What's YOUR beef?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pkdsquared
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I’m Catholic, but there are a few stumbling blocks for me:

-papal infallibility is hard for me to swallow.

  • I also feel like a prisoner of the Church with all it’s rules and regulations regarding marriage. For example: birth control (artificial or natural or barrier),
-I hate the way I feel that the Church regards women.


But I’m grateful to be where I am at right now, in control of myself and my life and my body. I feel sorry for those before me who lacked the rights I have today, and I thank God every day for what I have.
Hi. It is quite a beef that you have with the Church and I thought they are rather major ones. Papal infallibility (in matter of faith and moral) and contraception are non-negotiable and if you feel stifled by rules and regulations of the Church you may be more troubled than at peace with yourself and the Church.
 
Actually, none. In fact I think the Catholic Church has accomplished much good in this world, and I agree with many of the moral principles it espouses. I simply don’t believe many of the fundamental tenets of the faith.
You might try www.davidmacd.com which explains the fundamentlist positions of the Church. Whatever fundamentalist topic your interest takes you, its pretty much there.

Has a great story of a man’s conversion and is very touching. At the very least, you’ll enjoy the way he tells it. In fact, he sounds like he almost had you in mind when he created it. Very fundamental and clear and sensitive to others.
 
My issue is not with the Church, but the Catholics themselves.
The hypocritical behavior, the ones who blatantly ignore what their catechism says, the ones who think all us protestants hate them, just because we disagree with them…
:hmmm:I do think the word Catholic in the first sentence could also be changed to Protestant or Christian.
The second sentence Protestants could be changed to Catholics.;)🙂 Peace, Carlan
 
Catholics who were formally separated brothers should never enter in unless they fully understand and believe the full Truth of what the Apostolic Church teaches about moral issues. You cannot continue to practice the lax rules of morality in the Church and remain in God’s grace. No trying to use your own justification for deadly sin. :eek:Peace, Carlan
 
WRONG.
Using NFP is not the same because it must still be open to the possibility of life. Abstinence during a fertile period is not the same as making God jump over hurdles that you have placed before him. One is simply not using the gift for a time. The other is rejecting and altering that gift.
How, exactly, is limiting sexual intercourse to a woman’s infertile periods being “open to the possibility of life”, since the creation of life is biologically impossible during such periods?
 
The Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with it, but these days finds it hard to justify capital punishment for serial murderers… Pope John Paul II apologised for the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo. So burning people at the stake at one time had what might be called the “infallible” blessing of the church, and it’s treament of Galilieo likewise. Now it does an about face, in the second case by a Pope himself, and I’m told the church never makes mistakes.
Come off it.

My opinion is that the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth. Our singular Australian saint, Saint Mary McKillop, was once ex-communicated at the behest of petty minded and jealous priests. So they were right were they, being Catholic? In that case, which Catholic am I supposed to believe was closer to God?
**You are a moral relativist - My truth vs. the Church’s truth. There is only ONE truth, friend. Something is either true or not and you CAN’T have it both ways. The bottom line is that you **are not in communion with the Church, and therefore should not be receiving the Eucharist – PERIOD.
The reception of the Eucharist is called, “Communion” for a reason.


Secondly - your history is a bit skewed, which doesn’t surprise me coming from an anti-Catholic dissenter.

**The Church didn’t do *MOST *of what you claim. These things were done in the name of the Church without the Church’s approval. Many things like the Spanish Inquisition were committed by the GOVERNMENT of Spain (again, in the name of the Church) and not Rome.

Get your facts straight before spewing any other historical inconsistencies, my anti-Catholic friend.
 
Sorry, but my Australian experience and former Protestantism means I take some Catholic teachings with a grain of salt. And the ban on artificial contracepition is one of them. Pope Paul VI set up a committee himself to investigate the issue, made up predmoniantly of good Catholics, and they recommended the contraceptive pill should be available to married couples. But he chickened out. I’ll say it again - I think God was speaking through the committee the pope appointed, but the pope wasn’t willing to believe it.
"Change in the Air

Rock’s Argument for the Pill
In the mid-1960s, one of the Pill’s most prominent Catholic advocates, Dr. John Rock, insisted that the Pill should be acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church as a variant of the rhythm method. He was confident that the Vatican would eventually accept his argument that the Pill was a “natural” form of birth control and allow Catholic women to use it for contraception.

The Pope’s Encyclical
Pope Paul VI It was not to be. On the morning of July 25, 1968, the Vatican called a press conference to announce its decision on the Pill. In the papal encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”), Pope Paul VI ended the speculation over oral contraceptives and birth control once and for all. He reaffirmed the Church’s traditional teachings and classified the Pill as an artificial method of birth control. To go on the Pill or use any other contraceptive device would constitute nothing less than a mortal sin.

Ignoring the Vatican
Within just two years of Humanae Vitae, almost as many Catholic women used the Pill as non-Catholics. By 1970, two-thirds of all Catholic women and three-quarters of those under 30 were using the Pill and other birth control methods banned by the Church. In 2002, Humanae Vitae still defined the Church’s position on birth control, and many observers of the Church believed that it contributed to the erosion of the Vatican’s authority during the last decades of the twentieth century"

So he not only lost a lot of priests and nuns, but from that time on, a lot of Catholics no longer regarded the Vatican with the same regard as previously.

From “Saints and Sinners … A History of the Popes” by Eamon Duffy - "To his horror, instead of closing the question, Humanae Vitae provoked a storm of protest of protest, and many priests resigned or were forced out of their posts for their opposition to the pope’s teaching.

Paul never doubted that he had done what had to be done, but his confidence was shattered. He never wrote another encyclical, and the last ten years of his pontificate were marked by deepening gloom, as he agonised over the divisions within the church and his own unpopularity. the mass exodus of priests and religious, and the growing violence of the secular world…"

That’s why I haven’t got much time for this "infallibility’ bit.

First of all – any committee appointed by a Pope nor any group of priests or religious does not possess the charism of infallibility. It is an established fact that the pill is an abortafacient – that is can cause spontaneous abortions of an implanted fetus. This is morally reprehensible.

Finally – don’t try to use Humanae Vitae against the Catholic position. I have forgotten more about this document than you purport to know. Humanae Vitae has PROVEN to be a truly prophetic document. Paul VI warned that if artificial contraception was embraced, the domino effect it would create would lead to the unspeakable horror of abortion and euthanasia – and id DID. He argued that once the life-giving aspect of the marital sexual act was removed in the name of convenience, the relativism that would arise from it would be devastating.

You make the argument that because of
** dissention among Catholic women who use the pill and other dissidents among nuns and priests despite the Church’s teaching against it – that this somehow makes it right. This is perhaps the most ludicrous **of your positions.

**The Church is the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) and the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15). You profane the Eucharist with your obstinate rejections of the truth every time you receive. **

The truth isn’t up for grabs, pal.
 
How, exactly, is limiting sexual intercourse to a woman’s infertile periods being “open to the possibility of life”, since the creation of life is biologically impossible during such periods?
Because there are no artificial barriers being placed before God. The couple must still be open to life because abstinence during a supposed infertile period doesn’t guarantee that the woman won’t become pregnant. They are placing their trust in GOD to determine the decision – not an abortafacient pill, condom or other device.
 
Because there are no artificial barriers being placed before God. The couple must still be open to life because abstinence during a supposed infertile period doesn’t guarantee that the woman won’t become pregnant. They are placing their trust in GOD to determine the decision – not an abortafacient pill, condom or other device.
If God can make a woman conceive during her infertile period, then He certainly can get a sperm through a condom or thwart the effects of the pill’s hormones. In fact - if NFP supporters are to believed - God is at least as successful in overcoming those “artificial barriers” as He is in beating NFP!

Besides, one could deem NFP itself to be “artificial” because, like other methods, it depend on the application of scientific knowledge with the specific intention of preventing pregnancy.
 
If God can make a woman conceive during her infertile period, then He certainly can get a sperm through a condom
And has been known to do so 🙂
or thwart the effects of the pill’s hormones.
And has been known to do so 🙂
In fact - if NFP supporters are to believed - God is at least as successful in overcoming those “artificial barriers” as He is in beating NFP!
True unbiased studies rate the effectiveness of all forms of birth control as very high, if done correctly. You just can’t dupe God is all. If He wants you to get pregnant, you will. However, it’s part of responsible parenthood to avoid pregnancy if it seriously isn’t the right time to get pregnant. It’s just that the Church only approves of NFP and rejects all other means to avoid pregnancy. And I think it’s a matter of faith for believers to only use NFP, like many other things that are difficult to understand yet required by the Church. 🤷
Besides, one could deem NFP itself to be “artificial” because, like other methods, it depend on the application of scientific knowledge with the specific intention of preventing pregnancy.
I still don’t understand what’s so “natural” about modern medical interventions that do indeed defy the natural progression of illness and natural aging. But I’m sure that it’s just as crystal clear to some folks as it is not-clear-at-all to me 🤷
 
If God can make a woman conceive during her infertile period, then He certainly can get a sperm through a condom or thwart the effects of the pill’s hormones. In fact - if NFP supporters are to believed - God is at least as successful in overcoming those “artificial barriers” as He is in beating NFP!

Besides, one could deem NFP itself to be “artificial” because, like other methods, it depend on the application of scientific knowledge with the specific intention of preventing pregnancy.
WEAK argument.
**The fact is that artificial contraception is just that - artificial. NFP is hardly that. The bible even clears the way for it. 1 Cor. 7:5 specifically states:
**Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. **

**Whereas, I can provide a litany of arguments against the pill (link to breast cancer, blood-clotting, abortafacient properties, etc), I’ll address the use of condoms, spermicides, etc. Not only is placing an artificial barrier before God sinful because you have decided what’s best, leaving God out of the equation - it is gravely sinful because of its “Onanistic” implications. In Gen. 38:8-10, you will remember that God struck Onan dead for wasting his seed, spilling it on the ground. It is clear that to God, this is an abomination - no different that wasting it in a condom. It is the willful destruction of life.
 
WEAK argument.
The fact is that artificial contraception is just that - artificial. NFP is *hardly *that. The bible even clears the way for it. 1 Cor. 7:5 specifically states:
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

**Whereas, I can provide a litany of arguments against the pill *(link to breast cancer, blood-clotting, abortafacient ***properties, etc), I’ll address the use of condoms, spermicides, etc. Not only is placing an artificial barrier before God sinful because you have decided what’s best, leaving God out of the equation - it is gravely sinful because of its “Onanistic” implications. In Gen. 38:8-10, you will remember that God struck Onan dead for wasting his seed, spilling it on the ground. It is clear that to God, this is an abomination - no different that wasting it in a condom. It is the willful destruction of life.
You (and/or the Catholic Church) might want to brush up on basic biology. Sperm is not human life, hence the “wasting” of sperm is not “willful destruction of life”.
 
Actually, none. In fact I think the Catholic Church has accomplished much good in this world, and I agree with many of the moral principles it espouses. I simply don’t believe many of the fundamental tenets of the faith.
I can’t say the same, even as a Lutheran. In fact, I agree with many if not most of them.

Jon
 
I don’t like that it seems most people I meet in a Catholic context don’t ever bother to go to mass, know very little about Catholicism and are very reluctant to learn.

I don’t know if I blame the Church or parents for not doing enough to bring up their children as strong, reverent Catholics. Probably the parents but maybe the Church should put more pressure on them.
 
The whole “One true church” thing. That seems more about being in a religious clique than about bringing Christ to others. Such a statement is obnoxious, and exclusive.
 
** **are not in communion with the Church, and therefore should not be receiving the Eucharist – PERIOD.

Hello elvisman,

I’m a bit shocked that someone would be judging another catholic to the extent to telling them they should not receive the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

This is surely a matter for them, their priest, and God.
 
If God can make a woman conceive during her infertile period, then He certainly can get a sperm through a condom or thwart the effects of the pill’s hormones. In fact - if NFP supporters are to believed - God is at least as successful in overcoming those “artificial barriers” as He is in beating NFP!

Besides, one could deem NFP itself to be “artificial” because, like other methods, it depend on the application of scientific knowledge with the specific intention of preventing pregnancy.
“The denial problem”!
Wanting to make up the rules to suit your own justification for disobedience.
It won’t wash in the end.
All kinds of spinning of the truth of what is and what isn’t. Peace, Carlan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top