Abortion!

[Arrian]

I'm amused at priests telling people they've been fooled. Yep, they sure have! By the priests.

Of course the Catholic Church leans toward Intelligent Design. Any acceptance of science by the Church has been grudging. If they thought they could go back to the gold 'ole days of creationism and not lose half of their flock, they would.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Because, um, the "rhythm method" is the least effective type of birth control? Relying on it is a bad idea.

Where I have said they would employ the rhythm method? The only folks who have brought that up are my opponents.

Rhythm method is based on body temperature, not cervical mucus, so that should have been your clue right there that I am referring to a different method of natural family planning.

http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/index.html

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You were a catechism minor, ming. What beliefs must all Catholics accept as true in order to be Catholic?

To be clear, I have a religious study minor, and was exposed to many years of catechism classes thanks to my time in a Catholic school

To answer your question, being Catholic means you accept ALL beliefs of the church. Granted, many people don't, but still consider themselves Catholic and continue to participate in their religion. I personally don't accept some of their beliefs and consider myself a non practicing Catholic... While still a religious person, I can't stomach the position the Church takes on some issues, and how they have been NOT really addresing the problems of abusive priests.

[Arrian]

I thought that the rhythm method was just about timing... which is apparently what you're advocating.

The basic point, however, stands:

If you deliberately avoid having sex when the woman is fertile, you are clearly having sex for reasons other than making babies. Ergo, you're having sex for fun.

Birth control achieves the same end, with established success (I'm unaware of how reliable the "Billings Method" is).

How in the world is it any different?

If it's "every sperm is sacred," then shooting your sperm into a situation where they will certainly die (the Billings website says that w/o the cervical mucus, the sperm die w/in an hour) is sinful, is it not?

If it's a claim that it's natural, I must laugh, because there seems to be a fair amount of research required to get it right and further we do all sorts of things that are "unnatural" that the religions seem to have no problem with (oh, say, keeping someone alive on a respirator and feeding tubes??)

I don't get it, Ben. Enlighten me.

-Arrian

[Gibsie]

I stand corrected on my horribly off-topic evolution sidetrack. Glad to know the church is still as backward as ever

I was just giving a hypothetical: a couple using the natural family planning method but also deciding that they'd use condoms. Many couples use two forms of contraception, assume this pair wants to be extra careful so they use NFP and condoms as well. Are they bad Catholics for doing so?

[Jon Miller]

I know people who like the rythym method and who are not Christian (or even religious)

JM

[Arrian]

They're relying on a rather dubious method of birth control, AFAIK.

They're gonna burn in hell anyway, so who cares?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

I don't beleive in the literal hell that many do

JM

[Arrian]

HERETIC!

Heh. Actually, the Church has been messing with the definition of Hell lately, hasn't it?

-Arrian

[Japher]

"don't worry honey, I know when to pull out"

those are famous last word... last time I said that

[Arrian]

Seriously?[/gullible]

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
HERETIC!

Heh. Actually, the Church has been messing with the definition of Hell lately, hasn't it?

-Arrian

I don't tihnk my denomination ever really beleived in a literal hell

but then I am about as far from catholic as you can go and still be Christian (I guess Mormons and Witnesses are farther.. but I dont' tihnk Witnesses are Christian(and doubt Mormons))

JM

[Japher]

Mormons don't give hell much thought... since they aren't going there.

[Ben Kenobi]

To answer your question, being Catholic means you accept ALL beliefs of the church. Granted, many people don't, but still consider themselves Catholic and continue to participate in their religion. I personally don't accept some of their beliefs and consider myself a non practicing Catholic... While still a religious person, I can't stomach the position the Church takes on some issues, and how they have been NOT really addresing the problems of abusive priests.

I was under the impression from my RCIA classes that there are certain issues where you are allowed to disagree, there are others that are fundamental.

The list that I can recall of essential doctrines are the Christian doctrines like the Trinity, Deity and humanity of Christ, Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Atonement, Original Sin, Justification by grace through faith.

Then you have the specific Catholic ones:

Immaculate Conception, Assumption and Sinlessness of Mary; Infant Baptism, Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Authority of the Magisterium, Papal Infalliability, Primacy of Rome, Apostolic Succession, Communion of Saints, and the sacraments, Faith and Works, Scripture and Tradition.

Then the more social ones, sanctity of life, marriage as one man and one woman for life, where two become one flesh.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought that the rhythm method was just about timing... which is apparently what you're advocating.

The basic point, however, stands:

If you deliberately avoid having sex when the woman is fertile, you are clearly having sex for reasons other than making babies. Ergo, you're having sex for fun.

Let's be clear here, the church does not teach that sex is only for procreation. They acknowledge the procreative and the unitive aspects, or what you might term the more enjoyable portion. Both have to be together, and the two are linked together. If you seperate the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect, you deminish the unitive.

The difference between abstinence, in abstaining from sex when you are fertile, and contraception, is that contraception allows you to have the unitive aspect of sex without the procreative. Now you can argue that having sex when you know the woman is not fertile is under the same motivations, but one cannot say that abstaining from sex when she is fertile also follows the same motivations. In abstaining, you acknowledge that sex has this procreative element, otherwise, you would simply use artificial means to continue having sex throughout this period. You would not abstain, because you believe that sex is simply for pleasure. You do abstain because you believe that sex is much more then just for your pleasure.

Birth control achieves the same end, with established success (I'm unaware of how reliable the "Billings Method" is).

It's on the website. Very reliable actually, but the trouble is that the method works for married couples who invest the time, unlike condoms which require no investment.

If it's "every sperm is sacred," then shooting your sperm into a situation where they will certainly die (the Billings website says that w/o the cervical mucus, the sperm die w/in an hour) is sinful, is it not?

If we follow your logic, then it is sinful to have sex outside of the women's fertile period, and you end up saying that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is not the case. Therefore we must conclude that it is not sinful to have sex outside of a woman's fertile period.

If it's a claim that it's natural, I must laugh, because there seems to be a fair amount of research required to get it right and further we do all sorts of things that are "unnatural" that the religions seem to have no problem with (oh, say, keeping someone alive on a respirator and feeding tubes??)

We require research because we have forgotten these things. This knowledge isn't new, nor is it all that complicated. It has been forgotten and cast aside because of the times in which we live.

As for your second point about unnatural methods to prolong life, you should read up on what Catholics have in fact said about these points. They do not have a problem with feeding tubes, because the tubes provide food and nourishment necessary for the life of everyone. Ventilators and other machines which allow the body to live even after the brain has died are left up to the individual to decide, precisely because of concerns over technology.