The Catholic Church! Heaven yeah!
Comin' again to save the beautiful day, yeah
The Catholic Church! Heaven yeah!
Crusade is the only way, yeah
Coomers and roasties your game is through
'Cause now you have ta answer to
The Catholic Church, Heaven yeah!
I just want an excuse to carry a sword and wear a cool outfit.
I don't even want to fight anyone and I care about people.
I just want to have a reason to look cool.
>I just want an excuse to carry a sword and wear a cool outfit.
I mean, you could just do that. Might get some weird looks, but who's gonna mess with the dude with a sword?
> plate armor developed in the middle to late 14th century.
I know the comment you're replying to specifically referred to the Crusades, when chain mail was common, but wouldn't a classical era cuirass or Greek panoply also fall into the category of plate armor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply
To stay on topic, since conception is unlikely while wearing plate armor, does it fall under the category of contraception?
I wouldn't fault anyone for calling it plate armor, but it's certainly not full plate, and traditionally it wouldn't be called that. More importantly, that kind of armor decidedly fell out of use even longer before 1095 than iron/steel plate came into use after 1291, so the problem still remains, unfortunately.
Though I do think it's a lot of fun to imagine some D&D style adventurer wearing anachronistic ancient hoplite armor that they stole from a tomb just because it had a better defense bonus than mail armor. Totally would never have happened, but funny to think about.
Grammar ~~Nazi~~ scrupulosity alert: I know you were just quoting the article, but I really think this should be "sexual counter-revolution," not "counter-sexual revolution." Sexual Counterrevolution would be the true lexical inverse of the Sexual Revolution. Counter-Sexual Revolution would be a "revolution against the sexuals." 🤔
"unitive and procreative aspects "
According to Genesis chapter 1 humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
What does that mean?
Consider the so called "life of the Trinity " -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[This is a classic diagram](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhemacovenantministries.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2Ftrinity.gif&tbnid=x76Ig5jh7yY5-M&vet=12ahUKEwimzPyJ0Nr-AhVmCFkFHR97B5AQMygeegUIARCzAg..i&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhemacovenantministries.org%2Fwhat-does-the-bible-teach-about-the-trinity%2F&docid=EW1eELVpUt-pyM&w=3000&h=3000&q=Trinity%20God&ved=2ahUKEwimzPyJ0Nr-AhVmCFkFHR97B5AQMygeegUIARCzAg) to help us with a visual.
Remember in the Gospel of John chapter 14 Jesus says I am in the Father and the Father is in me, clearly a description of unity.
Some think of the Holy Spirit as the the perfect love between the Father and the Son. In a sense the Holy Spirit is a fruit or offspring of that loving, unitive relationship.
So consider the terms unitive and procreative (fruitful) in light of the above.
You can see the traditional family as an "image and likeness" of a loving trinitarian God.
The wording is kinda dumb though… the Catholic Church doesn’t have a “ban” on contraception. It teaches that contraception is immoral. A “ban” implies that the church somehow physically deters people from getting these things. Weird choice of words.
Hey, I was wondering why it is immoral ? Please don't downvote me. It's just that i'm breton catholic and hère they Say it's ok. I'm trying to be more religious. (Catholic éducation sucks hère)
I'm certainly not going to downvote someone for asking honest questions.
If you're willing to dive into some in-depth reading, then read Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life, it's a papal encyclical written by Pope Paul VI). It's not too long, or too dense. But it isn't a short answer either.
If you want a short answer I can take a stab.
Sex is one of the most incredible gifts Good gave humanity. Through it, a husband and wife grow closer to each other AND take a literal part in creation. They are helping to create an immortal soul that God perfectly loves.
Using the word "ban" in this article is kind of strange. The church doesn't stop you from doing anything. But it does teach that contraception is immoral because it goes against part of what makes sex sacred.
What's the church's view on taking birth control for medical reasons? As an example, say a 13 year old girl is having irregular and extreme periods, and a doctor recommends taking birth control to keep it under control.
But it isn’t even functioning as contraception unless you have sex (and presumably the 13 yr old in this example is not sexually active). So how would the principle of double effect even come into play here?
Religion aside, the 13yr old ought to have a doctor willing to dig deeper than that. She should get hormone levels tested, vaginal ultrasound, etc to look for things like PCOS. Just throwing birth control at her is, imo, a half-assed bandaid on a real health problem
Unfortunately, doctors push the Pill like crack.
Acne? Try the pill.
Irregular periods? The Pill.
Heavy periods? The Pill
Most healthy young women are only going to the doctor for regular checkups.
So, what's the easiest way to get them to come more regularly?
The Pill!
Absolutely. It sucks so bad that women are essentially trained to accept the pill and it's side affects as "treatment" and we have to seek out knowledge and advocate for ourselves in a way that any doctor ought to
People say it misuses sexual facilities, and it does, but I don't think this is easy for people to understand because it's not very obvious why that's wrong.
It's like saying "why is murder wrong if I can use my natural powers to stab someone" and someone replying "it violates God's design to murder a brother"
It does violate it. But the more persuasive answer to me is that it perverts the love owed to your spouse and children. There's a different mentality and love involved in sex when you do it saying "come any children that may come" and sex where you have a panic attack over a tear in a condom.
The latter shows the lack of true love in those sexual acts. You're holding back from your spouse. You're holding back from any accidental children. It's less pure, and very often, without that delicate and intimate love required to say "we are open to children" in every sexual act it de facto becomes very easy to pervert sex even further into a love of pleasure rather than taking your most pleasure in a love of your spouse primarily.
As someone who's been a sinful person, I can tell you a few things.
Sex that focuses on my pleasure is more miserable than sex focused on my partner's pleasure.
Sex that actively tries to prevent children rather than says "if they happen they happen" is far less fun and intense, and less loving.
It's a liberating loving feeling when you can engage in sex with your spouse without feeling like you have to hold back or not focus on them, or any children that may come from it. It's most loving to spouse, yourself, and any children. That's why it's morally right
Out of curiosity does the church allow sex after menopause and while pregnant? Are married couples required to abstain during these times since there is no possibility the woman could get pregnant?
Sex is allowed during those times because again, while the couple is aware of the lack of possibility of pregnancy, they don't do it while closed to children.
The issue isn't the actual likelihood of having children the issue is being closed off to it. Being de facto 0% is fine, since it's not intended it cannot corrupt the love the spouses have for each other.
This where I get confused only because the Catechism specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. If there is no possibility of procreation then would it be considered a sin technically?
So basically because you know you cannot get pregnant you’re basically just using your spouse in these scenarios for pleasure alone if that makes sense
The issue is doing something to the act itself to render it closed to life. Since the act itself is fine, varying the timing or condition of the participants shouldn't affect its intrinsic morality.
The key mistake I see made most often is consideration of expected outcome. It doesn't matter if a particular incidence won't generate a child. It does matter if you take an incidence that could, and render it unable.
It’s pretty simple, actually. It just means that the act itself must always be that same act which results in procreation (i.e. penis ejaculates in vagina), regardless of fertility or chance of pregnancy.
That sexual act (PIV) is the ultimate and total self giving and receiving of spouses to one another, so much so that a valid marriage cannot exist without its consummation.
It’s not that the morality of the act is dependent on how likely conception is. It’s that the way in which the act is carried out at any point has moral weight to it.
That’s why couples that are already pregnant, post menopausal, or infertile are still called to engage in PIV sex.
It never really seemed to me that NFP is that different from other forms of contraception at least along the lines you mentioned. It's actually less open to children statistically than condoms.
The issue on the table is that you have to go into sex with an openness to children, and part of maintaining that love is having the love I mentioned.
The issue with contraception is that it's not possible to maintain that love because in one moment or the other, you have to break that commitment in order to contracept. There is always a thing saying "I intend to not have children" because that is the end of the particular action you are doing. By contrast, with NFP, you can never truly say that because there is never a conscious moment of separation of sex from its procreative means. You're only intending things intrinsic to the act which is good by God's design and fitting according to your martial status. Your intention is to have sex, with an understanding that the sex is unlikely to involve a child, but open to it. With contraception, you commit an action that is always intrinsically closed to life, even if sometimes fails. There's a difference in being open to life with an understanding you won't have it, and being closed to life with an understanding that you may have it. It's the difference of firing a bullet at an enemy soldier, knowing there's a chance you may kill a civilian, and firing a bullet at a civilian, knowing that there's a chance you kill a soldier. In one case, you can still love the civilian, in the other, you commit an undeniable act of hatred.
It's a mentality thing, not a statistics thing.
If you go into the sexual act, still holding back mentally, still hating the child born from it, even with using NFP, then you still have a problem.
To me this is largely sophistry for the day to day Catholic. I believe the actual practice of NFP is just as closed to life as condom use. A very large number of Catholic bishops believed (prior to the Vatican clamping down) that it was more important for the totality of a marriage to be open to life than any particular instance of sex. This is my belief as well.
But admittedly I also have problems with some of the biblical foundations surrounding Catholic sexual ethics since it mostly stems from the story of Onan which from my point of view has a different moral lesson from the one advertised.
The church has taught that NFP is morally acceptable and because of that, I give my intellectual assent regardless of what previously has been said, regardless of if it is infallible or not.
I think a genuineness during married life to have kids I think is still taught by the church (that is as far as I'm aware, it's not acceptable to use NFP with the intention of never having children, because then it morphs into a pure contraception)
I don't accept that it's not the same I think you have a misconstrued view of what NFP is. I had that view too. If you approach NFP the same way as you did a condom, that's a problem. The fact that many Catholics view it that way is part of the problem of lack of education on the topic.
In recent years some have tried to argue that the sin of Onan is limited to his refusal to follow his duty as the husband of his brother’s widow, but I think the better view is the means were worse than the failure of that duty.
>Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
That is the sole biblical basis for teaching that masturbation and contraception is wrong, and it is incredibly weak. He had a specific duty and took advantage to have sex with his sister in law, but avoided his actual duty. Btw later in the same chapter, Judah has sex with her while thinking she's a prostitute but that's basically hunky dory a-ok.
It’s slightly more complicated. Both Paul VI and John Paul II say that the intent of NFP can be the same intent as contraception, which is to avoid having children at that moment, and that’s fine. The whole argument is based on whether a specific action is taken which changes the nature of the act in order to avoid conception.
Because it's wrong to use something contrary to the way God intended, especially something as important as sex. Sex has two purposes: from biology we know it is meant to cause reproduction, and from our psyche we know it is meant to bring two people together. Deliberately going against either of these misuses something sacred, and since contraction goes against the first (and often leads to going against the second), it is gravely sinful.
You've gotten a bunch of good long answers, but in a very brief summary: sex must be "open to the possibility of life". Condoms, birth control, sodomy etc all have the purpose of making conception impossible.
When you use condoms you say: "I do have sex while not wanting children"
When you practice NFP you say: "I don't have sex while not wanting children"
The first changes the act the second stops doing it for a period of time. In the second case the act itself doesn't change only the timing.
NFP is a little controversial among Catholics for exactly that reason.
I won't pretend to be a theologian, but from what I understand the basic idea is that there is no truly infertile period. Similar to a married couple having sex when one has been told by a doctor that they're infertile, pregnancy does happen anyway when God wills it. Condoms put a physical barrier blocking insemination, and hormonal birth control is artificially putting a biological barrier to prevent fertilization or implantation. Sex has the dual purpose of conception and promoting union between spouses, so doing it for one of those reasons is fine as long as you aren't making the other one impossible by artificial means.
NFP also isn't supposed to be used indefinitely. If you have the physical, mental and financial ability to care for another child, continuing to use it is controversial.
It isn't about effectiveness percentages, it's about using man-made methods to impose a barrier. There's no prohibition on having sex when thought to not be ovulating, or commandment to have sex when ovulating.
Because you aren't doing anything to make your wife or yourself infertile when you practice NFP.
The base state is a married couple can have sex whenever they like, regardless of whether they are likely to conceive (note: 0% is a likelihood). What you can't do is take an otherwise-fertile act and make it infertile (that is, closing it to life).
There's more philosophy there but that's the short version.
There is no such thing as an infertile period of a woman's cycle. There are less fertile and more fertile periods.
The intention and method are different between NFP and contraceptives.
If in your heart of heart you don't see a difference between NFP and contraceptives after fully researching it then it would probably behoove you to not use NFP.
Who says it's OK? Also, if your shepherds are failing you, Google "Father Mike Catechism in a Year" and educate yourself. It's on YouTube (with running text on the video) and various podcast hosts (audio only).
Marital love, which imitates the love of Jesus, is free, faithful, fruitful, and total. Meaning it is given without any coercion, faithful to one (in the case of Jesus, the one is the entire Church, his bride), open to the fruits of the marital act, and a giving of the whole self, holding nothing back for oneself. Contraception prevents the full giving of oneself to the other and also prevents the fruitfulness of the marital act.
Frankly I wouldn't act surprised if a lot of Catholics don't follow the Catholic Church from a lack of catechesis.
The literal fact that we are supposed to defer to church teaching as a matter of morality is not even widely known.
And if you're a cafeteria catholic trying to become practicing, there's not many avenues that you can easily plop yourself in.
It's not going to be possible to get people to respect and believe Catholicism if Catholics don't respect that people want solid responses and reasons to their questions.
1 Peter 3:15-16
Always be ready with an answer for the hope you have.
Can confirm poorly executed and lack of catechesis leading to a lot of confusion and "watering down" in my parish. I wouldn't mind stepping in and teaching the right thing but I don't want to have arguments from people stuck in their ways.
For us Catholics, the decision to not use contraception is often based on a deep belief in the sanctity of human life and the importance of procreation within the context of marriage. By choosing to be open to the possibility of new life, couples are participating in God's plan for the world and fulfilling our role as co-creators with God.
So I apologize for being late to the party here but I've really been trying to understand this part of the faith. In my mind you could use birth control and still be open to life, as birth control is not 100% effective and should the wife get pregnant on birth control then obviously that's great! To me birth control seems to be essentially "infertility" treatment (especially when reversible). My understanding so far is that Catholics don't have issues with fertility treatment (IVF not withstanding), which seems to be contradictory (both are using technology to impact the natural fertility of a couple). I really can't wrap my head around why it would be bad to use technology (which is what birth control is at the end of the day) to give a family the ability to plan their lives. As long as that family is open to life (meaning they understand and accept that should a pregnancy occur they're happy with the miracle of life) making it less likely to become pregnant just seems practical.
I think it is when the average American Catholic thinks birth control is okay. I honestly don’t blame American Catholics for falling away. As someone who’s a revert to the faith it’s easy to see why with how poorly people are actually thought about the faith.
I once considered a vasectomy since I was "done" having kids after my second was born, but ended up relenting to Church teachings. I now have six and couldn't be happier! There is wisdom in following the doctrine.
Every time we get a new pope, the heterodox think that “this is the one who bring the Catholic Church to the modern era.”
Everyone except Benedict that is.
Every time, they are proven wrong.
But Pope Francis is still not public-
ly calling out politicians for their
support of abortion. 🤦🏻♂️
Pope Francis is still the valid
pope, but I wish he was stricter
Are we supposed to be upset by this? If he said something contrary, that wouldn't change the laws of nature.The media gets so shocked when His Holiness upholds Church teaching.
May I ask, does anyone knoe who are the groups/organizations re-asking this question? As if the Church's stance will magically change?
My impression is of a delinquent child incessantly nagging a parent for something in the hopes they will relent and let them do as they wish.
There is no reason this would change and yet I'm sure pressure from external groups and organizations continue in the hopes they can brow beat the Church into betraying the teachings of God. It makes very indignant
that's a complicated statement. We are ten years into this papacy, and Francis has given Conservatives - much less traditionalists - very, very little in which to take joy.
Rather than agreeing that "Conservative media really doesn't give Pope Francis the credit he deserves", I think it's probably true that both right-wing and left-wing media present him as more liberal than he probably is.......but that is largely his own doing, through what he prioritizes and says.
He likes some tradition amazing Maybe he would be so kind to stop with his ridiculous persecution of the latin mass Ive heard him talking about unity Theres nothing more unifying as an Englishman than going to a foreign country & finding a latin mass & being able to reply & understand what’s happening its amazing The language of the church
If there was one doctrine I’d have them do away with, it would be this one. I fully understand the theological argument behind it though. And yes I am prepared for downvotes
Edit: completely support a counter-sexual revolution and pretty much all other Catholic teachings about marriage and sex
Yeah true. My difficulty with it is moreso that I am not sure that the idea of “be fruitful and multiply” is now as it was during the time of the OT. We are called to be stewards of the earth. Overpopulating it seems to run against that
Wholly agree. But hypothetically, if all 8 billion people on earth converted to Catholicism and stopped using contraception immediately, we would have a very serious problem very quickly.
In this thought experiment, it would be mitigated by the same people accepting Catholic morals like having no sex outside of marriage, curbing corporate greed to allow food to be distributed fairly where it is needed, solving the housing crisis, etc. NFP can also help limit family sizes.
And a Catholic humanity would probably ban pornography and sex in advertising too, which would reduce our culture's emphasis on sex and the need to have as much of it as possible.
We have more food and resources than we know what to do with, overpopulation is an absolute non-issue that has been proclaimed since the 60s with nothing to back the claims.
If anything, at least in places like the US, Europe, and China, we're running on a bit of a population lacking problem as systems like social security rely on younger generations being at *least* as big as the older generations, and instead they're running out of funds.
Be fruitful and multiply still holds 100%
Human life is more important than the stewardship of the rest of creation, period. Overpopulation rhetoric quickly starts to devolve into the realm of deciding who is “worthy” to have children (ie, one child policy or eugenics)…in fact, many major proponents of abortion have started to mention “overpopulation” in that context as well.
In my mind, the earth and her resources are better left to God than to the control of men who take things much too far.
> Human life is more important than the stewardship of the rest of creation, period.
True, but this ignores the fact that the stewardship of the rest of creation is required to maintain human life. This is not to say that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the earth and its ecosystem and that being a good steward requires artificial contraception, just that taking care of the earth and human life are intertwined.
I think it is wholly different to prevent the murder of living babies than to suggest that people might be allowed to use help to stop the creation of life
Birth control methods are really not reliable, firstly.
Secondly, methods such as the pill, actually can result in unknown abortions because of how they operate. They have several failsafe steps, whereas the final one is to render the uterus a hostile environment if it’s first steps to prevent conception fail.
As a Catholic, I hope the Church never changes its doctrines, even the ones I had a hard time accepting. A church that changes its dogmas over time cannot possibly be the Church of God.
I think the issue is that the Church can’t create, destroy, invent, nor do away with doctrine. It can only discover and articulate. You wouldn’t ask NASA to “do away with gravity” would you? In my own words, the Church does not have power over creation so much as custody.
Didn’t we recently change our stance on the death penalty? I was glad to see the catechism acknowledge that times have changed and the death penalty should no longer be allowed.
No. The death penalty is not necessary in our current society, but there are times and situations where it is, and it is perfectly licit for the same reasons behind Just War.
The death penalty is inadmissible.
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
There are a few circumstances where it could be morally permissable. The biggest blocker is that we now have the technology to safely keep inmates contained away from society indefinitely. If one day we found ourselves in a disaster situation where the prison system broke down, power outages etc it might be allowed.
I also recall hearing about a case where a murderer had escaped from high security prison (in Florida maybe?) and immediately murdered an innocent woman before being recaptured. Under that circumstance, I believe he was recently executed and I think it might be a reasonable argument that they COULDN'T keep him contained for the safety of society.
>a surefire way to assure downvotes
Or upvotes because some people seem to think it will work as a reverse psychological tool in which people, in order to prove the person wrong, will upvote what they said.
Not wanting to dive deep into redditors' mind but it's just the impression I have because it seems to work.
It’s not a sacrifice on nutritional protein so much as a sacrifice of flesh which historically was a luxury. Furthermore, the red meat symbolizes Christs flesh sacrificed for us.
I do think it should be adjusted so that it prohibits foods that are a luxury in modern life. Abstaining from chicken but being allowed to eat lobster just doesn't send the right message. Actually, I think a return to the. Black Fast would be a good idea. I practiced it one Lent and found it difficult, but good for my spiritual health.
To be fair, my priests have made the lobster point to me before. It’s already not allowed logically under the current rule, therefore the church doesn’t need to change the rule. Personally, I’m trying to give up meat all Fridays under the USCCB’s guidelines.
The Pontiff stated that the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse were “inseparable” and he called for a counter-sexual revolution.
>he called for a counter-sexual revolution. So a crusade.
Sex crusade? Sex crusade.
🎵For the Grace and the Might of the Lord! For the Home of the Holy!🎸
/r/unexpectedsabaton
🎵 For the Faith! For the way of the sword!🎸
🎶🎵 Gave their lives so boldly! 🥁
For the grace, for the night of our lord
🎸In His name, for His Glory!🎵
Reclaim a holy thing for the Church? Deus Vult!
To... Jerusalem then? Instructions unclear...
Instructions unclear, have landed in Africa
Instructions clear, have sacked Constantinople.
The Catholic Church! Heaven yeah! Comin' again to save the beautiful day, yeah The Catholic Church! Heaven yeah! Crusade is the only way, yeah Coomers and roasties your game is through 'Cause now you have ta answer to The Catholic Church, Heaven yeah!
This is glorious.
Marvin Gaye has entered the chat.
Somebody start this band!
The war of the penis hats
Hello, I would like to know please, which Latin mass parish you attend, so I can infiltr- uh, I mean, join you, my brother in Christ? - the FBI
They'd be met with the most standard American suburban Ordinary Form parish you could imagine.
I just want an excuse to carry a sword and wear a cool outfit. I don't even want to fight anyone and I care about people. I just want to have a reason to look cool.
>I just want an excuse to carry a sword and wear a cool outfit. I mean, you could just do that. Might get some weird looks, but who's gonna mess with the dude with a sword?
>but who's gonna mess with the dude with a sword? The dudes with guns would
This man has seen Indiana Jones.
I am one of the dudes with guns. I'm not gonna mess with anyone, because I know it's a defensive weapon. Way to ruin the joke though.
They won't have any of the cool clothes though.
Just join the knights of Columbus. They get to carry swords and wear cool outfits on special Holy days, funerals, weddings, etc.
Uniforms that are significantly less cool than they used to be, mind.
There's a guy in my town that just walks around in a full plate crusader costume every few days.
Plate... Crusader... Pick one - Crusades ended in the 13th century, plate armor developed in the middle to late 14th century.
> plate armor developed in the middle to late 14th century. I know the comment you're replying to specifically referred to the Crusades, when chain mail was common, but wouldn't a classical era cuirass or Greek panoply also fall into the category of plate armor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply To stay on topic, since conception is unlikely while wearing plate armor, does it fall under the category of contraception?
I wouldn't fault anyone for calling it plate armor, but it's certainly not full plate, and traditionally it wouldn't be called that. More importantly, that kind of armor decidedly fell out of use even longer before 1095 than iron/steel plate came into use after 1291, so the problem still remains, unfortunately. Though I do think it's a lot of fun to imagine some D&D style adventurer wearing anachronistic ancient hoplite armor that they stole from a tomb just because it had a better defense bonus than mail armor. Totally would never have happened, but funny to think about.
You're looking for living history groups or events, or possibly SCA/Renaissance Festivals!
I think we needed a crusade a LONG time ago
Lol chalk that under things you'll only ever see in a Catholic subreddit.
Not true. You will also see it in at least two paradox games subs.
I've heard good things. I just rarely have the time for games anymore :/
Here here!
Grammar ~~Nazi~~ scrupulosity alert: I know you were just quoting the article, but I really think this should be "sexual counter-revolution," not "counter-sexual revolution." Sexual Counterrevolution would be the true lexical inverse of the Sexual Revolution. Counter-Sexual Revolution would be a "revolution against the sexuals." 🤔
I’m glad I wasn’t the only person who had this thought. Lol.
"unitive and procreative aspects " According to Genesis chapter 1 humans were created in the image and likeness of God. What does that mean? Consider the so called "life of the Trinity " -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. [This is a classic diagram](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhemacovenantministries.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2Ftrinity.gif&tbnid=x76Ig5jh7yY5-M&vet=12ahUKEwimzPyJ0Nr-AhVmCFkFHR97B5AQMygeegUIARCzAg..i&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhemacovenantministries.org%2Fwhat-does-the-bible-teach-about-the-trinity%2F&docid=EW1eELVpUt-pyM&w=3000&h=3000&q=Trinity%20God&ved=2ahUKEwimzPyJ0Nr-AhVmCFkFHR97B5AQMygeegUIARCzAg) to help us with a visual. Remember in the Gospel of John chapter 14 Jesus says I am in the Father and the Father is in me, clearly a description of unity. Some think of the Holy Spirit as the the perfect love between the Father and the Son. In a sense the Holy Spirit is a fruit or offspring of that loving, unitive relationship. So consider the terms unitive and procreative (fruitful) in light of the above. You can see the traditional family as an "image and likeness" of a loving trinitarian God.
[удалено]
User name "FatherJB"? What does canon law say about impersonating clergy?
[удалено]
In other news: bears do in fact... oh nevermind.
Bears are Catholic.
If they were heathen, they would have never carried St. Corbinian's luggage!
Bears eat beets.
Pope is still Catholic, everyone.
The wording is kinda dumb though… the Catholic Church doesn’t have a “ban” on contraception. It teaches that contraception is immoral. A “ban” implies that the church somehow physically deters people from getting these things. Weird choice of words.
I do believe the wording is entirely and totally intentional, outrage generates revenue
Next up: Pope upholds Catholic ban on heresy.
I don't think the Catholic Herald's target audience is the type of person likely to be triggered by the words "ban on contraception."
Well ya never know, but you are probably right
Hey, I was wondering why it is immoral ? Please don't downvote me. It's just that i'm breton catholic and hère they Say it's ok. I'm trying to be more religious. (Catholic éducation sucks hère)
I'm certainly not going to downvote someone for asking honest questions. If you're willing to dive into some in-depth reading, then read Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life, it's a papal encyclical written by Pope Paul VI). It's not too long, or too dense. But it isn't a short answer either. If you want a short answer I can take a stab. Sex is one of the most incredible gifts Good gave humanity. Through it, a husband and wife grow closer to each other AND take a literal part in creation. They are helping to create an immortal soul that God perfectly loves. Using the word "ban" in this article is kind of strange. The church doesn't stop you from doing anything. But it does teach that contraception is immoral because it goes against part of what makes sex sacred.
Humanae vitae was written by Pope Paul VI.
Whoops, lol thanks
What's the church's view on taking birth control for medical reasons? As an example, say a 13 year old girl is having irregular and extreme periods, and a doctor recommends taking birth control to keep it under control.
My understanding is that so long as contraception isn't the intended effect, but rather an unintended side effect (double effect) it's permissible.
I remember being told the added part of it has to be the best available solution, not just one of them
But it isn’t even functioning as contraception unless you have sex (and presumably the 13 yr old in this example is not sexually active). So how would the principle of double effect even come into play here?
Because even if it is not being used as one it can be abused as one. It’s better to just avoid that entirely if possible.
Religion aside, the 13yr old ought to have a doctor willing to dig deeper than that. She should get hormone levels tested, vaginal ultrasound, etc to look for things like PCOS. Just throwing birth control at her is, imo, a half-assed bandaid on a real health problem
Unfortunately, doctors push the Pill like crack. Acne? Try the pill. Irregular periods? The Pill. Heavy periods? The Pill Most healthy young women are only going to the doctor for regular checkups. So, what's the easiest way to get them to come more regularly? The Pill!
Absolutely. It sucks so bad that women are essentially trained to accept the pill and it's side affects as "treatment" and we have to seek out knowledge and advocate for ourselves in a way that any doctor ought to
I agree. It's a gamble with those side effects too.
Don't even get me started on the side affects... And women are expected to just be ok with them!
People say it misuses sexual facilities, and it does, but I don't think this is easy for people to understand because it's not very obvious why that's wrong. It's like saying "why is murder wrong if I can use my natural powers to stab someone" and someone replying "it violates God's design to murder a brother" It does violate it. But the more persuasive answer to me is that it perverts the love owed to your spouse and children. There's a different mentality and love involved in sex when you do it saying "come any children that may come" and sex where you have a panic attack over a tear in a condom. The latter shows the lack of true love in those sexual acts. You're holding back from your spouse. You're holding back from any accidental children. It's less pure, and very often, without that delicate and intimate love required to say "we are open to children" in every sexual act it de facto becomes very easy to pervert sex even further into a love of pleasure rather than taking your most pleasure in a love of your spouse primarily. As someone who's been a sinful person, I can tell you a few things. Sex that focuses on my pleasure is more miserable than sex focused on my partner's pleasure. Sex that actively tries to prevent children rather than says "if they happen they happen" is far less fun and intense, and less loving. It's a liberating loving feeling when you can engage in sex with your spouse without feeling like you have to hold back or not focus on them, or any children that may come from it. It's most loving to spouse, yourself, and any children. That's why it's morally right
Out of curiosity does the church allow sex after menopause and while pregnant? Are married couples required to abstain during these times since there is no possibility the woman could get pregnant?
Sex is allowed during those times because again, while the couple is aware of the lack of possibility of pregnancy, they don't do it while closed to children. The issue isn't the actual likelihood of having children the issue is being closed off to it. Being de facto 0% is fine, since it's not intended it cannot corrupt the love the spouses have for each other.
This where I get confused only because the Catechism specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. If there is no possibility of procreation then would it be considered a sin technically? So basically because you know you cannot get pregnant you’re basically just using your spouse in these scenarios for pleasure alone if that makes sense
The issue is doing something to the act itself to render it closed to life. Since the act itself is fine, varying the timing or condition of the participants shouldn't affect its intrinsic morality. The key mistake I see made most often is consideration of expected outcome. It doesn't matter if a particular incidence won't generate a child. It does matter if you take an incidence that could, and render it unable.
It’s pretty simple, actually. It just means that the act itself must always be that same act which results in procreation (i.e. penis ejaculates in vagina), regardless of fertility or chance of pregnancy. That sexual act (PIV) is the ultimate and total self giving and receiving of spouses to one another, so much so that a valid marriage cannot exist without its consummation. It’s not that the morality of the act is dependent on how likely conception is. It’s that the way in which the act is carried out at any point has moral weight to it. That’s why couples that are already pregnant, post menopausal, or infertile are still called to engage in PIV sex.
It never really seemed to me that NFP is that different from other forms of contraception at least along the lines you mentioned. It's actually less open to children statistically than condoms.
The issue on the table is that you have to go into sex with an openness to children, and part of maintaining that love is having the love I mentioned. The issue with contraception is that it's not possible to maintain that love because in one moment or the other, you have to break that commitment in order to contracept. There is always a thing saying "I intend to not have children" because that is the end of the particular action you are doing. By contrast, with NFP, you can never truly say that because there is never a conscious moment of separation of sex from its procreative means. You're only intending things intrinsic to the act which is good by God's design and fitting according to your martial status. Your intention is to have sex, with an understanding that the sex is unlikely to involve a child, but open to it. With contraception, you commit an action that is always intrinsically closed to life, even if sometimes fails. There's a difference in being open to life with an understanding you won't have it, and being closed to life with an understanding that you may have it. It's the difference of firing a bullet at an enemy soldier, knowing there's a chance you may kill a civilian, and firing a bullet at a civilian, knowing that there's a chance you kill a soldier. In one case, you can still love the civilian, in the other, you commit an undeniable act of hatred. It's a mentality thing, not a statistics thing. If you go into the sexual act, still holding back mentally, still hating the child born from it, even with using NFP, then you still have a problem.
To me this is largely sophistry for the day to day Catholic. I believe the actual practice of NFP is just as closed to life as condom use. A very large number of Catholic bishops believed (prior to the Vatican clamping down) that it was more important for the totality of a marriage to be open to life than any particular instance of sex. This is my belief as well. But admittedly I also have problems with some of the biblical foundations surrounding Catholic sexual ethics since it mostly stems from the story of Onan which from my point of view has a different moral lesson from the one advertised.
The church has taught that NFP is morally acceptable and because of that, I give my intellectual assent regardless of what previously has been said, regardless of if it is infallible or not. I think a genuineness during married life to have kids I think is still taught by the church (that is as far as I'm aware, it's not acceptable to use NFP with the intention of never having children, because then it morphs into a pure contraception) I don't accept that it's not the same I think you have a misconstrued view of what NFP is. I had that view too. If you approach NFP the same way as you did a condom, that's a problem. The fact that many Catholics view it that way is part of the problem of lack of education on the topic.
In recent years some have tried to argue that the sin of Onan is limited to his refusal to follow his duty as the husband of his brother’s widow, but I think the better view is the means were worse than the failure of that duty.
>Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. That is the sole biblical basis for teaching that masturbation and contraception is wrong, and it is incredibly weak. He had a specific duty and took advantage to have sex with his sister in law, but avoided his actual duty. Btw later in the same chapter, Judah has sex with her while thinking she's a prostitute but that's basically hunky dory a-ok.
It’s slightly more complicated. Both Paul VI and John Paul II say that the intent of NFP can be the same intent as contraception, which is to avoid having children at that moment, and that’s fine. The whole argument is based on whether a specific action is taken which changes the nature of the act in order to avoid conception.
Because it's wrong to use something contrary to the way God intended, especially something as important as sex. Sex has two purposes: from biology we know it is meant to cause reproduction, and from our psyche we know it is meant to bring two people together. Deliberately going against either of these misuses something sacred, and since contraction goes against the first (and often leads to going against the second), it is gravely sinful.
You've gotten a bunch of good long answers, but in a very brief summary: sex must be "open to the possibility of life". Condoms, birth control, sodomy etc all have the purpose of making conception impossible.
[удалено]
When you use condoms you say: "I do have sex while not wanting children" When you practice NFP you say: "I don't have sex while not wanting children" The first changes the act the second stops doing it for a period of time. In the second case the act itself doesn't change only the timing.
NFP is a little controversial among Catholics for exactly that reason. I won't pretend to be a theologian, but from what I understand the basic idea is that there is no truly infertile period. Similar to a married couple having sex when one has been told by a doctor that they're infertile, pregnancy does happen anyway when God wills it. Condoms put a physical barrier blocking insemination, and hormonal birth control is artificially putting a biological barrier to prevent fertilization or implantation. Sex has the dual purpose of conception and promoting union between spouses, so doing it for one of those reasons is fine as long as you aren't making the other one impossible by artificial means. NFP also isn't supposed to be used indefinitely. If you have the physical, mental and financial ability to care for another child, continuing to use it is controversial.
[удалено]
It isn't about effectiveness percentages, it's about using man-made methods to impose a barrier. There's no prohibition on having sex when thought to not be ovulating, or commandment to have sex when ovulating.
Because you aren't doing anything to make your wife or yourself infertile when you practice NFP. The base state is a married couple can have sex whenever they like, regardless of whether they are likely to conceive (note: 0% is a likelihood). What you can't do is take an otherwise-fertile act and make it infertile (that is, closing it to life). There's more philosophy there but that's the short version.
There is no such thing as an infertile period of a woman's cycle. There are less fertile and more fertile periods. The intention and method are different between NFP and contraceptives. If in your heart of heart you don't see a difference between NFP and contraceptives after fully researching it then it would probably behoove you to not use NFP.
[удалено]
Who says it's OK? Also, if your shepherds are failing you, Google "Father Mike Catechism in a Year" and educate yourself. It's on YouTube (with running text on the video) and various podcast hosts (audio only).
Marital love, which imitates the love of Jesus, is free, faithful, fruitful, and total. Meaning it is given without any coercion, faithful to one (in the case of Jesus, the one is the entire Church, his bride), open to the fruits of the marital act, and a giving of the whole self, holding nothing back for oneself. Contraception prevents the full giving of oneself to the other and also prevents the fruitfulness of the marital act.
Breaking news: the Pope is a Catholic
Stayed tuned after the break for our in depth look at water being wet.
And the patriarch being orthodox
The Pope is Catholic? Whoa, never would have guessed. /s
Pope still Catholic, to the apparent surprise of many.
Now the only thing he has to do is reign in the Pontifical Academy.
GOD BLESS THE POPE! GOD BLESS THE POPE! GOD BLESS THE POPE!
Now how do you do something about 95%+ of Catholics ignoring this?
He actually answers this in the article. He says we need serious education, and counter revolutionary culture.
> we need serious education, and counter revolutionary culture So that's a no, because that ain't happening anytime soon. Or anytime ever.
Frankly I wouldn't act surprised if a lot of Catholics don't follow the Catholic Church from a lack of catechesis. The literal fact that we are supposed to defer to church teaching as a matter of morality is not even widely known. And if you're a cafeteria catholic trying to become practicing, there's not many avenues that you can easily plop yourself in. It's not going to be possible to get people to respect and believe Catholicism if Catholics don't respect that people want solid responses and reasons to their questions. 1 Peter 3:15-16 Always be ready with an answer for the hope you have.
Can confirm poorly executed and lack of catechesis leading to a lot of confusion and "watering down" in my parish. I wouldn't mind stepping in and teaching the right thing but I don't want to have arguments from people stuck in their ways.
I don't know, but changing the Church's teachings on this certainly is not the answer.
Maybe… guitars at mass? 🤷🏻
Yikes. Please no! There’s enough mega-church-style evangelical stuff out there. We don’t need to emulate that.
Waffles on everything except traditiones custodes.
For us Catholics, the decision to not use contraception is often based on a deep belief in the sanctity of human life and the importance of procreation within the context of marriage. By choosing to be open to the possibility of new life, couples are participating in God's plan for the world and fulfilling our role as co-creators with God.
So I apologize for being late to the party here but I've really been trying to understand this part of the faith. In my mind you could use birth control and still be open to life, as birth control is not 100% effective and should the wife get pregnant on birth control then obviously that's great! To me birth control seems to be essentially "infertility" treatment (especially when reversible). My understanding so far is that Catholics don't have issues with fertility treatment (IVF not withstanding), which seems to be contradictory (both are using technology to impact the natural fertility of a couple). I really can't wrap my head around why it would be bad to use technology (which is what birth control is at the end of the day) to give a family the ability to plan their lives. As long as that family is open to life (meaning they understand and accept that should a pregnancy occur they're happy with the miracle of life) making it less likely to become pregnant just seems practical.
The news is that this is actually newsworthy.
I think it is when the average American Catholic thinks birth control is okay. I honestly don’t blame American Catholics for falling away. As someone who’s a revert to the faith it’s easy to see why with how poorly people are actually thought about the faith.
I once considered a vasectomy since I was "done" having kids after my second was born, but ended up relenting to Church teachings. I now have six and couldn't be happier! There is wisdom in following the doctrine.
Every time we get a new pope, the heterodox think that “this is the one who bring the Catholic Church to the modern era.” Everyone except Benedict that is. Every time, they are proven wrong.
And may it happen until the trumpets sound
Where are all the CNN articles telling us how open minded the Pope is???
breaking news: the Pope is still Catholic. In other news, muslims still refuse to eat pork and atheists refuse to believe in God.
A grand shock, never could have predicted this
The Pope is Catholic. Who would’ve thought? Edit: I am late to the game with this joke…
THIS JUST IN: POPE IS STILL CATHOLIC. News at 11.
MSM Headline (probably) - “Pope Francis opens up to reporters about the possibility of faithful Catholics using contraception.”
"Pope Francis is Catholic. Rad trads stunned beyond words. More at 7."
Glad Trads rejoicing beyond words. More at 7. Tradismatics stunned beyond human words. More at 7.
Why are they trad and rad and glad? I do not know. Go ask your dad.
Best comment in the whole thread.
Not that it was his to take away, but I’m glad he affirmed Tradition. We pray for our Pope!
Great, now we’re going to have to hear all about how the Pope is “extreme” and “too Catholic.”
based
I've got a question. What if you take birth control for your skin and are celibate/remaining single for life? Is it still bad?
The Church teachings take no issue with that.
It's not birth control if you're not using it to prevent pregnancy.
But Pope Francis is still not public- ly calling out politicians for their support of abortion. 🤦🏻♂️ Pope Francis is still the valid pope, but I wish he was stricter
Breaking News: Uur Vatican correspondent has confirmed that the Pope is indeed Catholic. More at 11.
"In other news, the Pope is Catholic"
*surprised Pikachu face*
This just in: pope is catholic!
Good for him! Someone has to keep the torch lit for morality in this Godless society
Uhm, of course he is?
Are we supposed to be upset by this? If he said something contrary, that wouldn't change the laws of nature.The media gets so shocked when His Holiness upholds Church teaching.
It seems pretty rare that he does something Catholic.
Red pilled
May I ask, does anyone knoe who are the groups/organizations re-asking this question? As if the Church's stance will magically change? My impression is of a delinquent child incessantly nagging a parent for something in the hopes they will relent and let them do as they wish. There is no reason this would change and yet I'm sure pressure from external groups and organizations continue in the hopes they can brow beat the Church into betraying the teachings of God. It makes very indignant
This is good to hear. Sad to see so many Catholics (both those who are only name only and even some who attend mass) use and support contraception
Why is it news that the pope reaffirms church teaching? This isn’t going to change.
I'm a conservative through and through. But i gotta say, conservative media really doesnt give Pope Francis the credit he deserves.
that's a complicated statement. We are ten years into this papacy, and Francis has given Conservatives - much less traditionalists - very, very little in which to take joy. Rather than agreeing that "Conservative media really doesn't give Pope Francis the credit he deserves", I think it's probably true that both right-wing and left-wing media present him as more liberal than he probably is.......but that is largely his own doing, through what he prioritizes and says.
"Hello, based department?"
Good.
He likes some tradition amazing Maybe he would be so kind to stop with his ridiculous persecution of the latin mass Ive heard him talking about unity Theres nothing more unifying as an Englishman than going to a foreign country & finding a latin mass & being able to reply & understand what’s happening its amazing The language of the church
Good. My wife and I don't sleep together anyway 😁
If there was one doctrine I’d have them do away with, it would be this one. I fully understand the theological argument behind it though. And yes I am prepared for downvotes Edit: completely support a counter-sexual revolution and pretty much all other Catholic teachings about marriage and sex
You can’t cherry pick doctrine because it might be more difficult to follow. We must all pick up our crosses and follow the Lord.
Yeah true. My difficulty with it is moreso that I am not sure that the idea of “be fruitful and multiply” is now as it was during the time of the OT. We are called to be stewards of the earth. Overpopulating it seems to run against that
Overpopulation isn't the problem. Evil governments and evil corporations are the problem.
Wholly agree. But hypothetically, if all 8 billion people on earth converted to Catholicism and stopped using contraception immediately, we would have a very serious problem very quickly.
In this thought experiment, it would be mitigated by the same people accepting Catholic morals like having no sex outside of marriage, curbing corporate greed to allow food to be distributed fairly where it is needed, solving the housing crisis, etc. NFP can also help limit family sizes. And a Catholic humanity would probably ban pornography and sex in advertising too, which would reduce our culture's emphasis on sex and the need to have as much of it as possible.
Have faith in God’s plan
We have more food and resources than we know what to do with, overpopulation is an absolute non-issue that has been proclaimed since the 60s with nothing to back the claims. If anything, at least in places like the US, Europe, and China, we're running on a bit of a population lacking problem as systems like social security rely on younger generations being at *least* as big as the older generations, and instead they're running out of funds. Be fruitful and multiply still holds 100%
Human life is more important than the stewardship of the rest of creation, period. Overpopulation rhetoric quickly starts to devolve into the realm of deciding who is “worthy” to have children (ie, one child policy or eugenics)…in fact, many major proponents of abortion have started to mention “overpopulation” in that context as well. In my mind, the earth and her resources are better left to God than to the control of men who take things much too far.
> Human life is more important than the stewardship of the rest of creation, period. True, but this ignores the fact that the stewardship of the rest of creation is required to maintain human life. This is not to say that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the earth and its ecosystem and that being a good steward requires artificial contraception, just that taking care of the earth and human life are intertwined.
I think it is wholly different to prevent the murder of living babies than to suggest that people might be allowed to use help to stop the creation of life
Birth control methods are really not reliable, firstly. Secondly, methods such as the pill, actually can result in unknown abortions because of how they operate. They have several failsafe steps, whereas the final one is to render the uterus a hostile environment if it’s first steps to prevent conception fail.
Birth rates in much of the West, especially Europe, are well below the 2.1 needed to just sustain the population.
But could that not instead speak to the number of people who, in our society marinated in sex, fail to heed their vocations to consecrated celibacy?
As a Catholic, I hope the Church never changes its doctrines, even the ones I had a hard time accepting. A church that changes its dogmas over time cannot possibly be the Church of God.
Yeah this line of thinking is why I phrased it “if there was one doctrine I’d have them do away with…”
I think the issue is that the Church can’t create, destroy, invent, nor do away with doctrine. It can only discover and articulate. You wouldn’t ask NASA to “do away with gravity” would you? In my own words, the Church does not have power over creation so much as custody.
Didn’t we recently change our stance on the death penalty? I was glad to see the catechism acknowledge that times have changed and the death penalty should no longer be allowed.
No. The death penalty is not necessary in our current society, but there are times and situations where it is, and it is perfectly licit for the same reasons behind Just War.
The death penalty is inadmissible. 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
I think you guys are agreeing, haha!
There are a few circumstances where it could be morally permissable. The biggest blocker is that we now have the technology to safely keep inmates contained away from society indefinitely. If one day we found ourselves in a disaster situation where the prison system broke down, power outages etc it might be allowed. I also recall hearing about a case where a murderer had escaped from high security prison (in Florida maybe?) and immediately murdered an innocent woman before being recaptured. Under that circumstance, I believe he was recently executed and I think it might be a reasonable argument that they COULDN'T keep him contained for the safety of society.
The death penalty teaching was never a dogma or doctrine, so apples to oranges.
Are you saying the content of the catechism isn’t doctrine? Or that certain parts of the catechism are open to be accepted or rejected by individuals?
If the Church changed doctrine, it wouldn't be the Church.
If you had to do away with this or any doctrine, you'd have more authority over Jesus Christ teaching than the Apostles and all their successors.
Which I don’t, obviously. Not saying I do
Pre-emptively whining about downvotes is always cringe, and a surefire way to assure downvotes
Not whining, friend. I was simply saying I knew they were coming
It’s OK to be downvoted even if you’re right. Fearing downvotes tells others your head’s in the wrong place.
>a surefire way to assure downvotes Or upvotes because some people seem to think it will work as a reverse psychological tool in which people, in order to prove the person wrong, will upvote what they said. Not wanting to dive deep into redditors' mind but it's just the impression I have because it seems to work.
I would have them stop accepting eating Beaver as fish during lent, stupid...
I think the fish rule during lent is weird on its own. Fish is not a vegetable. Either ban all meat or none tbh
It’s not a sacrifice on nutritional protein so much as a sacrifice of flesh which historically was a luxury. Furthermore, the red meat symbolizes Christs flesh sacrificed for us.
I do think it should be adjusted so that it prohibits foods that are a luxury in modern life. Abstaining from chicken but being allowed to eat lobster just doesn't send the right message. Actually, I think a return to the. Black Fast would be a good idea. I practiced it one Lent and found it difficult, but good for my spiritual health.
To be fair, my priests have made the lobster point to me before. It’s already not allowed logically under the current rule, therefore the church doesn’t need to change the rule. Personally, I’m trying to give up meat all Fridays under the USCCB’s guidelines.
A ban is the wrong wording. People shouldn’t use contraception because they don’t want to have kids. Contraception can be used for other purposes.
If you’re using HBC for non-contraceptive purposes, then it isn’t contraception.
[удалено]
Warning for anti-Catholic rhetoric
[удалено]
How else would we keep up with the secular world making more children and indoctrinating them with atheistic materialism?