Catholic Church on contraceptives

[angellous_evangellous]

I already did.

Do you still think that most Catholic preists are castrated?

 

[Smoke]

Do you still think that most Catholic preists are castrated?

Now that's a good idea. But I don't think Catholic theology would allow it. You have to remain open to the possibility of reproduction when you are ******* the kids in your parish.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you still think that most Catholic preists are castrated?

Some might think that a good idea .

But the Church says a priest must be a complete man.

Vivaldi had a fine life in that condition.... he carried his "spares" around in a leather bag for completeness sake

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Do you still think that most Catholic preists are castrated?

They're eunuchs via their vow of celibacy.

Why do you think literal castration was banned during the Ecumenical Councils?

 

[logician]

Catholicism has a history not only of discouraging contraception, but also promoting having large families, i.e adding more believers to the church. Simple arithmetic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They're eunuchs via their vow of celibacy.

Why do you think literal castration was banned during the Ecumenical Councils?

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Very edifying.

 

[Mister Emu]

BTW - what IS a deciding factor?

Not sure... maybe a neutral party that neither agrees nor disagrees with the issue?

Though, there is ample room to reasonably argue fairly any moral stance, so the relative reasonable nature of a moral argument is not, in and of itself, a basis for allowing opposing stances to be taken.

How about the significant number of Catholic politicians who declare that their faith is a matter of their own personal conscience and won't intrude into public policy?

How do they relate to the statement you quoted? If they are being party to evil, they are failing their moral duty.

Perhaps... in the same sense that the crew of the Maersk Dubai decided that their stowaways would not be part of their shipboard "community". If we accept the teachings of the Catholic faith as true, then excommunication is the moral equivalent of their actions.

Or the death penalty... but that is far less outrageous than tossing stowaways overboard...

Either way, it is not the same. Excommunication is not an irrevocable act, in fact its intention is for reconciliation. It stems from actions that harm the person performing them as much as the community.

And you don't consider higher abortion rates to be a compromise of "what is right"?

You ignored the first half of my statement. The Church, should, point towards perfection, not efficiency. You cannot condone wrong even if it is efficacious in preventing a second wrong.

The church could at least allow people to choose whether or not to use contraceptives..

Why should they temper their moral stance on this issue and not others?

THEY CAN ALWAYS GIVE THEIR OPINIONS ON SUCH ISSUES BUT THEY SHOULD NOT IMPOSE THEMSELVES

Where else should they not impose themselves? If the Church is not supposed to guide people in what is right, what are they supposed to do, sit there and tell everybody that whatever they do is ok? There are congregations like that... the Church is not one of them.

Secondly, would you consider it "RIGHT" when the church wants to take control over a particular law or bill and threatening the politicians of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE if the reproductive health bill passed and implemented?

Why not? We over here have a well respected tradition of civil disobedience towards laws we believe are unjust.

How does civil disobedience affect our country if ever? It would make a bad impression on our country. Some would think that Filipinos do not follow rules of their own government and would think that Philippines is chaotic.

Only if it is un-civil.

And for your info, use of contraceptives does not promote abortion, but rather prevent it.

I never said they did. I asked whether you thought the Church should proscribe any action at all, as you said they should only advise and not impose. That question remains unanswered... Should the Church impose for any actions? If so, why those actions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure... maybe a neutral party that neither agrees nor disagrees with the issue?

Heh... on most of the issues that matter, I think that a neutral party who hasn't taken a position on the issue is too out of touch to be a proper arbiter.

Though, there is ample room to reasonably argue fairly any moral stance, so the relative reasonable nature of a moral argument is not, in and of itself, a basis for allowing opposing stances to be taken.

Okay... so what is a basis for it, then?

How do they relate to the statement you quoted? If they are being party to evil, they are failing their moral duty.

Except that failing to meet the dictates of the Catholic Church does not necessarily constitute "being party to evil".

There are plenty of things that the Catholic Church teaches that even the most devoutly Catholic politician wouldn't think of imposing on non-Catholics... the necessity of baptism, for instance.

The Church has lots of rules for its members. Some of them probably do constitute a line between good and evil (the prohibition on murder, for instance). Others aren't an issue of morality at all (the instruction to be on time for Mass, for instance). Where should the issue of contraception lie?

And keep in mind that we're not even talking about Catholics breaking "Church law" themselves; in the case of politicians and policies on contraception, we're overwhelmingly dealing with non-Catholics... i.e. people who even the Catholic church acknowledges aren't under "Church law" at all.

Or the death penalty... but that is far less outrageous than tossing stowaways overboard...

Either way, it is not the same. Excommunication is not an irrevocable act, in fact its intention is for reconciliation. It stems from actions that harm the person performing them as much as the community.

Dropping someone on a raft in a shipping lane isn't an irrevocable act either, theoretically.

I really do find your stance on this strange. IMO, if you minimize what it means to be cut off from the Church, this minimizes the importance of the Church itself. If excommunication is no big deal, it's only because the Catholic Church is irrelevant.

You ignored the first half of my statement. The Church, should, point towards perfection, not efficiency. You cannot condone wrong even if it is efficacious in preventing a second wrong.

In actively working to thwart contraception, the Church is condoning wrong.

Why should they temper their moral stance on this issue and not others?

Let me put it this way. Which is more important: contraception or the sacraments?

If the Church is (apparently) satisfied to let non-Catholics leave their children un-baptized, why would it be more important for the Church to stop non-Catholics from using contraceptives?

 

[Looncall]

Where else should they not impose themselves? If the Church is not supposed to guide people in what is right, what are they supposed to do, sit there and tell everybody that whatever they do is ok? There are congregations like that... the Church is not one of them.

The church should not try to intervene in any public matter. Catholic taboos do not apply to non-catholics. The church should keep its superstitions to itself.

The effect of the catholic church trying to strongarm catholic politicians will be to make catholics unfit for public office.

 

[Renji]

"....If the Church is not supposed to guide people in what is right, what are they supposed to do, sit there and tell everybody that whatever they do is ok?....."

Guide? you call the manipulation of secular law guidance? come on! And, do you consider excommunicating someone who is doing his duty as a leader of this country to be fair? And, would you rather accept (or consider "OK") the number of abortions here than allowing the use of contraceptives to PREVENT IT?

"Should the Church impose for any actions? If so, why those actions?"

Dude, I think you have a different meaning for the word "impose" here. In Philosophy, imposing means insisting one's opinion or act even if it is unacceptable to others. I say that they're imposing themselves by threatening our very own leaders that the Catholic people here will be forced of NOT FOLLOWING ANY LAWS OF THE STATE (whether new or old) if they pass the reproductive health bill. Now, would you consider that acceptable even in the eyes of God?

And another, if you call the use of contraceptives as unjust, would you accept poverty, as the result of overpopulation to be just?