That’s a loaded question. It’s like asking why the teaching against genocide is so widely and consistently rejected since many people who go against it do not see it as a sin.
My question would be why was it rejected after being consistently regarded as Truth for so long? Now I’m sure Hokomai would then say well we just got smarter and discarded old notions, but I would argue that we disregarded the Truth in favor of even older notions back in the Pagan days. Our approach to sex in the modern day is nothing new and to all purposes is actually a step back. There is nothing progressive about the mainstream view of sex today at all and I would actually call it regressive.That’s a loaded question. It’s like asking why the teaching against genocide is so widely and consistently rejected since many people who go against it do not see it as a sin.
Why do you think morals should be judged solely by the people who disregard it?
Well, yes - this would be an excellent question about genocide, given (just one example) the history of Catholic Croatia. A difference would, I suppose, be that there is scriptural support for genocide (Joshua, Jericho to cite but one), but none for contraception.That’s a loaded question. It’s like asking why the teaching against genocide is so widely and consistently rejected since many people who go against it do not see it as a sin.
Why do you think morals should be judged solely by the people who disregard it?
I’ve argued all day long on this forum and elsewhere that on a parish level, many Catholics never receive any form of instruction in Catholic theology, and that’s why many Catholics view certain teachings as arbitrary and tyrannical, for the same reason a child doesn’t understand why he has to go to bed earlier than he wants to, or why he’s not allowed to eat without washing his hands first. When those children are educated, they no longer kick and scream about following these rules.
This is absolutely true. I am trained in statistics and understand polling methodologies. I have designed focus groups for private industry. Many of these polls are very flawed.
eweytruman12.jpg
Needless to say, they got more careful and knowledgeable about polling after that. ]You might want to check out the poll and the methodology used to conduct it. Their definition of “Catholic women” is pretty narrow. That’s the issue.
I’ll assume this was addressed to me, as the OP.
On just about every metric I have seen measured, the Catholic population as a whole tends to mirror the US population, on most every topic. Not precisely of course, but it is a pretty safe bet that if the US population support something at x%, the Catholic population as a whole will be withing a few percentage points. There are exceptions, but I do not think birth control use is one of them. And I agree, 98% is a silly number to claim are actively using, but as the study claim, 98% probably have at one point or another, which is pretty close to the general population. Makes sense.
Lol possibly but it is incredibly dishonest to use it as a stat with any meaning. It would be like if we were having a discussion on drugs and I said “drugs should be legalized because 98% of people have used some kind of drug before in their life”.
I agree but you’re missing part of the point. Since Catholics aren’t damned for eternity for a single sinful misstep, and since repentance is such a central theme of the Catholic faith, compiling statistical information on women whom have EVER used birth control is bordering on meaningless.
What is your problem with simple posts I make? Is ANYTHING I said inaccurate? I didn’t say “drugs should be legalized because 98% of people have used some kind of drug before in their life”! The question is if the “98%” figure is valid. I said it was only accurate in a specific sense, but my opinion is that birth control usage among Catholics is consistent with the general population. It is incredibly dishonest of YOU to put words in someones mouth!
Relax…as to the claim of dishonesty, I think he was referring to the organization that authored the study, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, or the liberal pundits recycling the pseudo-fact.
Well, I do think I understand that point. Which is why I was speaking only to credibility of the stat, which I think I was clear on. Regardless, I agree with you.
Ahhh, could be. My bad, Nate has been following me and disagreeing else where. Too feisty.
Redacted… need to sleep…
Lol I was semi agreeing with you actually in my post. My point was against people in the news who are using it as if it means something. I was not insinuating that you were doing so, although if that is what you thought I was doing forgive me for that was not my intention.
I was in those threads first! Your following me
NO! You’re all following me. But I’m following somebody else.Lol I was semi agreeing with you actually in my post. My point was against people in the news who are using it as if it means something. I was not insinuating that you were doing so, although if that is what you thought I was doing forgive me for that was not my intention.
I was in those threads first! Your following me