Posted on 04/15/2005 4:34:46 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
UH, the "Free Republic" in the post cited is LINK that goes to an article posted and discussed here. The article is from The New York Times (next to NCR, the kind of source you rely on for the truth about your faith). Try clinking on that link.
On some matters, I am pretty "liberal." You just missed the mark. And for your information, Sinkspur is somewhat more conservative than I am, in general. I don't know why he gets all the heat.
Vatican II never happened? I wish...
I don't recall saying exactly that. I don't accept the arguments of Humanae Vitae. I tell Catholics what I am supposed to tell them as a representative of the Church. But I don't defend Humanae Vitae or the Church's teaching on contraception, because I can't do it.
The Church says that couples may regulate the size of their families. That means that couples may purposely engage in sexual intercourse with the express intention and physical means to avoid conception.
The method (NFP or non-abortafacient contraception) is secondary.
Both of you are hostile to the discipline and teachings of the Catholic Church. Your opinions on it are therefore worth about as much as the opinion of The New York Times.
I can understand why, especially if they live in Dallas - Fort Worth.
Me too.
As to myself, I suspect my opinions are "worth" much less. As many have correctly pointed out, what I think about the doings in the Catholic Church is close to irrelevant. I post them because this is a discussion forum.
Ah, but that is the entire difference, according to HV: "In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process."
You may be interested in this article, which was posted here on FR before. It makes a pretty convincing case for a real distinction between NFP and non-abortifacient contraception. (Emphasis original:)
In other words, the Pope's condemnation applies exclusively to conjugal acts carried out during what the spouses understand to be the wife's fertile period, but which they deliberately pervert (whether by 'withdrawal', condoms, pills, or any other technique) so as to deprive them of that fertility.
###"Instead of berating them, telling them they're going to hell if they don't do what the Pope says, we need to talk with them."###
I have not heard a priest say anyone is going to hell since the last mission I went to 50 years ago.
We start one this Sunday and I hope I hear the statement again.
One of the reasons the laity is lax is because they have been taught that God is all loving and merciful but the laity never hears that God is a just God.
It is why confession lines have 10 people and 300 recieve the Eucharist the next morning. To them they do not sin and besides God forgives me.
1) They don't think it's really sinful, because they really don't believe much is sinful nor do they have an understanding of the nature of sin. Many of them were never really taught about sin, just luv, luv, luv.
2) They believe God is all loving, and just wants them to be happy therefor he could not possibly ask them to do something that might require such a personal sacrifice.
3)They think that being a good Christianity means being a nice person and good neighbor.
4)They don't believe in hell, and they certainly don't believe that they could ever be punished eternally, after all, God is love.
5) And almost every one of them has had a priest or deacon tell them that it is perfectly OK, as long as they are following their conscience.
No, it is not.
The only mission of the Church is to save souls, to get them to heaven. There never was any other mission. That's the only promise it ever makes, that if you are faithful and avail yourself of the means of grace which Our Lord has provided to His Church, you can die in a state of sanctifying grace and your soul will not go to hell.
In any event, motivating through wielding the stick of hell, in order to inspire fear, to coerce changes in belief and behavior, is simply ineffectual in the present age. You might not like it, but that is my take.
It's not to inspire fear, it's to tell the truth. But sometimes the truth can be scary. That is the mission of the Church, that is what SALVATION means, not going to hell.
Amazing how many Catholics leave out the qualifier "for serious resons"
But I don't defend Humanae Vitae or the Church's teaching on contraception, because I can't do it.
Why? Is your problem with children or natural law?
Ha! You got it the other way around. The pastor and the bishops look to their flocks for leadership and direction. My guess is that the most agressive woman in your parish has more influence over the bishop than the pope did.
You need to get out more. Weekly Mass Catholics couldn't care less who the Pope is, or what he says. They look to their pastor and bishop for leadership and direction.
In other words, they aren't even remotely Catholic. What wonderful leadership they must be getting from their pastors, bishops, and deacons!
"Resignations from the priesthood and the collapse of priestly vocations began only after the desperate attempts to slow down change turned the mood of the council years sour."
ROTFLMHO!!!
"In any event, motivating through wielding the stick of hell, in order to inspire fear, to coerce changes in belief and behavior, is simply ineffectual in the present age."
Bit of a contradiction, here, isn't there?
On the one hand, you rightly point out hell simply is discussed or considered anymore. On the other hand, you state 'the stick of hell' is 'ineffectual' in this present age.
How can we know if its ineffectual if, as you point out, it is never really tried?
Sorry, but at least the Sunday Times has a crossword. Even doing just the "across", you're more likely to get enlightenment than in the churches these guys attend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.