V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
If they wanted to reject Church teaching they don’t need to do that, I think its more bad reading comprehension and rashness.
Last edited:
Mark121359
Well-known member
I don’t believe that to be the case. There’s no reading comprehension problems or misunderstandings. They understand quite clearly what the CCC is stating. My belief is that many just simply flat out reject it.
S
sealabeag
Guest
I agree that this is possible. But people can interpret anything incorrectly. I would have nothing against the Church coming out with a more plainly spelled out teaching on this issue. My issue lies with those who seek to soften the language, to obscure the clarity, often out of a desire that the teaching itself be changed. Maybe in this day and age when the issues of sexual morality are so divisive and so misunderstood or outright rejected, it would be a good idea for the Church to issue a document laying it out clearly. But in all honesty it is my impression that those who accept Church teaching will accept it, regardless and those who will reject it will reject it, regardless.
O
OraLabora
Guest
ISTM that most who “accept” Church Teaching on this subject, are not, themselves, homosexual; unless we are actually tempted by the sin we so gleefully condemn in others, we have no idea how hard it is to overcome. Walk a mile in their shoes. So it behooves us to deal with our own sins, primarily. The splinter in your eye and the log in mine and all that.
C
camoderator
Guest
Thanks. We followed up earlier today.
S
sealabeag
Guest
That is true, since homosexuals or people with same-sex attraction are a minority in the population and therefore in the Church too, but that fact - that most who “accept” (why the quotation marks?) Church teaching on that issue are not themselves homosexual, is kind of irrelevant. I’m sure that most who accept Church teaching on adultery are not, themselves, adulterers.
Who here has gleefully condemned it?
Don’t assume that there are none here with same-sex attraction. There are, and many of them adhere to Church teaching on the issue.
Of course!! Our own souls are our primary concern. But that doesn’t mean that, as Catholics, if we see Church teaching being confused, attacked or rejected, we should just hold our tongues.
Last edited:
P
Polak
Guest
Ah yes I forgot to give you some links for this.
This is specifically for Germany but I do believe I have seen a similar investigation for other nations with similar findings.
From the article
The John Jay Report showed that 80.9% of alleged abuse victims in the United States were male.
There is also an article somewhere with a graph that shows a correlation between the increase of gay clergy in the Catholic Church and an increase in sexual abuse. I can’t find it for now. I think someone posted it here a while ago actually. These things are obviously extremely controversial in today’s world and you won’t find anybody talking about it in the mainstream, in fear for their reputation and livelihood.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Is it true that the language against artificial birth control for married couples has been softened somewhat or is it still taught that the use of ABC is gravely wrong and can send you to eternal damnation in hell even if you have 5 children and are experiencing financial problems? In the local Catholic parish, just about everyone, perhaps 90% or more, go up to receive Holy Communion, and yet there are reports that a majority of married couples use some form of ABC even if they do not have that many children?
The Church does not say that someone is “sent” in hell. The more she can said that She believed some people are in peril of loosing their salvation, (particularly) the people who are excomunicated.
It was more in the past that She use excomunication for keeping people in the fold by making them afraid of hell.
Sorry if it is written with the not appropriate teological words, but you have the idea. The Church does not teeach people will go to hell for using ABC.
But that does not mean that contraception is right. It is a grave disorder in the use of bodily functions and sexuality that cannot be separated artificially from the procreative end. So we can say it is gravely wrong.
Having 5 children is not an excuse to use contraception. We are not rewarded by the number of children we have. Some people will naturally have a small number of children.
Using natural family planning method - self observation of woman’s fertility and periodical abstinence is possible. And usually effective for the majority of couple.
The Catholics who are practicing seriousely their faith tend to have more children than others, but they followed more or less the tend of their respective country. A Catholic couple in a country with an average of 1,7 children by woman would be more likely to have 2, 3 or 4 children than 8 or 10. The people who are more Catholic by culture or only practicing in their parish without any more rescherch or personal implication will followed the standard of the society- birth control and number of children included.
It was more in the past that She use excomunication for keeping people in the fold by making them afraid of hell.
Sorry if it is written with the not appropriate teological words, but you have the idea. The Church does not teeach people will go to hell for using ABC.
But that does not mean that contraception is right. It is a grave disorder in the use of bodily functions and sexuality that cannot be separated artificially from the procreative end. So we can say it is gravely wrong.
Having 5 children is not an excuse to use contraception. We are not rewarded by the number of children we have. Some people will naturally have a small number of children.
Using natural family planning method - self observation of woman’s fertility and periodical abstinence is possible. And usually effective for the majority of couple.
The Catholics who are practicing seriousely their faith tend to have more children than others, but they followed more or less the tend of their respective country. A Catholic couple in a country with an average of 1,7 children by woman would be more likely to have 2, 3 or 4 children than 8 or 10. The people who are more Catholic by culture or only practicing in their parish without any more rescherch or personal implication will followed the standard of the society- birth control and number of children included.
I would more said that the topic is not treated unless you are involved personally on some church group such as in charismatic communities, youth groups etc. Outside your sunday obligation and mass.
Last edited:
S
Salamandrina
Guest
Was anything said to the ones she sinned with…they surely being as guilty as she? (Or is it “we don’t know who they were”)?
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
You seem to be assuming that it is an insult to say someone has a psychological disorder. I have two of them (depression and anxiety), and I am grateful that they are now recognized so that I can receive help.
People can disagree on what is and is not a disorder, but it is not shameful to be saddled with one. Would you refrain from calling a diabetic “diabetic” because some people might say the term is insulting?
George Carlin had a great bit about people who like to change words (he goes from “shell shock” through “battle fatigue” and up to “post-traumatic stress disorder”) and how the word-changers suffer from the delusion that changing the terms will change the condition.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Labelling has its downside though. Labelling someone a diabetic (a label that cannot be undone even if the diabetes is reversed through diet and exercise) has a very serious impact on someone’s life, especially when it comes to obtaining insurance. For me even though I’m well-controlled without insulin, it cost me my pilot’s licence; the cost of “proving” I was healthy enough to fly (I was), was just too prohibitive. After doing it once, I balked at having to do it every year so I let my licence lapse. Moreover, the criteria for a diabetes diagnosis has gotten lower and lower over the years; 20 years ago I would not have been considered diabetic.
Mental disorders are also part of the aviation medical screening process. So labelling is not such an innocent act, and should not be taken lightly.
Fortunately labeling gays as “disordered” now has no traction in the scientific and secular world. If it did the discrimination against them would be even worse. You can get a pilot’s licence of you’re gay, but you will have a lot of trouble if you have depression and anxiety issues and are taking medication for it.
So while there is value in coming up with a diagnosis if one is truly ill so that a suitable treatment can be prescribed, coming up with a label if one isn’t, is, IMHO, not such a great idea. And gays are by no means ill, mental or otherwise, just because they’re gay.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
“Labelling” is an interesting word to choose when describing the proper medical term for a condition (diabetes). Exactly how are we supposed to communicate without clear terms?
The term did not cost you your license. Bureaucracy, ignorance, greed, and the fact that life is unfair are what did it. But, of course, it is much more difficult to fight the first three and embrace the cross of the last than it is to demonize words.
And that’s how it should be. Even if one believes that same-sex attraction is a disorder, that disorder would not in any way, shape, or form interfere with one’s ability to fly a plane. On the other hand, depression and, especially, anxiety just might do so.
Changing words does not change the facts. Changing words hinders communication and makes life more difficult for everyone.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Diabetes is a diagnosis. It is used to recognize and treat a condition. It becomes a “label” when it sticks with us regardless of the outcome of the treatment. I lost 40 pounds since diagnosis, and so far have cycled over 5000 km this year. For me it has made my diabetes far more controllable, so I still “suffer” from the condition. Actually no suffering at all as I only take two pills a day for it. But some who do what I did (in my case it is hereditary) are merely diabetic because they’re overweight. They lose a ton of weight, as I did, and their sugars go back to normal and they need neither insulin or other medication.
Yet they are still considered “diabetic” by insurance companies, employers, etc.
That’s when it becomes a label, when it goes beyond the reach of the medical outcome.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
Again, it’s not the word - it’s bureaucracy, ignorance, and greed. If you change the word, those forces will simply react the same way to the new word - plus people will become confused about what words mean what.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It’s not the word, it is the process of labeling using the word, or any word. My beef isn’t against the word… it is against labeling.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
But you are defining the use of the word as labeling. It is not labeling. It is speaking with the correct vocabulary.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No I’m defining labeling as stigmatizing. It doesn’t matter which word is used.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
Does “term” = “labeling” to you?
O
OraLabora
Guest
No. Misuse of term, beyond its intended scope. Using the diabetes example:
Diabetes = diagnosis
Diagnosis leads to treatment program.
In rare instances, treatment program can lead to “cure” (getting rid of obesity, for example can cure some cases).
Therefore, diabetes “diagnosis” now replaced with “cure”.
The problem is when, even after that, insurance companies for example, continue to apply the term “diabetes” to you even though your blood sugar has been normal for a long time without medication. And either deny you insurance because of it, or substantially increase your premiums.
Question to those in the US, do pre-existing conditions affect your health care premiums or insurability with private insurance under Obamacare? Just curious. With government health care in Canada, a diabetes label doesn’t affect your health insurance, but certainly will affect your ability to obtain life insurance.