Opinions don't always have to be pushed into little bins.
So when Steve Nicoloso (who, according to his comment in this post, prides himself on the fact that he's not very nice) said:
The idea that the Church's teaching on contraception is causative (or even correlative) with ills such as neglect, HIV, and murder is standard left-wing agitprop, and not worthy of any response above mockery.It bummed me out.
The fact is, the science is, that the availability of barrier-method contraception does not lead to increased promiscuity. But LACK of barrier method contraception DOES lead equal higher death rates. Period.
If I say "the sky is blue," Steve, does my position on gay rights mean I'm wrong?
The sky IS blue. Being anti-condom kills. Love rules. These are absolutes.
Steven also said:
NFP is not a licit method of contraception, but rather a licit method to delay conception or space out children for just reasons. A fine point, perhaps, put a clear one to those willing to think with the Church.It's actually NOT a fine point. It's a pretend point. The whole "think with the Church" comment, though... that's just frightening. And it's augmented by Steven referring to the:
"...Church's clear and univocal teaching throughout her history."Nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has absolutely NOT had a "univocal" teaching throughout History. Church. From start to present... there have been radical disagreements over doctrine and dogma. The Pauline Church was WAY more liberal than the folks who followed Peter. Deacons have been suppressed. Nazis indirectly (at best) supported. You've had Crusades, multiple Popes, and Creeds (Nicene and otherwise) which came about due to politics. Indeed, the Gospels themselves, while divinely inspired (in my opinion) are also political statements. Especially John, which was written in no small part to put down Thomas, and solidify the power of the Twelve.
Jesus created an Apostolic Church, with Peter as his rock. But none of those Apostles are, were, have been, or will be God.
How any follower of the Greatest Rebel of All Time, Jesus Christ, could say that you have to blindly follow the teaching of clearly fallible men is beyond me.
God demands otherwise.
Love to all. Even you, Steve.
10 comments:
Please note I am not Funky Dung (aka. Eric Williams) with whom you have IMed. Me, I don't even know what the hell IM is... (tho' I have used unix talk from time to time) and he's WAY nicer than me.
I'll stand by what I said. Your opinion is made up, in entrenched contradiction to the Church's clear teaching on certain issues. One can explore the reasons for those teachings if one takes the time. If one has neither the ability (due to stupidity) or the time (due to apathy) to research those reasons (which are voluminous), then the teaching remains clear for anyone desiring to be faithful, even while the reasons are rather murky. A faithful (as opposed to a cynical) exploration of those reasons is what I meant by "thinking with the Church" on a matter. If that is... ooooo... scary... then you reveal even more about yourself--specifically a lack of trust in a Church which claims to care for your soul--which leaves one to wonder what Catholicism is to you except some sort of emotional accoutrement?
Good day.
The Church is not run by Jesus Christ it is run by man, very powerful men. Jesus did not dream up Catholicism some dudes who wanted to control the masses put together Catholicism, based on the teachings of Jesus.
I did two post back in July on religion, I am interested in your opinion on those thoughts. If you have a minute here are the links
http://tutuboutique.blogspot.com/2006/07/religion-revisited.html
http://tutuboutique.blogspot.com/2006/07/religion.html
Steven:
1) Sad that you pride yourself on being a not-very-nice person.
2) Why do you think I was writing my priest? I wanted him to point me in the direction of responses? Interesting that you forgot that part so quickly.
3) I recall Jesus embracing those who he felt "needed help" WAY more than other folks. Perhaps instead of being dickish, you could try having a discussion.
Love you anyway.
Steve,
Cut Rich some slack. I think an honest attempt is being made to understand why the Church teaches what she teaches. Minds are rarely changed overnight and almost never by nastiness.
Rich,
Steve has a crusty exterior but a good heart as well. Try to see through his brutal bluntness to the faithful soul who really wants the best for you. He's a fan of "tough love". Hopefully it's not too tough for you to stick around to learn something from him.
To better understand Steve's relationship to "niceness", it might be good to read this post (his first, IIRC):
The Sin of Nice
"The fact is, the science is, that the availability of barrier-method contraception does not lead to increased promiscuity. But LACK of barrier method contraception DOES lead equal higher death rates. Period."
The problem with this argument is two-fold. The first is that you've begged the question regarding the statistics on contraceptive availability and promiscuity. The second is that you've begged the question regarding the statistics on contraceptive availability and correct contraceptive use, let alone disease prevention. I'm not saying what you've stated is wrong (I don't have the data, either), but you've assumed points that ought to be proved.
Rich,
It's not lack of contraception that kills, but rather promiscuous and pre-marital sex. Giving condoms to all of Africa will NOT get rid of aids. Only teaching them to value the sanctity of sex which was given to us by God for holy purposes will. Only the understanding of marriage as a sacrament and the understanding that sex should only take place within that sacrament will eliminate aids.
On the contrary Danny, dear, I've had plenty of premarital sex and have not yet died. And sex within marriage does not save one from AIDS if one of the two partners is unfaithful, or if they caught it before they were joined in holy matrimony. It would be interesting to know the statistics on how many couples have come up with disease because trust in the sacrament of marriage has kept them from using protection or from getting checked regularly for disease. You cannot deny the infidelity occurs, even among "good" Catholics. That, of course, doesn't make it right.
My argument is that education is key here. That abstenance is the best policy, with contraception the second best. This opinion has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with the importance of accurate sexual education. The people of Africa, have differnet traditions and beliefs than we do. We cannot assume that bringing them to your way of religious thinking will stop the spread of AIDS. Not when there is a prevailing idea in many places there that having sex with a virgin will cure you of the illness. Studies have shown that education and the distrubution of contraception has significantly reduced the incidence of infection. I will gladly go search the backup documentation on that.
Gina,
You said:
"And sex within marriage does not save one from AIDS if one of the two partners is unfaithful, or if they caught it before they were joined in holy matrimony."
If they took the sacrament of marriage seriously as the Sacrament it is, they would not be unfaithful or have pre-marital sex. So my prior statement still stands. If we teach people and get them to realize that sex is a holy thing which is only supposed to take place within marriage (which means you stay faithful to the covenant you entered into) then aids will be eliminated.
The prevailing ideas of Africa as you call them, need to be changed through education on abstinence and the value of the covenantal sacrament of matrimony.
P.s. Just because you've "had plenty of premarital sex and have not yet died" doesn't mean that others haven't. Look at all the people who have had plenty of premarital sex (hetero- or homo-)and have died of aids. Just because you were lucky doesn't mean it's alright.
God Bless.
So typed a big long answer to this last night and hit post, but it appears to have gone away. And I have to say that I am glad. Because I woke up this morning with the realization that there is no way to change Danny's mind about this just as he won't change mine. and arguing makes us both look like idiots.
Blessed be, and peace to all.
Post a Comment