Vatican urged to reopen debate on birth control

[bones_IV]

Reuters just doesn’t get it do they. Liberals still hell bent on trying to destroy the Church. Their arguements against the Church’s ban on aritificial birth control are really quite laughable. Somehow, they think they can have sex and avoid a pregnancy. This article on Reuters is just a bunch of dribble. It comes from people who haven’t even read the encyclical. Their ignorance is showing. They just somehow think that with this encyclical that doctrine can be reversed. Doesn’t work that way. It stems from the thinking that God somehow makes mistakes.

Link

 

[a_cermak]

Interesting paragraph from the article:

“That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics.”

Did it really cause people to leave the Church in droves? Did it undercut papal authority? HV was issued around the same time as VII. In the secular realm, a real culture change occurred that trended toward anti-authoritarianism and individualism, which although good in some senses, may have weakened the voluntary Church structure.

 

[bones_IV]

The hatred towards Humanae Vitae comes from the sexual revolution that has destroyed western civilization.

 

[a_cermak]

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

 

[bones_IV]

a_cermak:

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

A lot of it has to do with a misunderstanding of sexuality.

Dues Caritas Est

“5. Two things clearly emerge from an overview of the concept of eros past and present. First, there is a relationship between love and divine: love promises infinity, eternity-- a reality far greater and other totally than our everyday existence. Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not by simply submitting to INSTINCT. Purification and Growth in maturity are called for; and these pass through the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or poisining eros, they heal it and restore its true granduer.”

 

[Riley259]

Boy, the dissenters in the church really don’t get it, do they? The article was also inaccurate in saying that the church only allows “the rhythm method” - no one gave them the memo about NFP I guess.

 

[Beaver]

a_cermak:

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

The return of the fertility god Baal. It was this god that cause the Babylonian exile and captivity of Israel and Judah. Baal also lost World War II for the Nazis placing them into exile. He will lead any nation into exile and captivity.

 

[Eileen_T]

a_cermak:

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

The catch-cry was “Free Love”. The irony was that it was sex, not love, and there was a very high price to be paid. We are still paying the price.

Humanae Vitae is largely misunderstood because people, especially many Catholics, have never read it.

At first I didn’t understand the reasoning behind the Church’s declaration that artificial birth control was wrongful. I figured that it was my responsibility to study deeper on the issue. In the meantime I chose to be obedient to the Church.

We have dearly beloved children who would not be alive today if we had been rebellious and only considered our self-centred reasons for limiting the size of our family.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

a_cermak:

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

I was in college during the height of that era, so I can tell you the practical results of the sexual revolution. It gave women the right to say “yes” (to sex), and took away their right to say “no”. At college, I remember that if you didn’t want to sleep with a guy (on the first date, no less) you would probably never see him again, and you’d be labeled “hung up”, “frigid”, or worse.

Needless to say, those of us who were trying to hang on to Catholic values didn’t always have a lot of dates. I don’t think any good whatsoever came out of the sexual revolution.

Woman’s equal rights to employment and education came out of the early feminist movement (not the man-hating lunatic fringe of that movement).

 

[bones_IV]

Here an interesting take on the encyclical.

Link

 

[Digitonomy]

bones_IV:

Reuters just doesn’t get it do they. Liberals still hell bent on trying to destroy the Church. Their arguements against the Church’s ban…

When in doubt, blame the media?

Having read the article, I see that a bishop “and a group of Christian intellectuals” are advancing the position in question, in a Catholic magazine.

So by reporting on this controversial position taken by a group in a Catholic magazine, then proceeding to outline how it is at odds with what Rome has said, Reuters is deserving of attack? Applying the same logic, one could just as easily say “bones_IV just doesn’t get it, does he?..”

 

[otm]

a_cermak:

Interesting paragraph from the article:

“That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics.”

Did it really cause people to leave the Church in droves? Did it undercut papal authority? HV was issued around the same time as VII. In the secular realm, a real culture change occurred that trended toward anti-authoritarianism and individualism, which although good in some senses, may have weakened the voluntary Church structure.

Actually, HV came out several years after the close of Vatican 2. It also came out somewhere around 12 to 18 years after the discovery (invention?) of the Pill. By that time, because it appeared to be different for other means of contraception, and because much was not known of how the Pill worked (acting as an abortificant in some circumstances), very many laity were using it, often on the advice of confessors, or theologians or bishops. It caused a massive and almost immediate widespread outcry among both the clergy and the laity. While I agree that it was a time of open questioning of authority in society in general, it also had been staged in by the fact of widespread use prior to the decision.

 

[otm]

a_cermak:

What was the sexual revolution? Was it sex without babies or the recognition of women’s equal rights to employment and education?

some trace the start of the sexual revolution to the 1890’s (aka the gay 90’s, when gay did not have the same sexual connotation it does now); others to the 1920’s ( the roaring 20’s), which could be seen to culminate in the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican/Episcopalian church, which allowed for the first time in history for married couples to use artificial birth control in limited circumstances within the confines of marriage. Prior to that no mainline church - Protestant or Catholic, allowed the use of birth control.

The sexual revolution became quite public with the proclamation of “free love” of the 60’s and the Haight Ashbury area of Sanfrancisco (although by no means at all confined to that area, it was considered by many, if not most, to the the center of the movement).

That revolution has not played itself out, as we are now in the throes of homosexuals attempting to redefine what marriage is, and the next issue on the horizon is polyamory, which seems to have taken a somewhat public stance by at least two individuals, women; one in San Francisco on national public radio, and the other a woman attorney in Chicago who said that promoters of polyamory were going to start taking the legal tactics of the homosexual community to further redefine marriage.

Welcome to the world of hedonism.

 

[Beaver]

otm:

Actually, HV came out several years after the close of Vatican 2. It also came out somewhere around 12 to 18 years after the discovery (invention?) of the Pill. By that time, because it appeared to be different for other means of contraception, and because much was not known of how the Pill worked (acting as an abortificant in some circumstances), very many laity were using it, often on the advice of confessors, or theologians or bishops. It caused a massive and almost immediate widespread outcry among both the clergy and the laity. While I agree that it was a time of open questioning of authority in society in general, it also had been staged in by the fact of widespread use prior to the decision.

I agree, many came to enjoy the counterfeit LUST. Instead of loving their spouse they fell for lust, satan’s counterfeit. That is the way sin works.

 

[bones_IV]

Digitonomy:

When in doubt, blame the media?

Having read the article, I see that a bishop “and a group of Christian intellectuals” are advancing the position in question, in a Catholic magazine.

So by reporting on this controversial position taken by a group in a Catholic magazine, then proceeding to outline how it is at odds with what Rome has said, Reuters is deserving of attack? Applying the same logic, one could just as easily say “bones_IV just doesn’t get it, does he?..”

Advancing the position in question is giving Catholics the message that doctrines in the Church are debatable. That is not Catholic at all. To say “I see that a bishop ‘and a group of Christian intellectuals’ advancing the position in questin, in a Catholic magazine” is just a bunch of HOOEY! Seriously. The use of artificial birth control gave rise to homosexuality and its horrible distgusting evil that it produced. What I stated in my initial post was not an attack but it was fair criticism. To say I placed blame on the media is painting my posts with one broad stroke. But I’ve accepted the fact that there will always be Antichrists and wackadoos who attack my threads.

 

[Veritas41]

Eileen T:

Humanae Vitae is largely misunderstood because people, especially many Catholics, have never read it.

At first I didn’t understand the reasoning behind the Church’s declaration that artificial birth control was wrongful. I figured that it was my responsibility to study deeper on the issue. In the meantime I chose to be obedient to the Church.

.

God bless you for your search for the truth in this matter and your obedience to the Church. I’m a convert to the Catholic faith, having been convicted about the wrongness of contraception even before becoming Catholic (I personally know more Protestants opposed to contraception than I do Catholics–my husband and I were the only Catholic couple in our NFP class!). In my conversations with cradle Catholics, I’ve found most think the Church teaches contraception is okay now or they ignore it because they don’t believe the Church’s teaching is infallible. I have a personal friend who had more than one priest tell her it was okay to get sterilized, so she did. The DRE at our parish openly criticized the Church’s teaching on contraception in a women’s Bible study I attend at my parish, but thankfully one of the women in the group allowed me the opportunity to explain the Church’s teaching on the subject. It’s no wonder Catholics are so mixed up on this issue.

 

[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?

 

[Digitonomy]

bones_IV:

Advancing the position in question is giving Catholics the message that doctrines in the Church are debatable. That is not Catholic at all.

A reasonable argument.

To say “I see that a bishop ‘and a group of Christian intellectuals’ advancing the position in questin, in a Catholic magazine” is just a bunch of HOOEY! Seriously.

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.

What I stated in my initial post was not an attack but it was fair criticism. To say I placed blame on the media is painting my posts with one broad stroke.

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

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.

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.”

bones_IV:

But I’ve accepted the fact that there will always be Antichrists and wackadoos who attack my threads.

So am I the former or the latter?

 

[RPConover]

bones_IV:

The use of artificial birth control gave rise to homosexuality and its horrible distgusting evil that it produced.

Uhhhhhhh… birth control created homosexuality?

 

[Bella3502]

RPConover:

Uhhhhhhh… birth control created homosexuality?

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