The progression of society

[St_Francis]

So,*to summarize. The technological progress has been, and will be, creating more and more occasions for immoral behavior. If humanity has to avoid the catastrophe, the human morality must develop in line with technological progress.

Morality does not change, so I can’t imagine what you mean by this.

Teaching morality is the job of the Church. However, the progressing moral decay is evidence that the Church is failing in this role. The fact that the Church is interested in legislating the morality of the flock through a state law *(i.e. thou shalt not vote for pro-choise politicians) proves that the Church is aware that it is failing in its primary mission and tries to compensate by other means. However, the Church has yet to recognize that the prohibition route is a dead end, and the return to its core mission is needed.

Yes, education is important. But what is more important is holiness, personal holiness. I bet that at least 85% of people, not just Catholics, in the US know that the Church teaches birth control is wrong. It’s not like the media doesn’t lambast the Church every time they get a chance. And yet many Catholics (that 98% claim, btw, is based on a ridiculous survey by the AGI, a branch of PP, which excluded many Catholic women) go against Church teaching. I don’t think ignorance is the problem here but simply a preference for following society’s teachings over the Church’s, and the Church cannot be blamed for that.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Hence, the Church persist in a mixture of hypocrisy and obstinate denial of reality (like resorting to calling the 97% figure into question).

Truly, if God exists and is just, the judgement of these in black robes will be very harsh.

1. You can call it hypocrisy, but for every time you claim that 97% of Catholic women have used contraception, I can find a thread on this site that proves otherwise. If you deliberately don’t count all the women who practice NFP, all those who are virgins, all those who aren’t sexually active, all those who want to get pregnant, and all those who are pregnant… then the number is much lower.

Furthermore, you’re throwing around this “97%” figure around so frequently that you don’t even know what it is. It’s billed as how many Catholic women HAVE USED contraception, AND it doesn’t count all FIVE of those grounds of women that I listed. But, on these forums alone, there are a lot of women who once used contraception when they weren’t practicing, didn’t know the Church’s position, or before they converted. And they don’t now.

However, the person that asks them the question just asks something which amounts to: “have you ever used contraception before in your life”. How does that translate into supporting its use?

1. You aren’t even sure God exists… how would you know anything about His judgement? That statement is nothing more than YOU judging priests and Bishops. And you’re then transferring YOUR ideas (which are judgemental) over to how God carries out His Holy and Infallible Judgement.

 

[Abu]

Kama3 has been thoroughly bamboozled

glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/no-98-of-catholics-do-not-use-contraception/
No, 98% of Catholics do not use contraception
Thursday, Feb 16, 2012
The study in question comes from the Guttmacher Institute. Here’s how they get the result:

1.  They didn’t count anyone that wasn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 15-44.  Obviously, that eliminates everyone that might be too old or too young to be having sex.  But, it also eliminates tens of millions of people who are not too old to be having sex.

2.  They didn’t count anyone who was pregnant.  Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

3.  They didn’t count anyone who just gave birth.  Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

4.  They didn’t count anyone who hadn’t had sex in the last three months.  No, this doesn’t just eliminate ugly people.  It eliminates every non-married person who is listening to the Catholic church enough to not have sex outside of marriage.  In other words, the most likely group to be listening to the Catholic church about contraception.

5.  They didn’t count anyone who was trying to get pregnant, or was indifferent to becoming pregnant.  In other words, they eliminated the single most likely group to avoid contraception.

6.  They didn’t count anyone who was having sex, trying to avoid pregnancy, but also not using a specific contraception method.  I guess this would be the good ol’ “pull-n-pray”—which, incidentally–isn’t as religious as it sounds.

7. Two out of every five women in the survey were so incredibly Catholic that they either attended church services “less than once a month” or “never.” Never?

 

[ricofall]

I’ve been thinking about this for a day or so, and your priest is not entirely right. Once the cat is out of the bag, you can’t put it back, right? Wrong.

It that has happened with some societies. Roman Empire. The got all depraved and disappeared. England got pretty bawdy, and then came the Victorian Age. Pre-war Germany got pretty wild, too. The Nazis cleaned them up. Iran used to be fairly Western. Then came the Ayatollah, back from exile in France. He put the brakes on a lot of immorality.

It may not be peaceful, but a society can swing back the other way.

In the broader picture, I think you are correct. I am however talking about the near future, say about the next 50 years or so.
My priest also said that you can no longer legislate your way back to morals. Do not get me wrong, he is a faithful priest and a cannon lawyer. So he likes rules and such. We also talked about the next few years and that we would probably see legalized gay marriage. We were wondering if the federal government would try to force priest to marry to people of the same sex. Who really knows what will happen but it seems like that would be the way society has a whole is going.

 

[kama3]

Wow, my post really hit in a sensitive place…

We may argue over the 97% figure, but that’s really secondary. By the way, I have just looked up some Polish data – the NFP usage is at most 20%, in an almost-all-Catholic coutry, which means that something like 70% of the flock uses artificial contraception. That’s still way too much. Add to that, that premaritial sex is very prevalent, and we have the full image. The fact is that most of the faithful ignore the teaching.

A standard answer to this is that the flock is ignorant of the teaching. I believe that this is not the case. From my experience, people are completely aware of the teaching, yet consciously choose to ignore it.

Let me use an analogy. At the university, if 20% of the students fail the final exam, we usually conclude that this 20% is dumb (or lazy, or whatever). But, if 80% fails the final exam, then it points to the problem with the lecturer, not the students.

By the same vain, if 80% (or 97% or whatever your favorite survey says) of the laity ignores the teaching of the bishops, then it points at the problem with the bishops, not the laity. Specifically, it may mean one of two things:

• the teaching is, objectively speaking, wrong. That’s not really an option in the Catholic framework (infallibility and all).
• the bishops fail at communicating the teaching, i.e. making the flock aware of the teaching.

It’s obvious that the Catholic clergy, being unmarried, has no practical understanding of matters related to sexuality. Specifically, it lacks understanding that sex is an important part of the emotional bond between individuals. Instead, it looks at sex as nothing more than a purely biological vehicle for procreation and – applying the natural law philosophy – concludes that treating sex as anything else than a vehicle for a transmission of life is sinful. Such pure biological reductionism completely neglects the fact that raising children requires, first of all, a healthy and stable relationship between adults.

Further, promoting NFP as the one and only contraceptive technique completely ignores the simple fact that people are different. If NFP works for someone, good, but there are couples where NFP leads to nothing but frustration. After all, the premise of NFP is that female should not have sex when she most wants to. It’s probably no coincidence that the only Christian church which prohibits artificial birth control has no married clergy!

The Catholic clergy wants to govern sexual life of the faithful, but at the same time, is completely isolated from results of its own pronouncements: no priest will ever face a marriage crisis over contraceptive matters. That’s the very source of disconnect.

Finally, the clergy will deride contraceptive morality all day long, while expressing a completely failure to understand where it comes from. Here’s a clue: reduced infant mortality. Since a child born today is virtually sure to survive into adulthood, there is no point in having large number of children. People rather focus on having a limited number of children and putting more resources into raising them – in other words, human reproduction shifted from quantity to quality. Yet the Church view of reproductive issues is firmly rooted back in the times when quantity was all that counted.

Re: homosexual clergy – I have nothing against homosexuals. I do, however, have a lot against a homosexual in bishop’s clothing molesting seminarians while denouncing homosexuality as abomination. Power abuse and hypocrisy are the real issues here.

Re: abortion – it does not matter if abortion is legal or not, what does matter is how many abortions are actually done. Some people however mistakenly believe that making something illegal makes it disappear. Obviously, widespread acceptance of abortion hints at underlying social issues which are much deeper than legality and access to medical procedures. However, focusing discussion on the legality of abortion completely clouds this aspect.

 

[ricofall]

Wow, my post really hit in a sensitive place…

We may argue over the 97% figure, but that’s really secondary. By the way, I have just looked up some Polish data – the NFP usage is at most 20%, in an almost-all-Catholic coutry, which means that something like 70% of the flock uses artificial contraception. That’s still way too much. Add to that, that premaritial sex is very prevalent, and we have the full image. The fact is that most of the faithful ignore the teaching.

Please link to this data. I would like to read it. Also, you are making assumptions, nothing you stated here is fact. I would like to remind you that people may know the teaching, but can freely choose to ignore it. That is between them and God.

A standard answer to this is that the flock is ignorant of the teaching. I believe that this is not the case. From my experience, people are completely aware of the teaching, yet consciously choose to ignore it.

People choose to sin all the time. That is why we are called sinners.

• the teaching is, objectively speaking, wrong. That’s not really an option in the Catholic framework (infallibility and all).

You are free the see it that way. I used to as well.

• the bishops fail at communicating the teaching, i.e. making the flock aware of the teaching.

Many do fail in communicating. But that is a human failure, not the Church.

It’s obvious that the Catholic clergy, being unmarried, has no practical understanding of matters related to sexuality. Specifically, it lacks understanding that sex is an important part of the emotional bond between individuals. Instead, it looks at sex as nothing more than a purely biological vehicle for procreation and – applying the natural law philosophy – concludes that treating sex as anything else than a vehicle for a transmission of life is sinful. Such pure biological reductionism completely neglects the fact that raising children requires, first of all, a healthy and stable relationship between adults.

I think you do not realize that clergy can be married. It is a discipline in the Lain Rite that clergy cannot marry once they become a priest. There are other Rites where clergy can be married.

Further, promoting NFP as the one and only contraceptive technique completely ignores the simple fact that people are different. If NFP works for someone, good, but there are couples where NFP leads to nothing but frustration. After all, the premise of NFP is that female should not have sex when she most wants to. It’s probably no coincidence that the only Christian church which prohibits artificial birth control has no married clergy!

Like I said before, other Rites can be married. Also the female can have sex when she wants to with her husband. No teaching forbids that.

The Catholic clergy wants to govern sexual life of the faithful, but at the same time, is completely isolated from results of its own pronouncements: no priest will ever face a marriage crisis over contraceptive matters. That’s the very source of disconnect.

Again, they can get married in different Rites.

Finally, the clergy will deride contraceptive morality all day long, while expressing a completely failure to understand where it comes from. Here’s a clue: reduced infant mortality. Since a child born today is virtually sure to survive into adulthood, there is no point in having large number of children. People rather focus on having a limited number of children and putting more resources into raising them – in other words, human reproduction shifted from quantity to quality. Yet the Church view of reproductive issues is firmly rooted back in the times when quantity was all that counted.

You have children because you want to show what love can bring. Not because of numbers. Some couples who do NFP have small families, some have large. The Church never teaches how many children a married couple should have. Just that they should attempt to have children. In fact, using NFP to prevent having any children is also considered a sin.

Re: homosexual clergy – I have nothing against homosexuals. I do, however, have a lot against a homosexual in bishop’s clothing molesting seminarians while denouncing homosexuality as abomination. Power abuse and hypocrisy are the real issues here.

I will go back to what I said earlier. That is with any large organization, whether we are talking about the Government, Military, School systems and so on. You are free to find a perfect organization with perfect people. When you do, please let me know.

Re: abortion – it does not matter if abortion is legal or not, what does matter is how many abortions are actually done. Some people however mistakenly believe that making something illegal makes it disappear. Obviously, widespread acceptance of abortion hints at underlying social issues which are much deeper than legality and access to medical procedures. However, focusing discussion on the legality of abortion completely clouds this aspect.

I do agree with this here. We cannot turn back the time on our current society.

 

[St_Francis]

We may argue over the 97% figure, but that’s really secondary.

Well, yes, it is. If you are saying that 98% are sinning in a particular way and that is not the case, then the point you are basing on the 98% collapses. The fact is that as Abu showed, the number is completely skewed and is put out there to discredit the Church and to allow people to make untrue arguments like yours.

By the way, I have just looked up some Polish data – the NFP usage is at most 20%, in an almost-all-Catholic coutry, which means that something like 70% of the flock uses artificial contraception.

You seem to have a real problem understanding how logic and evidence work. The fact that only 20% of a given population uses NFP is *not *evidence that any percentage under 79% is using abc. In between those using NFP and abc are lots of people: menopausal women, women who are trying to conceive, women who are not concerned about conceiving, women who are not sexually active…

Add to that, that premaritial sex is very prevalent, and we have the full image.

What do you mean by very prevalent and how do you know this?

…A standard answer to this is that the flock is ignorant of the teaching. I believe that this is not the case. From my experience, people are completely aware of the teaching, yet consciously choose to ignore it.

Well, I would say that this is a very complex subject. In the US, there was a definite breakdown in the passing on of the teaching against abc, as many priests and bishops thought that the Pill, because it was hormonal, might be different from other forms of abc, and so instructed their flocks. This is still going on, with priests instructing people that in certain circumstances it “would be ok.” I don’t know enough about Poland to know whether a similar situation might exist there.

Let me use an analogy. *At the university, if 20% of the students fail the final exam, we usually conclude that this 20% is dumb (or lazy, or whatever). But, if 80% fails the final exam, then it points to the problem with the lecturer, not the students.

Bad analogy. There is a big difference between a situation which is purely educational, as you describe, and one which involves what we could call applied education. A more apt analogy might be people coming into a school in a crime-ridden neighborhood and telling the students not to use drugs. Does the fact that only a very small number of students refrain from using drugs after that indicate a problem with the lecturer or a problem with the neighborhood?

It’s obvious that the Catholic clergy, being unmarried, has no practical understanding of matters related to sexuality. …

I addressed this point of yours in my previous reply.*

Further, promoting NFP as the one and only contraceptive technique completely ignores the simple fact that people are different. If NFP works for someone, good, but there are couples where NFP leads to nothing but frustration. … It’s probably no coincidence that the only Christian church which prohibits artificial birth control has no married clergy!

NFP is not easy and no one has said it is. Sometimes we have to give up one thing we want (like sex) in order to get another thing we want (like no children). Who said that we should get to have sex without conceiving children?*

The Catholic clergy wants to govern sexual life of the faithful, but at the same time, is completely isolated from results of its own pronouncements: no priest will ever face a marriage crisis over contraceptive matters. That’s the very source of disconnect.

This makes no sense. If the hierarchy cannot change the teaching, then what difference does what you are saying here make?

Finally, the clergy will deride contraceptive morality all day long, while expressing a completely failure to understand where it comes from. Here’s a clue: reduced infant mortality. Since a child born today is virtually sure to survive into adulthood, there is no point in having large number of children. People rather focus on having a limited number of children and putting more resources into raising them – in other words, human reproduction shifted from quantity to quality. Yet the Church view of reproductive issues is firmly rooted back in the times when quantity was all that counted.

Again, this is not the position of the clergy but a teaching of the Church. What do you expect them to do?

Re: homosexual clergy – I have nothing against homosexuals. I do, however, have a lot against a homosexual in bishop’s clothing molesting seminarians while denouncing homosexuality as abomination. Power abuse and hypocrisy are the real issues here.

This account refers only to one man and is not indicative of your claim that the Church is “deeply infested with pedophiles and homosexuals.”

The study with which I am familiar was done in the US and showed that only a very small percentage of religous were involved in sexual abuse.

Re: abortion – it does not matter if abortion is legal or not, what does matter is how many abortions are actually done. Some people however mistakenly believe that making something illegal makes it disappear. Obviously, widespread acceptance of abortion hints at underlying social issues which are much deeper than legality and access to medical procedures. However, focusing discussion on the legality of abortion completely clouds this aspect.

The legality of abortion is a major issue because the law the way society expresses itself. If abortion is legal, then society is saying that it does not see a problem with killing unborn babies. Society is saying that unborn babies are not worthy of the protection accorded to members of that society.*

 

[Abu]

kama3 #26
Finally, the clergy will deride contraceptive morality all day long, while expressing a completely failure to understand where it comes from. Here’s a clue: reduced infant mortality. Since a child born today is virtually sure to survive into adulthood, there is no point in having large number of children.

An added failure to understand the evils of the contraceptive mentality, and that the birth dearth in the Western World, and former Communist block is drastically increasing the ratio of aged to the young and productive, who are necessary to support them.