Reply With Quote
took a while to adjust to modern times...
took a while to adjust to modern times...
Is this new? the date on the article is november 2010
new to me: I'm a lapsed Catholic
but yeah, I totally missed that.
Only one thing stood out to me in that article;
He continues: “A craving for happiness has developed that cannot content itself with things as they are.”
Only thing I could see that was worthy...and about in' time that this Holy Moron and this moronic cult wake up to reality...at least regarding condom use.
Millions upon millions of ignorant people have suffered because of this stubborn stance....
It's almost like technology and those in a "for profit" business are helping people around the globe to not "suffer"......weird.
^ Perfect reason why condoms should have been in use in his parents bedroom...
Oh no, I didn't know about it either. I wasn't trying to say "old news" or anything, I was just surprised that a bigger deal wasn't made of this two years ago.
Says the guy that contributes nothing to society.....
Wake me up when they start distributing them to their priests.
As a lapsed Catholic myself, I was totally blown away by this. There was nothing in it in the media that I have noticed in the last two years.
What it fundamentally changes is the age-old Catholic teaching that sex "can only be used for procreation...never for recreation"...which was always such a convolution of the notion of marital (or other) love that it was manifestly ridiculous.
^^^Moreover, what the does this have to say then about all the uproar about the coverage for FEMALE contraception by Roman ins utions' insurance coverage?
The implication here would surely be that the insurance could cover condoms but not pills or IUDs.
^^^I understand that the pope used the rationale for condom acceptance based on the risk of AIDS infection, but the logical issue is that if it is okay for contraception use in any cir stance, it should be okay in other reasonable cir stances (like not wanting to bring another child that you can't afford into the world).
There is another thread here about bad religions in which I chose not to participate because so many religions are so bad for so many reasons, but a point that I might have brought up is that the Roman Church is one of the most repressive religions in the history of mankind toward women. Mind you not the ONLY and perhaps not even the WORST, but certainly right up there with Judaism (the daily prayer by men that includes "I thank you God that I was not born a woman"), Islam ( ALL the ways they display their derision of women), etc. etc.
This ruling by this pope is just another example of the double standard that orthodox Roman Catholicism has used regarding men and women for centuries.
I guess I would also be considered a lapsed catholic (since about a week after confirmation) -lol.
I was never taught this and I even attended a Catholic pre-marriage retreat. They specifically said that sex was the consecration of marital vows, and that husband and wife should renew their vows as many times as they can as a part of a healthy marriage.
As a seperate subject, when they talked about contraception, they said that the reason for the ban is that "we should always be open to god's gift of life" and that using contraception "effectively is an attempt to subvert gods will". Therefore: natural family planning - I had many issues with this as it seemed more subversive than outright contraception, but then again, I took issue with a lot of stuff discussed there.
You and I may be different ages in the Church's teachings, but I guarantee that I was taught in grade school, high school, and college (all Catholic) that the only acceptable reason for having sex was procreation.
Of course, I was raised in the 50's and 60's, before the age of John Paul XXIII,
although he was pope while I was in college.
Admittedly the Jesuit college I attended said the Church was wrong about 75% of what they said, but that was Jesuits, not parish priests.
Jesuits tended to have sex with their female students rather than their altar boys as the parish priests did. Jesuits were thrilled to have their students use contraception.
yep much different. In fact the Catholic school I went to as a child was really not that bad. I had a question in Religion class about what they were teaching. Stereotype dictates that because I had a question in religion class I should be spanked, but my teacher told me that questioning my faith was a healthy thing to do because if I find a way to answer my question, then my faith would be that much stronger (irony, I know, but still a very good lesson considering what people think goes on in class at a religious ins ution). By the time i got to public school (5th grade), I was pretty much a grade ahead and stayed that way cruising to mostly A's, and a few B's. This is the main reason that I am sending my daughter (and hopefully my son) to catholic school. Also, I got married in the church that I grew up at (my wife and I met there for the first time when I was 13), and the priest told us "look you know the church's stance on contraception, but you are adults and you know what you can handle, afford, etc."
Good. I'm glad to hear that things were different for you. It sounds like by the time that you were being taught I had already written the whole thing off.
I also got a good education, though. Didn't realize how good until I was in business and found out that I was one of only a handful of people who actually knew how to THINK.
Yeah, in high school CCD classes the priests were realistic about contraception, regardless of the stance of the Pope at the time. Once I was out of my parents house I was done with it though.
Yeah, I was born in 79, so a little later. lol
I had always credited my Catholic school foundation as the reason that I was so far ahead of my counterparts, but one of my traits that I am proudest of is my problem solving ability (i.e. how to think) and I never placed it on them. Maybe there is some corrolation, though I would place large portion of the responsibility with my parents as well.
If I understand you and Drachen correctly, the parish priests have, at least for some time, been 'realistic' about American Catholics' likelihood of using contraception.
That being so, why is there such a flap by the American Church regarding their insurance companies' paying for female contraception products?
Mind you, I cannot abide Kathleen Sibelius, who is probably responsible for this particular part of the ACA, but I certainly don't see the requirement as an attack on religious freedom.
Because it is techically still dogmatic law I guess. I haven't discussed it with anyone who is entrenched in the church. Maybe I will ask my dad (he is in deacon school).
Thanks. I would appreciate knowing, honestly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
