What does disagreeing with a Church teaching mean

[kalt]

casherman gave you the answer to this one, also. We are to educate ourselves, and seek spiritual direction. If you have been given the answers (which you have) and you still cannot reconcile them in yourself, then you are to take up your cross, and carry it.

Do you think that Abraham understood why God told him to go sacrifice his only son?

We follow Him in obedience, even when we do not understand everything, trusting that He will reveal to us all that we need to know at the appropriate times.

Jesus said that those who love Him will keep His commandments. He did not say we would understand everything.

Right, and as I said, I don’t disobey, though I disagree. I’m willing to say that I don’t understand, because my disagreement doesn’t mean that the Church (or any other expert on a subject, for that matter) is wrong.

But how are other Catholics supposed to deal with the ones who disagree? Are they supposed to tell them to leave the Church? This was suggested on this forum, and it doesn’t sound quite Christian. But then, neither does ending an ectopic pregnancy square w/ the teaching on abortion.

So, how are Catholics directed to deal with fellow Catholics who are trying to understand a teaching?

Also, it seems that someone who understands the teaching should be able to make it clear. Is it possible that many here don’t really understand the difference and are just choosing not to muddle through the details until they do? I gave a very similar example to the situation, and I asked how the Church would rule on it. Not one person responded to that question. Does everyone here have a clear enough understanding of the teaching that they can apply it to other situations?

 

[kalt]

They trot off and either find a church or synagogue or temple that has beliefs that fit theirs… not finding that, they start their own. How do you think we ended up with 30,000 denominations?

All non-Catholics who disagree with teachings pull up stakes and find another place to roost, or start a new denomination? That sounds like a blanket statement to me.

I know it’s common to do that, but everyone doesn’t. So, I was hoping to find out from them how differences of opinion are dealt with. Since you brought up walking away, I wonder at what point do they walk away. What kinds of differences are likely to cause a split?

Of course I would like this information from the horses mouth.

 

[insideitall]

kalt,

“But are we required to understand every teaching, though it makes no sense to us? These teachings aren’t supposed to be mysteries, like the Trinity, I’m thinking. ”

While most of the practical teachings aren’t supposed to be mysteries, the most basic ones (that make us not just Christian but Catholic as well) most certainly are! First, the word trinity isn’t actually in the Bible, so there’s one example - along with transubstantiation, virgin birth, ascension, not to mention raising from the dead!

How much a person can understand depends both on their intellectual ability, and also on their willingness to prayer and study. It is an individual’s responsibility to search out the answer to their satisfaction - be it through reading, study with others, or questioning a priest. I think more churches are catching on to the idea that catechists should have some training, and that adult education classes should be offered as well.

Also, you should remember that while we have an enormous number of resources (that is, with everything being online and in libraries, etc), a large portion of the world does not, and before all this technology was invented and people actually had a significant amount of leisure time in which to consider these questions, people pretty much either accepted the teachings or didn’t. I believe that in the past people were also more willing to accept authority than today’s generations are, though of course this is most probably not true for every age of every civilization.

“If we look at the evidence and see an inconsistancy that no one seems able to clarify for us, are we required to forget about it and go on without thinking? If we don’t understand the teaching, either stop thinking or find another church (as one poster advised)? Can we go on thinking and researching, all the while disagreeing with the conclusion, and still be in good standing with the Church? Is there a time limit? If there is, at what point do you get cut off?”

No, absolutely do not stop thinking! A lot of times the answer is buried in some early church father’s writing, or in an encyclical, or something totally tedious and heavy to read. You can not find another church (if by “church” you mean denomination) and still be in good standing with the Catholic Church. As I said before, I think as long as you truly are trying to reconcile your disagreement, and as long as you aren’t going against the teaching, or encouraging others to do so, you will still be in good standing. I do not know about time limits.

guanophore and 1ke said it perfectly, a few posts back.

I think it’s sad that so many people feel they need to pick up and leave the church because they don’t understand something or because they are too proud to suck it up and accept authority. And sometimes, people fight themselves and don’t WANT to understand it, because it would mean they’d have to change the way they live their life. We humans can be quite stubborn at times!

To answer your last question, I think most Catholics just go on saying they’re Catholic, because that’s how they were raised, and besides, it’s much easier to just keep going to the same church and not have to deal with family members questioning or antagonizing, plus, most protestant churches require a lot more effort and participation from their members, anyway. Laziness and convenience usually win out, and they’ll just ignore the teachings they don’t agree with. I think the only time something would actually cause a split would be if they were confronted with an impediment to marriage, or having their child baptized, or told straight up by someone that they were erring and took personal offense or were embarrassed.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

kage_ar;5412276:

They trot off and either find a church or synagogue or temple that has beliefs that fit theirs… not finding that, they start their own. How do you think we ended up with 30,000 denominations?

All non-Catholics who disagree with teachings pull up stakes and find another place to roost, or start a new denomination? That sounds like a blanket statement to me.

I know it’s common to do that, but everyone doesn’t. So, I was hoping to find out from them how differences of opinion are dealt with. Since you brought up walking away, I wonder at what point do they walk away. What kinds of differences are likely to cause a split?

Of course I would like this information from the horses mouth.

My particular bunfight with the church centres around 2 main issues, with a 3rd if the Protestants ever rejoin the church. I think the “infaiilbility” ruling is unnecessary since Christ already stated Peter’s (and therefore the Pope’s) authority is “binding” on earth as well as heaven. The Ultramontanists in Vatican I took this an unnecessary step further.

My second argument is about the pill, or artificial contraception, and its pretty obvious to me that there are plenty of otherwise good and faithful Catholics who use it, but who aren’t going to tell their priest that. The mere fact that Catholic families are not the large affairs they used to be is simple proof of that. And they believe in Christ as much as any ultra-traditionalist.

I haven’t seen many Catholics go off and join or start another church just because they disagree with church teaching on the pill. They just ignore it. The church is flogging a dead horse with this one. And it is natural in that it uses natural hormones to do the job.

My third disagreement is the business of married clergy, particularly if the Protestants reunite with the Catholic Church. If the Protestants can run their churches very successfully using both single and married clergy, then I fail to see why the Catholic Church can’t either. It may mean bringing in a separate order of priests, maybe titled “Reverend” or “Pastor” or whatever, rather than “Father” as they would already have a natural role as father. After all, tradition has it the first disciples were often married, so if it was good enough for them, then it should be good enough for us.

I lifted, incompletely, the following extract from a Fr. Echert, who also stated that the early church thought the apostles remained celibate after Pentecost. Nevertheless the Apostles were married.

“With regards to the first apostles, early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called by our Lord, except the young beloved apostle, St. John. In fact, the Fathers comment upon the designation of St. John as beloved of Jesus and suggest this special relationship with the Lord was due, at least in part, to his celibate status throughout life. We do have mention of the mother-in-law of St. Peter in the Gospel, who was cured of a fever by our Lord.”

So even Peter was married.

 

[guanophore]

The thing is, I don’t have a problem with something that the Church church teaching on abortion, except that it seem inconsistant in the case of ectopic pregnancy. If someone could make sense of that for me, it would be great.

It is very simple, kalt. Medical treatment is not an abortion. An abortion is a deliberate taking of an innocent child’s life. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not intended to murder an innocent human being. There are many serious side effects and possible bad outcomes for treatment of medical problems. For example, some people die in surgery. The surgery is not intended to kill them.

But the moderator asked us to keep this on topic, and the original question was about what it means to disagree.

I know that we’re required to “accept” these teachings. But what does accepting these teachings mean? Obviously, we’re required to act in accordance with the teachings. That’s a no-brainer.

One would think that this is obvious, but current events show otherwise.

But are we required to understand every teaching, though it makes no sense to us? These teachings aren’t supposed to be mysteries, like the Trinity, I’m thinking.

Maybe, but you have to admit that it is a mystery why some of these conditions happen.

You are right, though, we are not required to understand. We are to approach such dilemmas with faith, knowing that, as we walk in obedience, truth will be revealed to us. Some things we will not understand until we get there!

If we look at the evidence and see an inconsistancy that no one seems able to clarify for us, are we required to forget about it and go on without thinking? If we don’t understand the teaching, either stop thinking or find another church (as one poster advised)? Can we go on thinking and researching, all the while disagreeing with the conclusion, and still be in good standing with the Church? Is there a time limit? If there is, at what point do you get cut off?

It seems to me that the Church would rather have people think about the teachings and try to figure them out, than to have a bunch of mindless sheep who don’t understand, or worse, never bothered to think about anything. Well, I suppose the dumb sheep are easier to lead, but what’s the value in a flock of idiotic sheep?

I agree, God created us to understand, and to seek out learning. Scripture is also clear that this is our duty. However, we must do so with the realization that we are finite, limited, and that what we want to know may not be revealed to us in our lifetime.

We need to approach what we do not understand with humility, knowing that our understanding is not requred for something to be True.

 

[guanophore]

You amaze me. You honestly believe that a married Catholic couple who choose, according to their own conscience, to have a family of three children, barring “accidents”, by the use of contraception have been contaminated by the culture of death?

Absolutely. Your amazement is proof all by itself!

A well formed conscience will not violate the Church teachings in any way.

I regard myself as Catholic, whether you believe it or not. Nobody set you up as my judge to decide whether I’m Catholic or not.

Indeed not! I mean, your beliefs are not consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches, therefore, by definition, you do not hold Catholic faith.

You are right, it is not up to me to decide the matter. You own words bear witness to the facts. When you state that you believe contrary to the Church teaching, you testify that you do not hold Catholic faith.

I believe the Pope’s rulings are “binding” as specified by Christ. But I equally believe the church can make mistakes. In fact, back in the late Middle Ages, there was so much corruption in the Church, it led to a violent Reformation. We had Popes with mistresses, Popes with immense wealth, Popes engaged in murder and assassination.

Clearly you are confused about the difference between the Teachings of the Church, and the actions of sinful men who claim to be members of her. The actions of sinner do not define the Church teaching.

I take the business of “Infallibility” with a grain of salt.

This is one of the reasons you do not hold Catholic faith.

However, it is becoming increasing clear that you do not understand the Catholic faith, so this is not surprising. You probably have as limited a knowledge of infallibility as you do conscience, and the nature of magisterial authority.

 

[guanophore]

I’m so sick of this attitude of Catholics toward fellow Catholics on this forum.

Attitude?

If this person says he’s Catholic, he’s Catholic. It isn’t up to you to decide what religion someone is. Besides, I’m pretty sure that calling someone’s faith into question is against the forum rules.

No, calling yourself Catholic does not make you Catholic. The Catholic faith is defined by a certain set of beliefs and practices. Those who do not share them, or outright reject them, as he says he does, do not hold Catholic faith.

I am not questioning his faith. For all I know, he is role playing! I asked why he wants to call himself Catholic when he admits he does not share the Catholic faith.

You may be assenting to all the Catholic teachings. Heck, you might even actually understand one or two of them. But you’re sure missing the ball on the whole Christian thing.

I think, when you are ready to study the early heresies of the church, you will find that distinguising between truth and falsehood is not “unchristian”. The early fathers were much harsher than anything I have said here. I suggest a good read of Irenaeus “Against Heresies”. That is where my “attitude” comes from.

You get bonus points for following the letter of the law, though–at least according to you self-reporting on this forum.

Oh no. The truth is that I spent most of my life as a cafeteria catholic. I see myself.

And this brings up another question on the disagreeing with the Church theme. What if you agree to say that you believe all that the Church teaches, though you don’t understand every teaching, but act like a nasty piece of work, and there is another person who is more open about not agreeing with a teaching because it doesn’t make sense to them, but they’re usually a pretty decent person who obeys the teaching anyway? Is one or the other in better shape with the Church? Which one?

Only God can know the heart. I am sure anyone with a “nasty piece of work” will have to answer for it.

I guess I’m asking if agreeing with a teaching is enough. If you agree with a teaching, say Christian charity, but act like you don’t, is that worse than disagreeing with a teaching, but acting (by your actions) like you do?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Confirming people in their wrongdoing is not loving.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Attitude?

No, calling yourself Catholic does not make you Catholic. The Catholic faith is defined by a certain set of beliefs and practices. Those who do not share them, or outright reject them, as he says he does, do not hold Catholic faith.

I am not questioning his faith. For all I know, he is role playing! I asked why he wants to call himself Catholic when he admits he does not share the Catholic faith.

I think, when you are ready to study the early heresies of the church, you will find that distinguising between truth and falsehood is not “unchristian”. The early fathers were much harsher than anything I have said here. I suggest a good read of Irenaeus “Against Heresies”. That is where my “attitude” comes from.

Oh no. The truth is that I spent most of my life as a cafeteria catholic. I see myself.

Only God can know the heart. I am sure anyone with a “nasty piece of work” will have to answer for it.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Confirming people in their wrongdoing is not loving.

\

Amazing how some of you people have so much insight that you can declare yourselves an expert on someone else’s spiritual status. “You’re Catholic”, “You’re not Catholic”, all according to your infallible opinion.

I seem to remember Christ saying something along the lines of “Judge not, lest you be judged.” I assume then that you have nothing to worry about in your own judgment, since you are so ready to set yourself up as the judge of other people’s faith and spirituality?

 

[cascherman]

You amaze me. You honestly believe that a married Catholic couple who choose, according to their own conscience, to have a family of three children, barring “accidents”, by the use of contraception have been contaminated by the culture of death?

I regard myself as Catholic, whether you believe it or not. Nobody set you up as my judge to decide whether I’m Catholic or not.

I believe the Pope’s rulings are “binding” as specified by Christ. But I equally believe the church can make mistakes. In fact, back in the late Middle Ages, there was so much corruption in the Church, it led to a violent Reformation. We had Popes with mistresses, Popes with immense wealth, Popes engaged in murder and assassination.

I take the business of “Infallibility” with a grain of salt.

Holy Moley Mr. Crowley,

I’ll show you something real quick that I think you should do some thinking on:

The TEACHING that contraception is wrong is a moral topic. Popes having mistresses, immense wealth, and being engaged in murder and assassination is not a TEACHING, it is a personal sin or action. For example, if I say to you “Thou shalt not kill” and then I go the next day and end up killing someone, does that make “Thou shalt not kill” any less true?

When the Church teaches something INFALLIBLY it does not mean the people teaching it will never be on the sinful end of that teaching. Remember what happened with the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew. Christ said “Do WHATSOEVER they tell you, but do not follow their example”. They evidently had the authority to teach correctly, but Christ knew they would not follow their own teachings.

So, I think others have asked a good question. Why would you WANT to call yourself Catholic when you do not agree with it’s teaching on contraception AND it’s teaching on the Church’s infallibility? I do not have the right to say you are not Catholic, but I do think you might consider the stances you take and what it actually means in regard to your Catholicity.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Holy Moley Mr. Crowley,

I’ll show you something real quick that I think you should do some thinking on:

The TEACHING that contraception is wrong is a moral topic. Popes having mistresses, immense wealth, and being engaged in murder and assassination is not a TEACHING, it is a personal sin or action. For example, if I say to you “Thou shalt not kill” and then I go the next day and end up killing someone, does that make “Thou shalt not kill” any less true?

When the Church teaches something INFALLIBLY it does not mean the people teaching it will never be on the sinful end of that teaching. Remember what happened with the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew. Christ said “Do WHATSOEVER they tell you, but do not follow their example”. They evidently had the authority to teach correctly, but Christ knew they would not follow their own teachings.

So, I think others have asked a good question. Why would you WANT to call yourself Catholic when you do not agree with it’s teaching on contraception AND it’s teaching on the Church’s infallibility? I do not have the right to say you are not Catholic, but I do think you might consider the stances you take and what it actually means in regard to your Catholicity.

I’ll stick with my opinion because I think the Church is wrong in this particular teaching. And I note nobody has answered satisfactorily my query as to the extremely short lived reign of Pope John Paul I. He died a mere 30 days into office. I’ll say it again - I think Christ told him to dos something about the ruling and he refused. If you want a great argument for the abortion industry, point to contraceptives not being available.

So is God so careless about whom He advises the entire magisterium that He’s not even interested in who gets elected as Pope? Or is His foresight so limited He didn’t even know His choice was a sick man?

Or did an otherwise “infallible” magisterium, guided infallibly I assume by the Holy Spirit after immense prayer and reflection, make a mistake? In which case their “infallibility” needs to be subject to a certain amount of scrutiny.

Or was he murdered? Yet exhaustive investigations revealed no evidence of foul play, despite all the rumours about the Vatican Bank, the conspiracy theories etc.

Or was He told to do something and disobeyed the instruction? I mean if Christ were to tell His own Pope to do something important and the Pope refused, what would be the consequence?

And don’t give me “It’s none of the above?” That doesn’t wash.

 

[cascherman]

So, how are Catholics directed to deal with fellow Catholics who are trying to understand a teaching?

There have been countless answers here concerning this question and yet you KEEP asking it because you don’t like the answer.

The best answer I can see, if you are sincerely wanting to learn about this topic and not argue, is to seek out the advise of an expert or professional on this topic. No one here to my knowledge is an expert in this regard.

I know I am not an expert, and this is why I advise you to look elsewhere, because that is what I would do… I accept the Church’s teaching on this simply because I believe Christ gave the Church the authority to rule one way or the other on this. I have seen why they teach this and I have no problem with agreeing with it.

So, again… I believe you should seek someone out who can give you an expert opinion. Disagreeing with the Church you are a part of is a serious thing and should be dealt with with special attention and sincerity.

 

[cascherman]

I’ll stick with my opinion because I think the Church is wrong in this particular teaching. And I note nobody has answered satisfactorily my query as to the extremely short lived reign of Pope John Paul I. He died a mere 30 days into office. I’ll say it again - I think Christ told him to dos something about the ruling and he refused. If you want a great argument for the abortion industry, point to contraceptives not being available.

So is God so careless about whom He advises the entire magisterium that He’s not even interested in who gets elected as Pope? Or is His foresight so limited He didn’t even know His choice was a sick man?

Or did an otherwise “infallible” magisterium, guided infallibly I assume by the Holy Spirit after immense prayer and reflection, make a mistake? In which case their “infallibility” needs to be subject to a certain amount of scrutiny.

Or was he murdered? Yet exhaustive investigations revealed no evidence of foul play, despite all the rumours about the Vatican Bank, the conspiracy theories etc.

Or was He told to do something and disobeyed the instruction? I mean if Christ were to tell His own Pope to do something important and the Pope refused, what would be the consequence?

And don’t give me “It’s none of the above?” That doesn’t wash.

First off, you didn’t address what I said in my last post, but thank you for a rapid response.

Secondly, I feel like you are making a straw man with the John Paul I thing. Who are you to say the one month that he was Pope nothing happened that God wanted to happen? If God gave Pope John Paul I the revelation to rescind the contraceptions teaching why has he not doing the same thing to his successors? Did God change his mind and figure it wasn’t worth bugging us humans with this?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’ll stick with my opinion because I think the Church is wrong in this particular teaching. And I note nobody has answered satisfactorily my query as to the extremely short lived reign of Pope John Paul I. He died a mere 30 days into office. I’ll say it again - I think Christ told him to dos something about the ruling and he refused. If you want a great argument for the abortion industry, point to contraceptives not being available.

So is God so careless about whom He advises the entire magisterium that He’s not even interested in who gets elected as Pope? Or is His foresight so limited He didn’t even know His choice was a sick man?

Or did an otherwise “infallible” magisterium, guided infallibly I assume by the Holy Spirit after immense prayer and reflection, make a mistake? In which case their “infallibility” needs to be subject to a certain amount of scrutiny.

Or was he murdered? Yet exhaustive investigations revealed no evidence of foul play, despite all the rumours about the Vatican Bank, the conspiracy theories etc.

Or was He told to do something and disobeyed the instruction? I mean if Christ were to tell His own Pope to do something important and the Pope refused, what would be the consequence?

And don’t give me “It’s none of the above?” That doesn’t wash.

I’ll put it the way Eamon Duffy put it in “Saints and Sinners - A History of the Popes”.

"In the face of growing unhappiness with the Church’s total ban on all forms of artificial contraceptives, even within marriage, Paul (VI) had taken the radical step of removing the question of contraception from the jurisdiction of the Council and remitting it to an advisory commission of theologians, scientists, doctors and married couples. The commission prepared a report recommending modification of the traditional teaching to allow birth control in certain circumstances, and it was widely expected the Pope would accept this recommendation. In the event, HE COULD NOT BRING HIMSELF to do so, and the encyclical reaffirmed the traditional teaching,… To his horror, instead of closing the question, Humanae Vitae provoked a storm of protest, and many priests resigned or were forces out of their posts for their opposition to the Pope’s teaching.

… his confidence was shattered. He never wrote another encyclical, and the last ten years of his pontificate were marked by deepening gloom…

He was succeeded by another Pope, Albino Luciani, son of a migrant worker who had risen to become patriarch of Venice. …(Pope John Paul 1) … for just a month after his election he was found dead of a coronary embolism in the papal apartments. Sensational rumours, later shown to be groundless, suggested he had been murdered to prevent him exposing and cleaning up financial corruption in the Vatican Bank.

… Once more the shocked cardinals assembled. They had elected a simple good man to be a pastoral pope, and the Lord had whisked him away. Was there a message in all this?.."

You might think the issue of Humanae Vitae is cut and dried, but I think there’s a bit more to it.

 

[cascherman]

You might think the issue of Humanae Vitae is cut and dried, but I think there’s a bit more to it.

This topic is not meant to be a discussion on why you think the Church is wrong… This is a discussion about what should we do when we disagree with the Church. I have been trying to respond accordingly, you seem to rather jumping on the soap box.

If you would be so kind, please respond to what I said in my post to you starting with “Holy Moley Mr Crowley…”

 

[LilyM]

I’ll put it the way Eamon Duffy put it in “Saints and Sinners - A History of the Popes”.

"In the face of growing unhappiness with the Church’s total ban on all forms of artificial contraceptives, even within marriage, Paul (VI) had taken the radical step of removing the question of contraception from the jurisdiction of the Council and remitting it to an advisory commission of theologians, scientists, doctors and married couples. The commission prepared a report recommending modification of the traditional teaching to allow birth control in certain circumstances, and it was widely expected the Pope would accept this recommendation. In the event, HE COULD NOT BRING HIMSELF to do so, and the encyclical reaffirmed the traditional teaching,… To his horror, instead of closing the question, Humanae Vitae provoked a storm of protest, and many priests resigned or were forces out of their posts for their opposition to the Pope’s teaching.

… his confidence was shattered. He never wrote another encyclical, and the last ten years of his pontificate were marked by deepening gloom…

He was succeeded by another Pope, Albino Luciani, son of a migrant worker who had risen to become patriarch of Venice. …(Pope John Paul 1) … for just a month after his election he was found dead of a coronary embolism in the papal apartments. Sensational rumours, later shown to be groundless, suggested he had been murdered to prevent him exposing and cleaning up financial corruption in the Vatican Bank.

… Once more the shocked cardinals assembled. They had elected a simple good man to be a pastoral pope, and the Lord had whisked him away. Was there a message in all this?.."

You might think the issue of Humanae Vitae is cut and dried, but I think there’s a bit more to it.

Well, from the Church’s point of view it would appear that it is.

It’s been 40 years, those Catholics who want to ignore the teaching of *Humanae Vitae *are for the most part happily doing so. There is no reason on earth why JP2 or Benedict 16 couldn’t have revoked it before now.

On the contrary, I believe JP2 went even further than Paul VI, who if memory serves expressly declared Humanae Vitae itself to be non-infallible, by affirming that even if the document itself wasn’t an exercise in infallibility, the prohibition on contraception was certainly infallible Apostolic teaching.

Why would the Holy Spirit allow that if it was so all-fired determined to do away with the ruling against contraception in JP1’s pontificate?

If the death of JP1 is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, events afterwards seem to suggest to me that the correct interpretation is the opposite of yours. Namely that JP1’s desire (assuming it existed) to rescind the teaching could not be permitted, so the Holy Spirit cleared the way for a Pope to quickly succeed JP1 who would instead reaffirm it.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Well, from the Church’s point of view it would appear that it is.

It’s been 40 years, those Catholics who want to ignore the teaching of *Humanae Vitae *are for the most part happily doing so. There is no reason on earth why JP2 or Benedict 16 couldn’t have revoked it before now.

On the contrary, I believe JP2 went even further than Paul VI, who if memory serves expressly declared Humanae Vitae itself to be non-infallible, by affirming that even if the document itself wasn’t an exercise in infallibility, the prohibition on contraception was certainly infallible Apostolic teaching.

Why would the Holy Spirit allow that if it was so all-fired determined to do away with the ruling against contraception in JP1’s pontificate?

If the death of JP1 is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, events afterwards seem to suggest to me that the correct interpretation is the opposite of yours. Namely that JP1’s desire (assuming it existed) to rescind the teaching could not be permitted, so the Holy Spirit cleared the way for a Pope to quickly succeed JP1 who would instead reaffirm it.

So we’ll have to agree to disagree. Which means that if we disagree with a church teaching, then in good conscience we will just have to continue doing so. I seem to remember a Reformation which tore Europe apart, largely based on church teachings on indulgences being abused by the church itself. The ill will must have been considerable for the feelings to run so high, but the Church didn’t reform itself, untill it was too late.

I’ll go on believing what I think.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

If the church is going to insist on this policy, then it has an equal obligation to state how these people are to be fed, housed and so on. It cannot make a ruling like this, and then distance itself from the poltiical, economic and social consequences. Every five years, the demand for all these things is increasing by a factor of a mere 400 million people. Already 1 billion people go to bed hungry each night.

This is the estimated population growth since 70,000BC according to Wikipedia.

70,000 BCE < 1,000 [21]
10,000 BCE 1,000
9000 BCE 3,000
8000 BCE 5,000 [22]
7000 BCE 7,000
6000 BCE 10,000
5000 BCE 15,000
4000 BCE 20,000
3000 BCE 25,000
2000 BCE 35,000
1000 BCE 50,000 [22]
500 BCE 100,000 [22]
1 200,000 [23]
1000 310,000
1750 791,000
1800 978,000
1900 1,650,000
1950 2,518,629
1955 2,755,823
1960 2,981,659
1965 3,334,874
1970 3,692,492
1975 4,068,109
1980 4,434,682
1985 4,830,979
1990 5,263,593
1995 5,674,380
2000 6,070,581
2005 6,453,628
Jul. 1, 2008 6,706,993

It is estimated we will reach 7 billion by 2012.

 

[cascherman]

it looks like the world has done as God wanted: “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”

Interestingly God did not say, “Oh, by the way, once you hit a certain number make sure you have lots of sex but use contraception to make sure you no longer multiply.”

And what about the fact that Europe won’t have enough population to cover those people who are dying within a century?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

it looks like the world has done as God wanted: “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”

Interestingly God did not say, “Oh, by the way, once you hit a certain number make sure you have lots of sex but use contraception to make sure you no longer multiply.”

And what about the fact that Europe won’t have enough population to cover those people who are dying within a century?

According to the same source I quoted, Europe had a temporary, one-off decline in population from 2000 to 2005 of about 3 million people. But from 2005 to 2008, the population of Europe increased by about 7 million. So what do you base your claim on?

At the moment world population doubles every 40 to 50 years. Assuming that rate holds (a big if, I’ll admit), we’ll reach 12 billion around 2050, 24 billion around 2100, 48 billion around 2150, just a bit over a century away. Another 50 years and we’ll be up to 96 billion. What’s a suitable workable number for you?

However the time taken to double also appears to be decreasing.

A quote on carrying capacity -

"When scientists say that the carrying capacity of the Earth is 2 billion, they are not forgetting that we have 6 billion already. What they are saying is, that if you add up all the supplies in the world, and divide them up according to the amount that a typical American uses, then there is only enough for 2 billion people. If we have 6 billion people, the amount of fuel, water, electricity, etc. is just not enough to go around. Some people are going to be left out. We know that this is the case because, as we said in class, only about 1.2 billion people live in MDCs while the other 4.8 billion people have to make do with less.

When some scientists say that the carrying capacity of Earth is 40 billion, then they are saying that IF the rich people would give up all their luxuries such as cars, electricity, education, clean water, meatm etc. then that would allow us to provide minimum amounts of supplies to a much larger number of people. In fact, they say, we could provide minimum supplies to 40 billion people IF no one lived a luxury modern life style like the average Americans of 2001. "

I assume you’re doing your bit to make sure that everybody has a minimum lifestyle and are not using more than your fair share of resources? If not, why not?

 

[cascherman]

Alright evidently you believe your numbers are proof positive that contraception is the fix.

Answer me one question… Do you believe the Church has the authority to rule on faith and morals? Yes or No. Please do not answer “Yes, but No when they are wrong.”