Regarding the Sins of Catholics, and a Paradigm Shift in Catholic Apologetics

Why can't people see the big picture? Christian sexuality is simple...if you're not married, man and woman, in the eyes of God, and/or you can't get pregnant doing it, its wrong. That's Natural Law in a nutshell re sex. That's what God made it for.

Here's a little illustration. If you eat something just for the pleasure of the taste and the texture, then vomit it up, that is called an eating disorder, namely bulimia. It is a disorder because the reason God gave us food is twofold, 1) for our pleasure, and more importantly 2) for the nourishment of our bodies.

If you partake of sex, then vomit forth the natural consequences of that act, it is a disorder, like sexual bulimia. Yes, God made it for pleasure. Equally important, God made it for babies.

the creation of the body and eternal soul of men. Man's last end is God. It was God's first and foremost desire in Creating the universe that men should live forever with Him in Heaven.

And what is scripture's first commandment? It ain't in the Decalogue. It comes much earlier, and it says, "Be Fruitful and Multiply."

If that's what Creation was for, the populating of Heaven with Eternal Souls of men, why can't Christians comprehend what a rebellion and revolt non-procreative sex is?

They are all non-procreative, and/or outside of a covenantal man-woman relationship. They are all a fundamental violation of Natural Law, a violation of the reason God gave us our sexuality, i.e., for the creation of Eternal Souls to populate Heaven.

Only Catholicism still sees this foundational Truth, this family covenantal model. We are here to get THERE, to Heaven. And to bring as many there as possible.

And until 1930, all of Christianity understood this, all of Christianity embraced this, and all of Christianity taught this, universally (see below), protestant, orthodox, Catholic, as well as orthodox judaism and islam.

But if you start teaching that one form of non-procreative sex is OK, while others are not, you introduce schizophrenia into Christian sexual morality.

And no one can contest the relationship between the acceptance of contraception by Christians in this once Christian country, and the legalization of abortion (see below).

Scripture says that in the end there will be a general falling away, so it should surprise no one that there is gross sin in all churches.

But Christ promised one Church, His Church, would not teach error, and that the gates would not prevail.

Absolute Orthodoxy in moral theology can only come from Absolute Orthodoxy in Salvific Theology. Heterodoxy in Moral Theology will always, eventually, arise from Heterodoxy in Salvific Theology.

If Catholics will reclaim the traditional teaching of Christianity on contraception, a teaching their Church has NEVER apostacized on, and evangelize the culture regarding WHY the Church still teaches it, then we have at our disposal the single greatest evangelization tool in the history of the war between Christian sects. Why? Because Catholicism has never fallen into heterodoxy on moral theology issues. ALL other Christian churches now have.

It is so easy to prove from history that Christianity always uninanimously taught contraception to be inherently evil (see below, Appendix 2). Then it is such a short step to understand that heterodoxy in moral theology completely undermines the validity of the sola scriptura/personal interpretation of scripture manntra that hatched that heterodoxy. This is the foregone conclusion when men reject the authority Christ gave His Church, and replces it with the doctrines of men.

This is the number one reason given why over a thousand protestant ministers have become Catholic over the last ten years. When you examine the culture of death, and the roots of abortion, and the inability to effectively fight the homosexual juggernaut, you realize very quickly there is only one Church that will both bring folks closest to Christ and cure the ills of the culture.

I'm not willing to avoid the contraception issue because its unpopular, taboo, or for fear of offending both Catholic and protestant alike, when this is the single greatest evangelization/apologetics tool ever handed to us on a silver platter by the Holy Spirit.

Plus the obvious...folks who live in sodomitic sin glass houses, where the same type of sin is not only tolerated but taught to be acceptable, better stop to think before they criticize the sodomitic sin in our Catholic ranks, especially when we are the only ones condemning both on the world stage.

Yes, there are sodomites in the Catholic priesthood, and bishops hid them and protected them. They violate the very foundations of sexual morality that the Church STILL TEACHES today.

But the remainder of Christianity has embraced the sodomitic sin of contraception, teaches it as acceptable, and refuses to turn back.

In the end, many on both sides have sinned, are sinning, and will sin. But only one Church perseveres in Truth, both in Salvation Theology and Moral Theology.

With all due respect, I do know what RC's believe about Mary, I been conversing with them for 9 months here on FR. You believe that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life, right? This violates the very command that Brian quoted above from God: "Be fruitful and multiply". Along with the command to not deprive your spouse of sexual intercourse. Our bodies belong to our spouses, not ourselves. My belief is that what the Bible clearly shows, after the birth of Jesus the family carried on as any righteous Jewish household at the time and Joseph and Mary had many other children, including James the author of the Bilical book.

Your belief is clearly wrong and shows that you do not know Scripture. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit not Joseph. Joseph was chosen to serve as a the earthly husband/protector of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Scripture writes that Jesus is called the carpenter's son, Matthew 13:55, yet we know that He is the Son of God, not Joseph. After Christ is found in the Temple at the age of 12 Joseph is not mentioned in Scripture again. Who was Mary's new husband? No mention is made of other children; Luke 2:41-51. No mention is made off Mary remarrying. Jesus is always referred to as the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. The Disciples were older than Jesus, not younger. Due to Jewish custom, younger brothers would not give advice to an older brother. We know that Jesus was Mary's firstborn, which does not mean that others followed, son. If Jesus had brothers and sisters He would not have entrusted the care of His mother to John. You misunderstand the words brethren and brothers to mean blood relation, which it is not. Refer to John 19:25. Mary of Cleophas, the sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is the mother of James the Less, Joses and Juda.

Our bodies belong to our spouses, not ourselves.

Our bodies belong to God, not our spouses.

Stating that Jesus had siblings and that Mary had other children contradicts Scripture and is simply wrong. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli also believed in the Blessed Virgin Marys' perpetual virginity. I'm surprised that your conversion classes have failed to have you read the The Protoevangelium of James and Brothers and Sisters of Jesus. Don't allow yourself to be conned into thinking that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary gave birth to only one child and remained a virgin her entire life. Don't add to Scripture. If you need more explanation, freep mail me.

I, for one, am a practicing Catholic. I practice NFP and do not use any artificial contraceptives. I initially opposed contraceptive use not because of my Catholic faith (in the past, I was not as good a Catholic and I try to be now), but because most contraceptives were abortificients, and I strongly oppose abortion.

I have three children, and would welcome more into my life. NFP is more effective than any artificial birth control if done properly. There is nothing wrong with practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy. We did that for five years because after two children, we were financially strapped. The difference between NFP and artificial birth control is that when you practice NFP, you are always welcome to new life EVEN if you are not intending to conceive. While your cycle may disfavor conception, and you may be the best NFP practicer and track your cycle daily, you are accepting that God might have different plans.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that NFP is the only method of birth control -- and it is birth control -- that is acceptable because the practice of it is pro-life, it brings husbands and wives closer together both emotionally and physically because they are making these decisions together, with God.

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.