Vatican urged to reopen debate on birth control

[Aaron_I]

RPConover:

Uhhhhhhh… birth control created homosexuality?

No, but it did lead to Roe v Wade. Without the invention of a right to privacy used to justify contraception, Roe v Wade would have been impossible.

 

[kaygee]

RPConover:

Uhhhhhhh… birth control created homosexuality?

No, it didn’t create homosexuality, but by removing the procreative aspect of the marital act, it made the perverted sexual mantra of today, “if it feels good, do it”, respectable. Love is now merely a warm fuzzy feeling, not a creative self-donation to the other.

 

[RPConover]

kaygee:

No, it didn’t create homosexuality, but by removing the procreative aspect of the marital act, it made the perverted sexual mantra of today, “if it feels good, do it”, respectable. Love is now merely a warm fuzzy feeling, not a creative self-donation to the other.

Hmmmmm… why on earth would a homosexual need birth control? I definitely can see the introduction of birth control leading to a reduction in inhibitions among society, but I’m not so sure that in itself leads to a rise in homosexuality. I’m sure it leads to a rise in open homosexuality so obviously then it looks like there’s more homosexuals, but it’s really only that more of them are open about it. I mean seriously, homosexuality has been around for as long as anyone can remember. We can’t forget that in classical Greece it was considered perfectly acceptable and somewhat normal for men to have homosexual relationships with young men. You think it’s a problem now, consider yourselflucky you weren’t born then But seriously, I’m a heterosexual guy and no amount of free-spirited sexuality could persuade me to be attracted to a man or to do anything sexual with one, which I have a feeling a lot of heterosexual men would agree with. It may make it easier for homosexuals to find relationships, but in any time, anywhere, if a homosexual wanted to find a partner to have a relationship with, they can be found.

 

[bones_IV]

Aaron I.:

No, but it did lead to Roe v Wade. Without the invention of a right to privacy used to justify contraception, Roe v Wade would have been impossible.

Cardinal Ratzinger said that the use of birth control led to homosexuality. It was from Inside the Vatican magazine.

 

[bones_IV]

Digitonomy:

A reasonable argument.

Fair enough.

Digitonomy:

I’m sorry you feel my post is a bunch of hooey, but I think it accurately reflects the facts in the article. Which may be why you feel the article is a bunch of dribble.

Which shows you advocate heresy.

Digitonomy:

Whether it’s called an attack or criticism is splitting hairs. More important is whether this criticism or attack is fair.

Since when is condemning the immorality of an article not fair ciriticism? That’s what you seem to imply.

Digitonomy:

Lets look at the subjects of your paragraph in the OP… Reuters, Liberals, their, they, this article, it, their, they, it. It appears that these sentences are about Reuters and its article. Or was there a change in topic? Perhaps the Liberals weren’t the people at Reuters, but the bishop and friends. But which pronouns and sentences apply to the bishop, and which apply to Reuters, really isn’t clear.

The article of Reuters is notorious for their liberal left propaganda and encourage disobedience to Rome. What part of that don’t you understand?

Digitonomy:

I suspected the blurring of the distinction between the bishop’s group and Reuters was by design. But if I’m wrong, it would be helpful if you could make it clear which of your charges apply to which group (separate paragraphs, more exact wording, whatever), rather than just harrumphing “hooey.”

What blurring distinction? You call liberal bishops and dissident Catholics who are being defiant towards Rome as advancing a position? That’s heresy.

Digitonomy:

So am I the former or the latter?

I was referring to what St. Peter said in his first epistle in that we will always have dissenters and heretics that was my point.

 

[Veritas41]

svoboda:

I have read that a very tiny proportion of Catholics follow the Church’s teachings on birth control.

It seems that even some priests think it’s okay.

If birth control is such a grave evil, why isn’t it obvious? When was the last time most people said rape was okay?

It is obvious: look at the skyrocketing divorce and abortion rates as well as widespread promiscuity. What opened my eyes to the evil of contraception was studying the history of the modern contraceptive movement. I recommend “Grand Illusion: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood” by George Grant (a Protestant) and “Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society” by Elasah Drogin (a Catholic convert from Judaism).

 

[Beaver]

RPConover:

Uhhhhhhh… birth control created homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a form of birth control, thus birth control justifies the homosexual act, since the hetrosexual now is in accord with the homosexual.

 

[Beaver]

Bella3502:

I suppose birth control can turn a woman into a lesbian… I don’t get it, but apparently it’s true.

Yes, in this sense… Homosexuality is a form of birth control, thus birth control justifies the homosexual act, since the hetrosexual now is in accord with the homosexual.

 

[Beaver]

RPConover:

Hmmmmm… why on earth would a homosexual need birth control? I definitely can see the introduction of birth control leading to a reduction in inhibitions among society, but I’m not so sure that in itself leads to a rise in homosexuality. I’m sure it leads to a rise in open homosexuality so obviously then it looks like there’s more homosexuals, but it’s really only that more of them are open about it. I mean seriously, homosexuality has been around for as long as anyone can remember. We can’t forget that in classical Greece it was considered perfectly acceptable and somewhat normal for men to have homosexual relationships with young men. You think it’s a problem now, consider yourselflucky you weren’t born then But seriously, I’m a heterosexual guy and no amount of free-spirited sexuality could persuade me to be attracted to a man or to do anything sexual with one, which I have a feeling a lot of heterosexual men would agree with. It may make it easier for homosexuals to find relationships, but in any time, anywhere, if a homosexual wanted to find a partner to have a relationship with, they can be found.

Since the act itself is a form of birth control, they do not, but birth control justifies the homosexual act, the form of birth control should not matter, just its practice.

 

[Digitonomy]

bones_IV:

Which shows you advocate heresy.

This is a very serious charge which I hope you will withdraw.

bones_IV:

Since when is condemning the immorality of an article not fair ciriticism? That’s what you seem to imply.

Not at all. Such criticism is perfectly fair. However, what you are now doing is claiming an article is immoral which does not advocate for immorality, but merely reports on it. Moreover, the article very clearly shows how these dissenters diverge from Rome, and specifically puts forth what Rome has to say on the topic. I’m mystified why doing that would be immoral, and as I noted earlier, what Reuters did is very close to what you have done here.

bones_IV:

The article of Reuters is notorious for their liberal left propaganda and encourage disobedience to Rome. What part of that don’t you understand?

In that sentence, I don’t understand whether you are referring to the article, or to Reuters in general. But I do feel better about my original assessment; your criticism seems directed at the media, rather than the group it reported on.

bones_IV:

What blurring distinction? You call liberal bishops and dissident Catholics who are being defiant towards Rome as advancing a position? That’s heresy.

This is again uncharitable, uncalled for, and a very serious charge which I hope you will withdraw.

I am sorry to report that there are also groups advocating the worship of satan, baptizism of animals, universal ordination, all seeking to advance their position. Stating this fact, or describing these groups or their actions, is hardly heresy.

bones_IV:

I was referring to what St. Peter said in his first epistle in that we will always have dissenters and heretics that was my point.

From Antichrist to heretic - at least I’m headed in the right direction.

 

[frommi]

Well, sometimes I think our inability to talk about issues like birth control makes us look like a dysfunctional family. The logic in Humane Vitae is simply not compelling to a great deal of Catholics in the United States.

I’m not advocating for a change in teaching, but it seems like having an open discussion with both sides present would hardly be a bad thing.

 

[fix]

frommi:

Well, sometimes I think our inability to talk about issues like birth control makes us look like a dysfunctional family. The logic in Humane Vitae is simply not compelling to a great deal of Catholics in the United States.

I’m not advocating for a change in teaching, but it seems like having an open discussion with both sides present would hardly be a bad thing.

I always find such logic distressing. What is the point of discussion or so called dialogue? If the intention is to fully grasp the meanining of the teaching that is great. If the intent is to some how get the Church to reverse Herself then that is absurd.

IMO, it is as logical as asking one’s wife to have a discussion about the husband having an affair, or if one may have a discussion regarding the merits of murder.

 

[Riley259]

frommi:

Well, sometimes I think our inability to talk about issues like birth control makes us look like a dysfunctional family. The logic in Humane Vitae is simply not compelling to a great deal of Catholics in the United States.

I’m not advocating for a change in teaching, but it seems like having an open discussion with both sides present would hardly be a bad thing.

I disagree. I think the logic in Humane Vitae is very compelling if you actually examine what it is saying. Once you understand the arguments, it all makes so much sense - it is truth. Too many so called “cafeteria” Catholics have no idea why the Church says that birth contro is wrong - if they would only sincerely examine the document itself but sadly for many it’s not even on their radar screen.

 

[frommi]

fix:

I always find such logic distressing. What is the point of discussion or so called dialogue? If the intention is to fully grasp the meanining of the teaching that is great. If the intent is to some how get the Church to reverse Herself then that is absurd.

IMO, it is as logical as asking one’s wife to have a discussion about the husband having an affair, or if one may have a discussion regarding the merits of murder.

But there’s the problem, your making the assumption that the discussion/debate has at its core an intention to change teaching. You don’t know that.

When you make presumptions like this, thats what makes it difficult to dialogue.

And besides, discussions and dialogues can sometimes lead us to new understandings that we didn’t intend to discover.

 

[frommi]

Riley259:

I disagree. I think the logic in Humane Vitae is very compelling if you actually examine what it is saying. Once you understand the arguments, it all makes so much sense - it is truth. Too many so called “cafeteria” Catholics have no idea why the Church says that birth contro is wrong - if they would only sincerely examine the document itself but sadly for many it’s not even on their radar screen.

Your statement helps my point…its compelling to YOU, but I think we know its not compelling to many others.

And I think when we have to be careful about calling anyone a ‘cafeteria’ catholic, when that label could probably apply to about 99% of us.

 

[fix]

frommi:

But there’s the problem, your making the assumption that the discussion/debate has at its core an intention to change teaching. You don’t know that.

When you make presumptions like this, thats what makes it difficult to dialogue.

And besides, discussions and dialogues can sometimes lead us to new understandings that we didn’t intend to discover.

I gave two possible reasons for the discussion. One would be to grow in understanding of the truth, the other would be an attempt to prove the Church wrong.

Perhaps you could give me the point of view of those who want a discussion as I seem to be missing something?

 

[mary_bobo]

frommi:

Your statement helps my point…its compelling to YOU, but I think we know its not compelling to many others.

Could this be like the little kid who says he is going to do it anyway because he wants to?

And I think when we have to be careful about calling anyone a ‘cafeteria’ catholic, when that label could probably apply to about 99% of us.

That’s a pretty big generalization, don’t you think?

 

[frommi]

fix:

I gave two possible reasons for the discussion. One would be to grow in understanding of the truth, the other would be an attempt to prove the Church wrong.

Perhaps you could give me the point of view of those who want a discussion as I seem to be missing something?

Growing in our understanding of the truth is a laudable goal…but we have to be sure we know going in that none of us exactly has the truth sewn up and in our back pocket. We have a hard time nowadays separating the truth from what our intrepretation of the truth is.

 

[fix]

frommi:

Growing in our understanding of the truth is a laudable goal…but we have to be sure we know going in that none of us exactly has the truth sewn up and in our back pocket. We have a hard time nowadays separating the truth from what our intrepretation of the truth is.

I do not understand your point. Did not Christ found one Church? Does He speak through it infallibly on matters of faith and morals? Is it impossible for a Catholic to understand basic moral truths as taught by Christ through His Church?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

frommi:

Well, sometimes I think our inability to talk about issues like birth control makes us look like a dysfunctional family. The logic in Humane Vitae is simply not compelling to a great deal of Catholics in the United States.

I’m not advocating for a change in teaching, but it seems like having an open discussion with both sides present would hardly be a bad thing.

Since I tend to think in an Anti-modern mindset, authority is often a definitive factor for me. Viewed through that lens, dissent on the issue of contraception is nothing less than asinine. Here’s the run-down:

To be Catholic is to believe in an infallible Church founded by Christ. One of the loci of the Church’s infallibility is its ordinary Magisterium teaching consistently on a matter throughout time. The Tradition against contraception is older than Trinitarian theology. It is also patristically very well-grounded and has been maintained consistently to this very day. Case closed.

Whether one finds the particular argument of HV compelling or not, the teaching against contraception does not rely on that document. It relies on the constant teaching of the Church, once again set forth by Pope Paul VI. To dissent on this issue is to say “I don’t believe the constant teaching of the Church from the Fathers to the present is infallible.” In other words, “I am not Catholic.” This sort of confusion approaches the level of a ‘Catholic’ friend of mine who said, “I don’t believe human beings can ever be infallible,” after which a (smarter) Protestant friend asked me for clarification, “But isn’t that basic to Catholic belief?”