, so it is no wonder that they believe being correct is more important than being loving and kind to others who may be wrong about something – or maybe they are not wrong but we think they are.

Some day we are going to have to have a thread dedicated to these:

Matt 11:25

At that time Jesus said in reply, “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike."[/IN

Childlike. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, you must be “childlike” to enter the kingdom. That’s right. Hmmmm… is “childish” close enough? Maybe I have a chance
Alan
​

i don’t know why but i don’t share share the view that the churchs teaching is so complicated that one can neither learn nor live them in a life time. I think u should learn about homosexuality because as a christian instructing the ignorant is your work, teaching christ way for others is our job and we need to learn it and agree with it to teach it, this is why u should agree with the church teaching on homosexuality. I think the next sentence is about the advantages of children mass, u can’t say the priest should stop teaching about d immorality of contraception besides if your children donot hear about it in the church they will hear it in the school, from u or their pairs and boyfriends or the TV, u choose. The sholar may be accused of insensitivity but not the church, i can’t think of one teaching without love.
Childlike also means submisive, obedient, …etc.
Ubenedictus
[/quote]​

 

[PRmerger]

1st: Condoms ARE effective. cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

Fair enough.

You can ignore the CDC, but the burden is on you to show that condoms "probabily won’t stop HIV.

Has anyone here even mentioned the CDC and ignoring it?

My example had to do with a spouse rather than just “someone.” My answer at this point is an absolute YES.

I absolutely respect this opinion. If you are willing to risk getting AIDS while engaging in the marital act, then I would have no problem with your arguing that use of condoms in African countries between married folks where one spouse is infected with HIV ought to be permitted.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Allow me to place a related, but different example.

A married couple.

One contracts HIV after they are married (how is irrelevant, but let’s just say it’s accidental, as with a health-care worker who is exposed on the job somehow).

Based on the reasoning above (and I concede that it’s consistent with the Church), the only options are A) accept with 99.9 percent certainty that both spouses will eventually end up HIV positive, or B) forgo sex altogether. Is this correct?

What is not an option is the use of condoms, which provide a “high degree of protection” against the transmission of HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

It’s a difficult spot. I’m guessing a marriage without sex will be difficult for the typical couple, and a difficult marriage is more likely to end in divorce. Thus, forgoing one sinful option actually sets one up for other sinful options–a bit of a Catch 22.

Likewise, it’s one thing to tell your children that it’s a sin to have sex outside marriage, and to encourage them to follow the teachings of the church; but it’s another, I think, to put them in a situation where they are at greater risk if they turn out to be pretty typical human beings, and do indeed have sex outside of marriage. Thus, we bank on our children being pretty unusual, and we don’t really fill them in on options like condoms, and we don’t get them vaccinated against HPV, and we accept the consequences that they will likely be at a higher risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease–which may increase the risks of several types of cancers if they contract HPV, in males and females–and the risk of pregnancy outside of wedlock.

Again, quite a conundrum.

there is a high posibility that the above incident will never happen beside i don’t know the church position on this (u may want to fill me in on this one) this couple certainly have a big cross but no contraception will do it for them even if they use contraception it will be a matter of time be4 they share the virus. So the real options are 1) contact the virus 2) abtain from sex. The other case is not so hard no fornication no contraception. If the youths ventures into the unknown then he/she will meet the unknown. ‘He who eats the forbiden apple should be ready to leave eden and toil’.
Ubenedictus

 

[Jocko_VT]

Has anyone here even mentioned the CDC and ignoring it?

I said this:

What is not an option is the use of condoms, which provide a “high degree of protection” against the transmission of HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

In your reply, you said this:

knowing that condoms are quite ineffective in preventing transmission of HIV

and

that probably won’t stop a DEADLY virus

 

[PRmerger]

there is a high posibility that the above incident will never happen beside i don’t know the church position on this (u may want to fill me in on this one) this couple certainly have a big cross but no contraception will do it for them even if they use contraception it will be a matter of time be4 they share the virus.

This is, I think, a correct assessment.

So the real options are 1) contact the virus 2) abtain from sex. The other case is not so hard

:sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

I said this:

In your reply, you said this:

and

Yep. And now that you’ve given me the info from the CDC why ask if I’m ignoring it?

Your post was one and the same in which you first offer the info then presume I’ve ignored it. Curious, given that I can’t ignore that which I haven’t read yet.

 

[PRmerger]

In your reply, you said this

Just a note of clarification to all readers: the “reply” that Jocko quoted was NOT in response to the CDC reference, but was actually made PRIOR to his reference to the CDC website.

 

[Jocko_VT]

there is a high posibility that the above incident will never happen

I’ll bet it’s happened many, many times already!! I know for a fact that people are exposed to HIV accidentally.

beside i don’t know the church position on this

I don’t either. I’m assuming that using condoms is forbidden even in this example, though.

So the real options are 1) contact the virus 2) abtain from sex. The other case is not so hard no fornication no contraception.

This just dodges the question. Don’t make it about condoms. It’s the principle that matters. Let’s say there *IS *a contraceptive that just happens to be 100 percent effective at preventing the spread of *all *disease. It would, because it’s a contraceptive, not be allowable in the example I provided. It still places one in a difficult situation. When the cross you carry puts you at higher risk of one sin, whereas another sin will eliminate that increased risk, it’s problematic.

If the youths ventures into the unknown then he/she will meet the unknown. ‘He who eats the forbiden apple should be ready to leave eden and toil’.

In this case, it’s certainly better to use the condom. You’re venturing into the unknown, but you’re protecting yourself from a certain set of knowns, at least. I know that’s not your intended message, but it’s in there.

Regardless, no matter how one rationalizes the problem, it’s still a problem. Saying, “well, they’ll reap what the sow,” doesn’t actually solve the problem.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a note of clarification to all readers: the “reply” that Jocko quoted was NOT in response to the CDC reference, but was actually made PRIOR to his reference to the CDC website.

READERS! I retract the above statement.

Mea culpa.

Indeed, Jocko did post a reference to the CDC, which I missed (not ignored, however).

Thus, he is correct in asking why it would appear that I am dismissing scientific evidence of condom protection.

It has been pointed out to me that the above post makes Jocko appear to be a schmuck. To that I heartily apologize.

The error is mine. All mine. :imsorry:

 

[JRKH]

i don’t know why but i don’t share share the view that the churchs teaching is so complicated that one can neither learn nor live them in a life time.

Well I can tell you that I have looked into a couple of the Marion Dogma’s and frankly got a headache. I accept them on the authority of the Church but I do not understand them.
Now - Whether that is because they are complicated, or because I am not smart enough…I dunno…
Likewise, one of the great doctors of the Church, and a name often mentioned, St Thomas Aquinas likewise causes me to go…:hypno::hypno::yawn: I just can’t follow the depth of his reasoning. Again…Is it because it’s complex? Or is it that I am not smart enough?
That’s a rhetorical question by the way…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Allow me to place a related, but different example.

A married couple.

One contracts HIV after they are married (how is irrelevant, but let’s just say it’s accidental, as with a health-care worker who is exposed on the job somehow).

Based on the reasoning above (and I concede that it’s consistent with the Church), the only options are A) accept with 99.9 percent certainty that both spouses will eventually end up HIV positive, or B) forgo sex altogether. Is this correct?

What is not an option is the use of condoms, which provide a “high degree of protection” against the transmission of HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

It’s a difficult spot. I’m guessing a marriage without sex will be difficult for the typical couple, and a difficult marriage is more likely to end in divorce. Thus, forgoing one sinful option actually sets one up for other sinful options–a bit of a Catch 22.

Well - Let me posit this for your consideration…

1. Assuming that the couple is devout, then God is at the center of their lives and they would not wish to offend Him or separate themselves from Him. For such a couple, using a condom simply would not be an option - based on Love.
2. If I were the party who had been infected, and assuming I Love my wife with all my heart (which I do), then why would I want to endanger her in any way??
   For me to wish to engage ins sex, even using a condom, is less safe for my wife than abstaining from sex altogether…
   Again - Abstaining is the better option - Based on the most Loving Choice.

The problem that I see with many of these scenario’s is that they are written in a way that presumes that abstinence is not an option. I wonder why that is?

Peace
James

 

[AlanFromWichita]

i remember vaguely there is a king,saint name louise whose mother said ‘i rather that u die than se u commit one mortal sin’ u may say she was too strict but her son and her self did become saints. Physical death is not the problem spiritual death is the real problem. Tell ur children NEVER to fornicate, IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

If you have daughters, make sure they haven’t taken any training by the police on what to do if attacked. Make sure they know you would rather they die than be attacked, because that’s not what the police will have told them.

I don’t care if the Church says my daughters are saints or not; I do not wish them to be killed. They are already saints as far as I’m concerned whether the Church recognizes them or not.

Moreover, my wife was attacked before I knew her, and raped. If you had been able to coach her, you would have deprived me of my wife, six wonderful children who went K-12 in Catholic school, the oldest who just became the Grand Knight of the KOC at age 25 – so yeah you would have eliminated us from having a new Grand Knight, turning the power structure of the parish upside down as my “parish political” arch nemesis of 20 years resigns as GK after grooming him and then he quit and his friends nominated and elected my son – to the delight of those in all major cliques. You would have denied our pastor from being ecstatic upon hearing the news, and unraveling his plans that the past GK stonewalled. In Matt’s first meeting as GK two days ago, he instituted a new rule for the first time in KOC history at this parish, we will say a rosary before the meeting. So Monday night we would not have had a prayer meeting with about 30 attendees who have never prayed a rosary together before. Nice move, Matt, especially since every Knight receives a rosary that we are supposed to have with us at all times.

Oh yes, you would have deprived our parish of five cantors, six altar servers, and three lectors. Oh, and then there was the girls whose life my daughter saved – she would have been dead, too.

And my new son-in-law would not have a wife.

:crying:

So you see? All I have to do is call my wife St. Julie, and now instead of being dead and costing all that money for the Church to research her, she has given life to me, six children, and a wife to our new son-in-law. Let the Church recognize someone else as saint; we are all different parts of the body and I am happy with whichever one I am (dare I ask) and then when I’m done the Lord will let me know what I did. I’m going for, “well done My good and faithful servant.”.

The principle of the lesser of 2 evils does not work. U don’t do what is wrong so that good will come of it. U should tell someone to commit sin to aviod the consequence of his/her sin.

Well, then you try telling the Church. I happen to agree with her teachings on this, so I have no desire to tell the Church her principles are faulty.

Oh, she may not call it that, but that’s what it is in essence. For example, someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

So there she goes, giving exceptions for “thou shalt not kill?” Or not?

Now i see why it is said that he who reject one catholic doctrine reject all other because he call the authority that define them into question and has become a church unto himself.

That’s easy. I can even become a church unto myself, and enthusiastically embrace 100% of Catholic teachings if I want – that’s what free will is about.

But I am confident I can embrace one teaching of the Church while rejecting another. I’m doing it in my mind right now. Hmmmm… Hmmmmm… j/k

There is one thing, though, about becoming a church unto myself that would help me retain hope if I were to make the changeover. I can do that and still remain Catholic, and in fact the Church teaches that I can do nothing other than remain Catholic even if I try. How great is that?

Contraception is a sin and so is fornication tell your daughters not to fornicate so they have no need to contracept, that is how to be a good mother.

Agreed. Father also.

I’m sorry for been judgemental, trying to teach u your vocation and comparing/equating u with protestants. I’m sorry for anything i didn’t say charitably, i hope u get the point i’m trying to make, i have no intention to be uncharitable. Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Ubenedictus

No problem at all. I see you are sincere, and I hope I wasn’t to flippant with my responses. I think I’ll leave them as is, though, so I can get this posted sometimes this year.

Alan