Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Catholicism's Official Stance on Contraception
Thread: Catholicism's Official Stance on Contraception [ This thread is 5 pages long: (1) 2 3 4 5 ]
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted January 21, 2012 06:20 PM
Edited by Elodin at 18:21, 21 Jan 2012.

Catholicism's Official Stance on Contraception

[Continued from the thread about the US Presidential race]

Quote:

There are many other criticisms that come from within a religious framework about what Elodin has said, but frankly I'm starting to doubt that he has the capacity to listen to anything other than the conservative propaganda that he seeks out and distributes. I just find it consistently disturbing when people from the religious right claim to speak from everyone else in their faith community.



It is sad how so few atheists, in particular liberal atheists, are able to converse about anything that they disagree with without personal slanders of the person on the opposing side. Also, it is a lie to say that I claim to speak for Catholics. I have stated I am not Catholic and I quoted Papal writings to definitively establish the Catholic position on contraception. Below I will refer to other Catholic sources on the matter.

Quote:
A good example of this would be Jesus - a bloke who didn't agree with what the existing religious ruling class was saying, and decided that he'd teach something else. I wonder if you knew that Jesus was called an atheist by many of his religious brethren... ironic that he was later deified - So when you lump all church members in together (Catholics in this case) you're making a generalisation that I'm sure you would oppose if an atheist, a jew or a muslim were making.



Jesus disagreed with what the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching because their teachings were not in harmony with Scripture.  I've not read of Jesus being called an atheist by any of his religious brethren. Provide a quote. Hint: There are none in the Bible. Also, Jesus claimed to be God himself, his followers did not just decide to claim that for him.

I quoted official Catholic teaching, a papal encyclical. That is official Catholic DOGMA. Some people like Nancy Pelosi claim to be Catholic but are in rebellion against the dogma of the Catholic church about abortion and contraception and are forbidden to take communion and are considered to be in a condition of mortal sin because of their stance on those issues.

Here is a link to what the bishops said about contraception and what Pope John Paul taught about contraception.

Quote:

So your argument that a Catholic hospital can't provide care to those who want/need it because the Catholic church believes them sinful is an erroneous view that is probably divided from doctors, nuns and ministers in those same hospitals you claim to be speaking for. Many of them might believe that contraception is an individual's choice, and therefore their own sin, and not a decision to be made by the hospital as part of its duty of medical care.



Dude, the Catholic church teaches abortion and contraception are mortal sins.  It teaches cooperating with the commitment of mortal sin is mortal sin. The Catholic teaching about abortion and contraception is DOGMA and considered unchangable eternal truth. It is not a disciplinary teaching like the teaching that priests can't marry. Disciplinary teachings can be changed. Dogma can't be.


Again, I am not Catholic and I am not opposed to any form of contraception that merely prevents fertilization from taking place.

Here is a related thread in the Catholic Answers forum.

Here is an article about whether a Catholic doctor can prescribe contraception by a speaker on Catholic doctrine.

Here is an excerpt from an open letter issued by a bishop on the official Catholic TV station [Eternal Word Television Network]

Quote:

That I may not fail in my duty to God and to you, I am compelled to write this pastoral letter to you, the Catholic couples and Catholic physicians of the diocese of Lincoln, and to remind you that birth prevention by any artificial means is gravely contrary to the teaching of God and His Church, of which you are members.
.....
...We believe that when Pope John Paul II teaches in matters of faith and morals, the Church teaches; and when the Church teaches, Christ the God-man teaches.

Therefore, we who have been blessed by God with the gift of the Catholic faith can have no doubt about the immorality of contraception. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the use of contraception in all its forms, including direct sterilization, is gravely immoral, is intrinsically evil, is contrary to the law of nature and nature's God. This is and always has been the uninterrupted teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning.

The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder. Contraception is wrong, not because the Church says it is wrong (it was wrong before Christ established the Church); it is wrong because God Himself, through the revelation of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, has declared it to be wrong. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason, no matter how good and urgent. A good end never justifies the use of an evil means.

Catholic physicians and others who prescribe contraceptives or recommend their use are cooperators with those who use them. Such cooperation is gravely sinful. The same is true for physicians who advise contraceptive sterilization, or perform this procedure or refer a person to another physician for this purpose. In doing so they, too, commit grave sin.

It should be obvious that Catholics who practice birth control and those who cooperate with them in their immoral actions may not receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege. Only the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance, which requires genuine sorrow for sin and the sincere intention to discontinue the sinful practice, will bring God's forgiveness, restore grace to the soul and make one worthy to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.

Four years ago, Pope John Paul II, in his address to the bishops of the United States gathered in Los Angeles, very pointedly declared: "It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error...."

While contraception is always immoral, there is a morally acceptable way by which married couples may space the births of their children. For good and sufficient reasons, spouses may regulate births by abstaining from the marital act during the wife's easily identified fertile periods. This practice is known as Natural Family Planning. Recent scientific research has so refined the methods of Natural Family Planning that today, couples may. space their children in ways that are altogether reliable, medically safe, and morally acceptable.


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 11, 2012 09:49 PM

Obama changed the rules and now Catholic hospitals do not have to provide contraception, insurance companies do instead. Apparently the insurance companies are on board because contraception is cheaper to cover than abortion or birth.

Also another funny thing is that about half of American states already had a mandate like the original version in place.

Interesting.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 11, 2012 10:24 PM

Obama is trying to pull a shim-sham flim-flam shell game. His "accommodation" changed nothing. Obama continues to show his hatred of the Constitution and religious freedom and his belief in "Big Brother" government.

Expect Congress to step in with legislation that will have enough votes to override Obama's veto. A number of democrats are on-board the "stop trampling religious freedom" train. Of course the truly left-wing nutcases like Boxer are all in favor of Obama's unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on religion.

See the rejection of his shell game by religious scholars here.

Quote:

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things. This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services. It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy. It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.
The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick. Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 12, 2012 12:13 AM

I'm sorry, Obama made an exception to the rules, which I honestly do not think he should have done. The bill required all employers to provide health care that included contraceptive coverage to employees. BY MAKING THIS CHANGE, HE IS BREAKING THE RULES. I'm actually a bit mad about that. Religious organizations, such as the Catholic church, are not above any law, no matter how they kick and scream about it. Hiding behind "Protection of religion" does not work when it is a general law that everyone has to follow. For instance, do we allow pagan cults to kill people in rituals? How about them animal sacrifices or polygamy? you are free to believe what you wish, that right is guaranteed, but you are not allowed to break the law no matter who you are. (Idealistic, I know, but I like to think that it works this way most of the time JJ/ Del/ whoever else would bug me about that statement...)

The only reason this "Problem" received this much attention, so much that Obama changed the bill to accommodate, was that the right wants to cut away any and all support from him, and so they are going to bring up and blow out of proportion any and every decision that comes up in the White House. This is only the tip of the ice burg of controversies, mark my words well.

And El, thak you very much for the link to a perfect example of a man who overlooks the whole point that there are people who work for religiously affiliated companies that are not themselves religiously affiliated. And the fact that the bill only requires that companies provide a plan with contraceptives included in it, the person purchasing or deciding on an insurance policy does not have to purchase that specific policy, nor do they have to use it if they do. It shows something for a religion if they do not trust their faithful to follow their practices, and what else would you call this complaining? Those that are true Catholics will not use the contraceptives, and those who do not want to follow these teachings will not regardless. Faith should not have to be forced and enforced, it should be constant on its own.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 12, 2012 06:39 AM

Quote:
you are free to believe what you wish, that right is guaranteed, but you are not allowed to break the law no matter who you are.

Except if you're a Jehovah's Witness or something.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito

Hero of Order
proud father of a princess
posted February 12, 2012 09:29 AM

Quote:
Quote:
you are free to believe what you wish, that right is guaranteed, but you are not allowed to break the law no matter who you are.

Except if you're a Jehovah's Witness or something.
Care to elaborate this statement?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 12, 2012 10:43 AM

There was a discussion about that around here already, if I remember right. Similar to the one about circumcision. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to deny their children blood transfusions for religious reasons.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 12, 2012 11:08 AM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 11:09, 12 Feb 2012.

Catholicism or the Pope do not represent all of Christianity. And I am okay with that, being an Orthodox.
The JW's can do what they like although they still wanna follow the OT.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 12, 2012 11:37 AM

Actually, no, they can't.

In practise, there is no difference, whether children die because their parents don't BOTHER to provide medical care for their sick children, or whether they avoid it due to SUPERSTITION (because that's what it is).

Or would anyone say, that the belief of the JWs, that blood is the "home" of the soul, so it should not be transferred is NOT superstition?

OUR MODERN society is not willing to allow minority sects to sacrifice their children on the altar of superstititious belief.

Which is all there is to say about it.

By the way, this nonsense about religious freedom trumping everything else is a US phenomenon. Religion, like everything else, has to stop, when it's violating reason, law and other people's rights, and that's true for CHURCHES all the more so.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 12, 2012 12:42 PM

Yeah a line must be drawn somewhere, Joker, I agree with that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tsar-Ivor
Tsar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Ω Sunt lacrimae rerum Ω
posted February 12, 2012 12:45 PM
Edited by Tsar-Ivor at 12:52, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Yeah a line must be drawn somewhere


That's what I said to myself when I began to take dumps at irregular times of the day.


I doubt you people would be happy even when everything is defined and you achieved the construction of a cage for yerself that gets fitted with your crotch girdle one size too small.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 12, 2012 12:47 PM

What has that got to do with anything? This is the OSM.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 12, 2012 02:37 PM
Edited by Elodin at 14:42, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:

In practise, there is no difference, whether children die because their parents don't BOTHER to provide medical care for their sick children, or whether they avoid it due to SUPERSTITION (because that's what it is).



Prove that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are superstitions, JJ. You can't. You simply state that the superstitions of atheists are the truth. Most everyone who has ever lived has rejected the silly religion of atheism yet you want to foist it off as fact.

Quote:

Or would anyone say, that the belief of the JWs, that blood is the "home" of the soul, so it should not be transferred is NOT superstition?



Like I said, prove it. Otherwise you are wanting the State to impose your religion on them. I'll grant that you are a deeply religious person, but you should not try to force your religion on other families.

Quote:

OUR MODERN society is not willing to allow minority sects to sacrifice their children on the altar of superstititious belief.



Exactly. The tiny cult of atheism has no business trying to impose its superstitions on everyone else.

The JWs don't believe in child sacrifice, JJ. Child sacrifice is done by various pagan groups and by some athiests (for example killing unborn babies on the alter of "convenience" or killing those who refuse to embrace the religion of atheism in officially atheist nations.)

Quote:

By the way, this nonsense about religious freedom trumping everything else is a US phenomenon. Religion, like everything else, has to stop, when it's violating reason, law and other people's rights, and that's true for CHURCHES all the more so.


Agreed. The dogma of atheism violates reason as it necessitates faith in things that contradict known science. Atheists should stop trying to trample on everyone else's rights and simply accept that most people who have ever and will ever live have a very different view than their own and that other people have a right to practice their own religion in peace.

Parents have a right to teach their children their religion as they see fit.  You can teach your children the destructive and delusional belief that Jesus is a fairy tale and that the State is supreme. I'll teach mine the truth that Jesus is Lord.

You teach your children to have as much sex as they want with everything that moves but to always use contraception. Let Catholics teach their children to abstain from sex until married and that contraception is immoral. In other words, you teach your children your own view of right and wrong (you say absolute right and wrong don't exist.) Catholics should be allowed to teach their children their own views as well.

Catholic businessmen and Catholic organizations should not be forced to buy employees what they believe to be a moral sin. Anyone who goes to work for a Catholic school expecting the school to provide them with what the Catholic church says is immoral sin is an idiot.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 12, 2012 02:58 PM
Edited by baklava at 15:02, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Parents have a right to teach their children their religion as they see fit.  You can teach your children the destructive and delusional belief that Jesus is a fairy tale and that the State is supreme. I'll teach mine the truth that Jesus is Lord.

And a fanatical Jehovah's Witness will teach them that, though they're severely ill and can be saved by a blood transfusion, God actually prefers them to suffer and die. If the child disagrees with that - well, that's some helluva tough luck since it's viewed as something as alive as a refrigerator when it comes to it's parents' religious freedom.

And I'll teach them that what they really need is a good old spoonful of uncle Jimbo's ejaculation juice. But quietly. Because I'd be jailed for it. Because the holy scripture of someone else's religion says it's wrong.

Because, when it comes to freedom of religion, parents don't only have the right to teach what they like. They also have the right to do what they like. But only if their religion is powerful enough to afford a solid lobby, like Scientology, for instance.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 12, 2012 03:02 PM

Bak. I hate to ask. Or no I actually don't. Well anyway. Are you a masochist? You've tried these arguments before. I don't understand why you think the conversation will change this time around.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 12, 2012 03:04 PM
Edited by baklava at 15:05, 12 Feb 2012.

I have been given another chance and reshaped in the image of my infernal master mentioned in the other thread.

And after 50 times, I'm still not quite sure as to what the reply is exactly going to be. The anticipation causes adrenaline to coarse through my body and - there's no other way of saying it - I think I'm addicted to discussing baby masturbation with Elodin.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tsar-Ivor
Tsar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Ω Sunt lacrimae rerum Ω
posted February 12, 2012 03:52 PM
Edited by Tsar-Ivor at 15:52, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:
I'd be jailed for it.


I get the feeling that this is just speculation.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 12, 2012 04:18 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I'd be jailed for it.


I get the feeling that this is just speculation.

Well, the act would most likely fall under a form of child sexual abuse, so even if Bak's statement is just speculation it is very accurate.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tsar-Ivor
Tsar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Ω Sunt lacrimae rerum Ω
posted February 12, 2012 04:32 PM
Edited by Tsar-Ivor at 16:34, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Child abuse is doing something or failing to do something that results in harm to a child or puts a child at risk of harm. Child abuse can be physical, sexual or emotional. Neglect, or not providing for a child's needs, is also a form of abuse.


I don't see any conflict Gnomes, there's no harm done in the process, if anything it's beneficial. Not that I would practice it myself, but imo it falls within the boundries of law.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 12, 2012 04:35 PM

All of a sudden maybe partly because I'm listening to ABBA, it becomes all too apparent that Baklava doesn't participate in this for the sake of Elodin. No it's in reality Bak who's crying out for help! All his analogies, they are not analogies at all! He's really doing these things! Bak, ladies and gentlemen, is in fact, religious!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 5 pages long: (1) 2 3 4 5 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1127 seconds