What do YOU find confusing about Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s not confusing?

In all seriousness, the documents and councils and everything of the sort. The rigidity of it all makes me exhausted and hence, I don’t bother much with it.
 
Why is deliberately preventing pregnancy with contraceptives not okay, but deliberately preventing pregnancy with NFP is okay? I see that NFP is supposed to be natural and keeps your bodies open to a pregnancy, but if it used to avoid pregnancy, then doesn’t it achieve the same thing as contraceptives (minus reliability)? What is the difference if someone used contraceptives to ensure the same delay or intermission between pregnancies?
 
The Church is Organic [alive] and pragmatic.

While neither Doctrine nor Dogma are changeable; church PRACTICES are

As to no basis in scriptura:

John.20 Verses 29 to 31 “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name”

John.21 Verses 24 to 25

[24] This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

GOD never intended that “everything” be included in HIS Book, which is WHY he commanded the Apostles and their successors to [YOU] [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

We have a Homily at every Sunday Mass precisely so that our Priest can and Do fulfill this very COMMAND.

God Bless you,

Patrick
 
sure, but the idea is that the practices of the Church are rooted in revelation… or, in other words, have a connection to divinely revealed truths…

That’s not always true in the Church… take the idea put forward by some Church officials that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces… which clearly has no root in scripture, revelation or the early church fathers. It’s a made up idea…
 
AlNg said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
Those scriptures you site are not to be read literally.
Click to expand...
Right. Anytime you disagree with Scripture, it is easy to say that those passages should not be taken literally. Of course, when you do agree, then you say that it should be taken literally.
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct. Without AUTHORITY, we are left with PRIVATE JUDGEMENT.

It is my position that the Magisterial AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church has consistently ruled on this matter from the time of Augustine till today and “Those scriptures you site are are not to be read literally” is what the Magisterial Authority has claimed.

I am unaware of any orthodox Catholic writings (and scarcely any condemned writings) from Augustine to the 19th century that challenges the impassibility of God.

So, no Christian believes God has appendages similar to chicken wings, but where the literal stops and the figurative begins in the Bible is debatable. Hence the need for some form of AUTHORITY.
Charity, TOm
 
STT said:
The fact that I have to depend on faith
Click to expand...
REPLY

Certainly “faith” has an important role in the right practice of Catholicism; but not an exclusive one.

We can for example know OF GOD though nature, the Natural and Moral Laws and the Universe. We can know that Jesus is God through secular history and the now 2,000 year old Catholic Bible. We can know that Jesus desired and founded just One True Church and Faith [set of religious beliefs.]

So my friend, as the “OP” of this STRING, if you’d care to be more specific than I too can at least attempt to address your concerns.

I’m looking forward to hearing back from you,
God Bless,

Patrick [PJM]
 
Wolfie said:
Why is deliberately preventing pregnancy with contraceptives not okay, but deliberately preventing pregnancy with NFP is okay? I see that NFP is supposed to be natural and keeps your bodies open to a pregnancy, but if it used to avoid pregnancy, then doesn’t it achieve the same thing as contraceptives (minus reliability)? What is the difference if someone used contraceptives to ensure the same delay or intermission between pregnancies?
Click to expand...
I can understand what you are saying - that both artificial birth control (ABC) and Natural Birth Control (NBC) or better known as NFL because that is its main thrust, are used to prevent brith.

The Church stance is that artificial birth control goes against the natural body process and thus against God’s prerogative of life, which is God’s and God’s alone. Interferring with the body’s natural function of givng life is thus viewed as interferring into God’s sole and original function of life creation.

I may add, we can take cognizance that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. In that sense we must keep it holy.

As for NFP, it is used to facilitate birth and also to space the family. A NFP user has to be open to life. Nevertheless, I agree with you that both ABC and NFP can achieve the same purpose, that is birth control.

The difference in NFP is that it does not artificially interfere into our body life giving natural function, i.e. conception and therefore birth.

Seen as above, the Catholic Church is not that strict in prevent birth. She just disallows us to interfere into our body’s function in this aspect. If a couple want to space their family, then NFP is the way to go.
 
Ya i always found it odd to put it kindly that Christian education is prohibitively expensive. Doesn’t sit well with me and my middle income…ahhhhhh the middle class getting you know what again and again…majority of Catholic kids are poor (get financial assistance) or upper income (can easily afford it) while the majority in the middle are screwed… The antithesis of Christlike…$$$$$$$$
 
Why God created this world instead of another with less bad stuff…pain and suffering etc
all philosophical arguments from Augustine to Aquinas to modern Christian philosophers like Plantiga are lacking IMO. At best they show no logical contradiction between the two.
 
Sadly, yes, in many places Catholic schools only can be afforded by the elites, the rich. They have been removed far away from their original objectives and to exemplified the poor and simple Jesus.

In other places though, Catholic schools are still the teaching and healing balm for the people especially the needy children.
 
I have two - “The Hell Dance” - and “Joy”

“The Hell Dance”:
To begin I propose the premise of Christian faith, be it Catholic or otherwise, is salvation. Yet salvation, is defined by our beloved priests and well known apologists/ theologians in a manner that is inconsistent (to put it mildly).

In Catholicism we have the concept of mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal three components need to be present; grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge. This is profoundly loosely defined. Therefore we have no idea, what-so-ever, were we stand.

None of us can agree where a mortal sin begins or ends. We will argue till the cows come home. We have apologists/ priests who are near universalists (all or nearly all go to heaven). We have other apologist/priests (deliberately avoiding names here) who warn us of a strong possibility of hell.

“Joy”:
This is line with “The Hell Dance”.
I can possibly see how a single person with no children, or a Catholic who early on brought their family up to love the Lord and thus they all married Catholics, had their children and grand children baptized in the faith and all go to Mass every Sunday may live a joyful life. But what of the rest of us? I ask how we are to be joyful; be a joyful witness to the faith, if we are tormented by the real possibility that our loved ones will not be ‘saved’ (not a fan of the term)?

Our most beloved apologists do the “Hell Dance”. Our beloved priests do the “The Hell Dance”.

We are supposed to be joyful although our loved ones are not practicing the faith. When we reach out to the theologians/priests/apologist regarding our loved one’s, they do the “Hell Dance”.

To be honest with ourselves, there are no concrete answers to our intelligent questions regarding our salvation or the salvation our loved ones. We are left in the dark. We are not only left in the dark, the spectrum of possibility is literally from one extreme to the other. All will saved; hardly any will be saved. 100 or nearly 100% of us, a fraction of percent of us. I’ve heard it all. Some saints (I believe including Augustine) believes most are damned.

I find this confusing. I’d expect more concrete answers.
Even here, we will get people who will respond that it is, in fact, clear. They are usually very conservative Catholics, who, if pushed to the ultimate conclusion will (in not so many words) tell us we are nearly all damned. Yet will get others who will tell us not to worry about it, God reads our heart and justice/ mercy will be served and in the end all will be understood. I guess this means I’ll be ok with my loved one’s in hell ???

Yet logic tells me most people will not convert before their last day. How do I look at them and feel an sense of joy?
How do I “go in peace to love and serve the Lord”? How am I to “be not afraid”?
 
simspt said:
Why God created this world instead of another with less bad stuff…pain and suffering etc
all philosophical arguments from Augustine to Aquinas to modern Christian philosophers like Plantiga are lacking IMO. At best they show no logical contradiction between the two.
Click to expand...
We live in a fallen world. It was not like like before our ancestors were driven out in the world that God specially made for them. We are supposed to be in a good place but for them.
 
Wolfie said:
Why is deliberately preventing pregnancy with contraceptives not okay, but deliberately preventing pregnancy with NFP is okay? I see that NFP is supposed to be natural and keeps your bodies open to a pregnancy, but if it used to avoid pregnancy, then doesn’t it achieve the same thing as contraceptives (minus reliability)? What is the difference if someone used contraceptives to ensure the same delay or intermission between pregnancies?
Click to expand...
Wolfie,
If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the ends justify the means. I think that you are saying that since both contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) have the same effect, the prevention of pregnancy, then they are the same. Let us use an analogy. Let us say that someone wants a car. That person can negotiate with the owner to buy the car, pay the money and drive off with it. Or they can take a gun and steal the car. In both cases, the person has the car but how he got it is radically different. This is the same with contraception and NFP. The two means are radically different. Contraception is a deliberate attempt to prevent the natural end of the marital act. NFP uses the bodily signs inherent in a woman’s natural cycle to know when she is fertile and when she is not. The method works with the woman’s natural cycle to allow the couple to know when to abstain to prevent a pregnancy. It can also be used by the couple to time relations so that they can conceive a child if that is their desire.

Contraception objectifies the individuals. Marriage has two main ends: the procreation of children (Genesis 1: 28) and the unity of the couple (Mark 10: 6 -8). By using contraception, the couple is deliberately frustrating the end of the marital act. The couple is saying to each other, “I do not want to freely give everything that I have to you, especially my fertility. Rather, I want to use you for my own pleasure.” The couple, by their actions, has turned their relationship from one of loving and giving to the other to one of taking from the other. The other person merely becomes a toy.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” which translates “On Human Life.” In that document he explains what will happen if the use of contraception became widespread. At paragraph #17, he made the point that with the use of contraception men would lose the respect of women:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

continued
 
Pope Paul was worried, rightfully, that women especially would become things rather than human beings, made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1: 26). All of humanity has a certain dignity that separates them from the animals. Contraception is degrading to human beings, especially women.

The Church does not put these restrictions upon us to make us miserable. Rather, it wants us to maintain our dignity and to maintain the dignity of others. In that way we can help ourselves and help others reach our final end, unity with God.

One last point: my wife and I taught NFP as a Teaching Couple under the auspices of the Couple to Couple League for about 20 years. I know the system works, and it works very well. Properly understood, it works as well as any method of contraception.

Blessings
 
fredystairs said:
NFP uses the bodily signs inherent in a woman’s natural cycle to know when she is fertile and when she is not.
Click to expand...
However NFP uses artificial man made methods to determine this. NFP uses artificial man made calendars, clocks, thermometers, pencil and paper.
 
AlNg said:
However NFP uses artificial man made methods to determine this. NFP uses artificial man made calendars, clocks, thermometers, pencil and paper.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. I do not understand what your point is…
 
I can see the point of the other posters, NFP is the only one that doesn’t interfere with a couple’s physical ability to have children. I was originally thinking the ends justify the means, but using NFP (or calendars, as you suggest) is not an overstep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top