How the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is interesting to see the Church criticized in this way. The former Soviet Union had time to develop their workers’ paradise and failed.
 
Honestly, to make this claim lacks Church history.

I think the Church is a lot better than it has been before. During the time of the reformation, thousands of monks and priest had concubines, then we had Pope John XII who was allegedly killed when he was committing adultery.

With St. Paul VI’s prophetic stand against contraception in his writing of Humanae Vitae, we’re well grounded in teaching against the sexual revolution. Also, remember that the Anglican Church allowed contraceptives in 1930, and we should also look to Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii, which is a response against that decision.
 
Within 24 hours after the publication of Humanae Vitae “an event unprecedented in the history of the church” occurred. This saw the launch of a large scale attack against Church teaching and sexual morality that continues to this day. Is the present better than in 1968? It’s far, far worse.
 
edwest211 said:
Within 24 hours after the publication of Humanae Vitae “an event unprecedented in the history of the church” occurred. This saw the launch of a large scale attack against Church teaching and sexual morality that continues to this day. Is the present better than in 1968? It’s far, far worse.
Click to expand...
The Church is seeing religious persecution as a result of it now. Priests going to jail because of hate crimes. You can believe that individual Catholics are being persecuted and pressured into using contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion these days. It’s pretty bad indeed.
 
He was hardly the first one to say it. Erasmus was pretty severe about Rome’s behavior, and he remained a Catholic in good standing.
 
There were others yes, but that still doesn’t make them correct. None of those whe came before Luther were given the authority from God to interpret Scripture either.

Erasmus backed off on the protestant revolt when he saw what was happening.

The real heroes of that time were the saints of the counter reformation. Like St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Terea of Avila. They worked in the Church, not trying to destroy the Church.
 
Last edited:
Once so-called mainstream society rejects a certain number of things, the alternatives involve inventions and novelty, which, we are told, must be accepted. Just make it a point to not participate.
 
The point is there were legitimate complaints to be made, which th Council of Trent at least partially conceded. But Luther said nothing that 1500 years of Christian thinkers had said before. There were plenty of warning shots that the German princes were unhappy with Rome.
 
Luther came up with his own ideas and it doesn’t matter how many people had the same thoughts before him or followed him. They did not receive divine revelation from God. The number of people thinking something still does not make it true.

As I said earlier the true heroes were those who worked in the Church during the counter reformation. They were the true reformers.
 
There wouldn’t have been a council of Trent without Luther. If the church had listened to reformers like Erasmus, there wouldn’t have been a Luther.
 
Sure you can. I watched as something like condoms were a secret if you were out of high school. They were like girlie magazines that were literally sold under the counter. Then, thanks to the promotion of false freedoms, the burden for contraception was shifted onto women, and promoted heavily. I saw the graphics for a new contraceptive: two young women with their arms bent and stern looks on their faces. I think men should look up the data sheets for the most used contraceptives. Read about the side effects.

Peer pressure will never go away, but Catholics can choose not to participate in contraceptive culture.
 
The Church obeys God, not man. God directs the Church, through Scripture and Tradition. Not mans ideas.
 
Last edited:
So it’s your assertion that the Council of Trent had nothing to do with the Reformation?
 
niceatheist said:
I have no idea what an “authentic human” would look like.
Click to expand...
Here’s two:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
niceatheist said:
I have no idea what an “authentic human” would look like. Luther pretty firmly believed that Rome was in the wrong, both in its acquisition and use of temporal powers and its theology. He was hardly the first to say that, and in fact I’d regard Luther is just Augustine 2.0.
Click to expand...
The topic is the “1960s” not the “1500s” so very briefly: Luther, an ordained priest, broke his vow of obedience and was not excommunicated until he professed and taught heretical views and refused to recant. The Church was in the world in the 16th century and in need of temporal reforms primarily in the discipline of it hierarchy. It was Luther’s theological error that cost him his position. Unlike Luther, St. Augustine remained faithful to his vows and worked within and with the Church rather than outside and in opposition to the Church.
niceatheist said:
Locke was trying to formulate an ideal society where religious differences could exist side by side, by pulling the state right out of the religion business entirely. He was the most significant influence on the US Founding Fathers. But for that to work, it means rulers can’t just fall back on “God says so”, but have to have rational justifications for any law. It also means that differences of opinion, even deep-seated differences have to be tolerated, and considering we are all humans, we are all going to have some pretty significant views on certain matters.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not the OP. And I’m unsure of what the point is for introducing Locke.

Wrong ideas ought not be tolerated but the people who hold them should. It would be scandalous to tolerate contradictory theories in science

In the 1960’s, the era in question, the Catholic Church did not impose its beliefs, only proposed them. Still does. In the 1960’s the Catholic Church did not hold for monarchs over republics.
 
Very well said. At the time, anger was directed at anyone who opposed “alternative lifestyles.” Some people were telling others to live a certain way, in opposition to societal norms. Now, decades later, the results are clear: destruction of families, destruction of relationships and turning sex into two dogs mating in an alley. At least the dogs are doing what is proper to them.
 
The council of Trent was to clarify Church teaching and correct those who were committing errors in the Church. It wasn’t about lining Church teaching up with the revolters. The protestant revolt was about destruction of the Church but as someone else said, this thread us about the 1960s.
 
Ed, you make it sound like guns were being held to peoples heads!

Yes, ideas and experimental lifestyles were all the rage but no one was forcing anyone to live in a free love commune. The Church was speaking against these ideas but it was the people that were rejecting society norms. So, where and how did the Church fail? Why were they unable to stop the immorality and leaving the Churches in droves? If people were listening to the Church, they didn’t leave. Why weren’t they listening?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top