• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Discrimination in the Catholic Church

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I try to use non-Catholic sources in my posts, as anyone can see, and I resort to Catholic teaching when it is attacked. But the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring the Church's teaching on sexuality is having its effects on the human race. Increase in divorce, increase in STD's tops the list. The evidence is overwhelming, and dismissing it just proves that the truth is not always popular.

"Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract."
Funny thing is that STDs are on the increase most especially in Africa, where condoms are largely unavailable.
 

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
I try to use non-Catholic sources in my posts, as anyone can see, and I resort to Catholic teaching when it is attacked. But the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring the Church's teaching on sexuality is having its effects on the human race. Increase in divorce, increase in STD's tops the list. The evidence is overwhelming, and dismissing it just proves that the truth is not always popular.

"Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract."

I believe you, but I just looked through two pages of this thread and see only Catholic sources.

From your most recent source:

"Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as 'natural law.'"

Natural law would also preclude any violations of God's design with things like air conditioning, tractors to help counter that pesky ground-toiling curse, and clothing, which alters our natural state, right?
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
I believe you, but I just looked through two pages of this thread and see only Catholic sources.

From your most recent source:

"Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as 'natural law.'"

Natural law would also preclude any violations of God's design with things like air conditioning, tractors to help counter that pesky ground-toiling law, and clothing, which alters our natural state, right?

Stop it!
You're not supposed to think about it all so critically.
:p
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Remember, this is the same kind of thinking that forced Galileo to recant his scientific discoveries of the movement and relationships of heavenly bodies...
 

blackout

Violet.
Like its so much easier to attack and criticize the person instead of what they posted?

No, I just know from experience that the whole "catholic answers" thing
is generally par for the course.

Most everything that any conservative catholic touted as true,
or attempted as apologetics or doctrinal reasoning
or catholic explanation,
was spouted from some "catholic answers" source.

Answers were always sought from some authoritative or scholarly source.
Whether it was a Papal encyclical, or something from the Catechism of the CC,
or a book or video by Scott Hahn, or some pamphlet on how you should vote,
or examine your conscience.....
answers rarely came straight from the source of Self Reflection,
and Confidence in the Self to call all things into question
and make independent critical decisions of truth.
(in the context of direct knowledge via the Holy Spirit)

It was not so much a "personal" statement,
as a general one.

I just see this as more of the same.

Hope I have been more clear here.
 
Last edited:

Looncall

Well-Known Member
No I am not. I will not say what I want to do to people who mutilate their daughters because I do not want to get in trouble. Besides, that is not religion, that is terrorism when people mutilate their daughters or when they hurt anyone else. Please know the difference between terrorism and religion.:facepalm:

You are mistaken. I am referring to what is called female genital mutilation. I have heard interviews with people who practice it (Somalis, if I remember rightly). They explicitly stated that the mutilation was part of their muslim religion.
 

blackout

Violet.
What other kind are there?



Yes because Authoritative and scholarly sources, like the Papal encyclical, or Catechism are official and hold authority.

We both know that there are many church attending, sacrament recieving catholics,
who are much more liberal than church doctrine would have them be.
They do not adhere to all church doctrine as a rule,
making their own decisions instead of what they do and don't agree with.
They create their own personal catholic experience.
They are liberal catholics. You would most likely call them caffeteria catholics.
Picking and choosing what they want and don't want.
Many of us would call that critical thinking.
Or in other cases fringe church goers,
maybe participate just for the asthetic experience,
or just as the continuation of a pattern from their upbringing.
For their own reasons, either well thought out, or more habitual.

But I think you know all of this.
I'm guessing you don't really consider these other catholics,
catholic at all.
The ones who recieve communion without confession,
while also using contraception or whatnot
all slated for an eternity of suffering in hell
should they die before they confess as penitents.

Still the church takes their money.

Why not just kick them out,
until they con... erm... re'form?
It would keep them from making things worse every sunday at communion.

But the revenues would be lost... (just thinking some new thoughts out loud)
 
Last edited:

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I genuinely didn't believe that people honestly thought that the transmission of STDs was increased due to the use of contraception.

As far as I knew it was a lie that the pope spread to stop condom use.

Anyone who does believe this may as well crawl back under the rock from whence they came. With a minuscule amount of knowledge of virology or LIFE for that matter, you can easily conclude, and will know, that this is simply false.
It isn't a matter of virology. It is one of psychology. Humans are content with a certain amount of risk, and if you add a safeguard for a risk, behavior will change to compensate. Increased condom use actually leads to higher levels of at risk sex than other wise. The peer-reviewed studies show this.

See: Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda. Kajubi et al. JAIDS
Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons. Richens, Imrie, and Copas. Lancet
 

kepha31

Active Member
It isn't a matter of virology. It is one of psychology. Humans are content with a certain amount of risk, and if you add a safeguard for a risk, behavior will change to compensate. Increased condom use actually leads to higher levels of at risk sex than other wise. The peer-reviewed studies show this.

See: Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda. Kajubi et al. JAIDS
Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons. Richens, Imrie, and Copas. Lancet
Here's the link:
Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of... : JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
 

kepha31

Active Member
We both know that there are many church attending, sacrament recieving catholics,
who are much more liberal than church doctrine would have them be.
They do not adhere to all church doctrine as a rule,
making their own decisions instead of what they do and don't agree with.
They create their own personal catholic experience.
They are liberal catholics. You would most likely call them caffeteria catholics.
Picking and choosing what they want and don't want.
Many of us would call that critical thinking.
We don't shoot our wounded.
Or in other cases fringe church goers,
maybe participate just for the asthetic experience,
or just as the continuation of a pattern from their upbringing.
For their own reasons, either well thought out, or more habitual.
But I think you know all of this.
I'm guessing you don't really consider these other catholics,
catholic at all.
The ones who recieve communion without confession,
while also using contraception or whatnot
all slated for an eternity of suffering in hell
should they die before they confess as penitents.
Being surprised to find sinners in the church is like being surprised to find sick people in a hospital.
Still the church takes their money.
No, people freely give of their money or freely give nothing.
Why not just kick them out,
until they con... erm... re'form?
It would keep them from making things worse every sunday at communion.
Yea, and ya can tell jus' by lookin' at 'em. :areyoucra

But the revenues would be lost... (just thinking some new thoughts out loud)
quote]
Are you saying society doesn't benefit from those revenues? Would you like a list of services? (just thinking some new thoughts out loud)
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
Surely allowing people to recieve communion in a state of mortal sin can't be good for them.

eh.

This all started with the notion that there's no such thing as a liberal catholic.
Not exactly sure how I wound up here.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Like its so much easier to attack and criticize the person instead of what they posted?

1- You just did that

2- It´s even easier to copy paste. At least attacking can be done in a way that makes people laugh. Wits are needed for that.

I beleive that encouraging people to actually think their own reasons as to choose their own beleifs is incredibly fiting in a forum of religious debate.

We can all google catholic sources. We wanted to talk with actual people who can think back for themselves and respond.

I do know you can, hopefully you will :shrug:
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
What do you think Violet, we have some crazy liberal catholic detecting device?

As in the word of (i believe St. Paul) Unworthily taking part in the body and blood heaps judgement upon oneself (okay not exact words, but the idea)
 

blackout

Violet.
What do you think Violet, we have some crazy liberal catholic detecting device?

As in the word of (i believe St. Paul) Unworthily taking part in the body and blood heaps judgement upon oneself (okay not exact words, but the idea)


IMO, the church heaps judgement upon people.
But it's all neither here nor there.

If you don't know a person is an alchaholic, you don't know.

but when you do know a person is an alchaholic,
you don't keep handing them a drink.

It's not that I believe in transubstantiation anymore,
the "real presence" and all that,
but your church does.
And that is the point.

Your church is LITERALLY serving the masses condemnation,
according to it's own dictates and teachings.


And just to clarify,
I personally think that your liberals
are healthier people in general,
who make better decisions for themSelves,
and tend to think more critically, and clearly.
The RCC tends to do them less personal damage.
This is what my own experience has shown me.

I used to see it differently of course.
I saw life through the eyes of doctrine.
Now I just see life through my own eyes. :)

Turns out my new eyes were right there in the front of my face
the whole time. ;)
 
Last edited:

kepha31

Active Member
Your church is LITERALLY serving the masses condemnation,
according to it's own dictates and teachings.
The masses are not all in a state of mortal sin. It is extemely rare that anyone is refused Holy Communion. The most likely person to be denied Holy Communion is a politician who publicly supports abortion. It's up to the individual to make the determination of whether or not they are worthy to partake, the Church simply provides guidelines.
And just to clarify,
I personally think that your liberals
are healthier people in general,
who make better decisions for themSelves,
and tend to think more critically, and clearly.
The RCC tends to do them less personal damage.
This is what my own experience has shown me.
I used to see it differently of course.
I saw life through the eyes of doctrine.
Now I just see life through my own eyes. :)

Turns out my new eyes were right there in the front of my face
the whole time. ;)
Everyone has a right to follow their conscience, and the right to keep it informed.

We believe what St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 that to partake in an unworthy manner (being separated from God) is...well.. very bad.

1 Cor. 11:30 - tells us the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. You can get physically sick. So it is out of protection, not discrimination, that this rule is in place. Many Protestants freely refrain from partaking in their communion as well.
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
Anyway, in the end, it's only the people who buy into the whole condemnation thing,
who wind up condeming themselves.

Unfortunately those indoctrinated from youth have a harder time discriminating.
It is the ability of the in'doctrinated to discriminate,
that I personally am more concerned with/about,
than
the discrimination found in the (RC)church itself.
If individuals learned to discriminate,
than organizational discrimination
wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
Top