Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Salty, Jul 26, 2008.
More than 50 dissident Catholic groups want to end the ban on birth control
No; they will not. While most obviously ignore it, from their perspective that would hurt them amongst their most faithful. Not that they follow their church teaching either but they are hyper sensitive to perceptions of changing doctrine.
Read the Encyclical Letter from Pope Paul the VI written in July of 1968. It's called Humanae Vitae
just google Humanae Vitae and you'll be able to read it for yourself.
What Pope Paul VI warned mankind about is truely coming to pass, we can't say we were not warned about the consequences. Please read it before you poo poo it!
I for one would not like the Catholic Church to change it's stand.
Not likely any time soon, I would guess. The tendency of the RC Church has been to make dogma out of items of piety and practice that have grown into being for a long time ... e.g., the dogmas of papal infallibility and of the assumption of Mary. Of course those touch only on the strictly theological (some of us would say mythological) and not on life practice, so maybe a few centuries will make a change there. But don't hold your breath.
Anyone know of instances where the Catholic position has changed via some supposed "new revelation" such as the Latter-Day Saints claim for the abandonment of plural marriage and of secondary status for Blacks?
Actually the "most faithful" do follow the church teaching. And the trend by many to ignore the teaching is one I do believe you will see headed in the other direction over the next few years. The priests educated during the 60s and 70s are retiring and being replaced by those who went through seminary during the John Paul 2 years.
I'm very certain the teaching will not change. The question is -- why did all other Christian denominations change theirs?
Could it be that there is no Biblical command for banning birth control?
Depends on the groups of course. For those who adhere to a Sola Scriptura viewpoint; the biblical support, Gen 38:9-10, is not convincing.
For mainline, it goes with their reliance on reason; ie Methodist for example.
I was listening to the AFR report on American Family Radio one day speaking about the complete disintegration of sexual morality and associating that with the widespread acceptance of contraception. Specifically the un-coupling of the unitive and procreative aspects of marital union. I wanted to say "You think"?
The other aspect they mentioned however I had not thought of -- the widespread acceptance of contraceptive usage among Christians and the effect it has had on the increase of Muslims over Christians.
So why was it so 'convincing' a mere 60 or 70 years ago?
Why did people who believed in sola-scriptura think there was a mere 60-70 years ago?
I do not know. I have not researched it enough to know. It is not unusual for people to apply cultural norms and find scripture or scripture/tradition (less it appears to be just a Protestant trend) to support or refute existing beliefs.
I only know of the verse usually cited by traditional Catholics and a general appeal to Genesis.
I don't think abstaining from birth control in the Roman Catholic Church is actual Dogma. Thus, the teaching can be changed, but I agree, the teaching is here to stay. Also, interestingly is celibacy for the priesthood is also not Dogma and can can change as well.
Big difference between the two, and not a real clear view of what dogma is.
Priestly celibacy is considered a spiritual discipline within the Latin rite only and is governed by church law. There is nothing immoral about priests being married. Within the Catholic church there are married priests today.
Dogma does not deal with specific moral issues. There is not a dogma that says 'murder is a sin' or 'stealing is a sin' either yet church teaching is clear that it is.
The use of artifical contraception is considered sinful. This is why this teaching will not change. It was considered to be sinful by all Christian groups until about 1930, when the Anglicans were the first to change their view. Protestants in general made the change in belief over the following 30 years. At the time Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, the Orthodox stood with the Catholic church in this belief. Over the last 20-30 years that has changed, although from what I've read from the Russian Orthodox patriarch his views still align with the Catholic view.
So how can something be sinful for all of history, and then all of a sudden not be? That in my mind is the question which should be asked. Not "will the Catholic church change"? Rather, why did everyone else?
Grace and Peace,
I have great many issues with Roman Catholic Theology but ultimately I believe this is an issue with 'ascesis' and not simply doctrine or dogma. For Christians who see the faith as ultimately 'intellectual acsent' and thus the possessing of a 'Gold-Ticket to Heaven' ascesis (i.e. spiritual discipline "holiness") means practically 'nothing'. Separating the 'act of sexual intercourse' with the 'consequences' isn't seen as a problem because they see no value in the pursuit of the virtues as an activity of the 'grace-filled' and as a sign of sonship in Christ. Modern Christianity is simply 'all' about Justification at the exspense of a 'grace-filled' pursuit of Sanctification. This has ultimately allowed our passions to run unchecked as technology has advance to allow us greater pursuit of a life in the pursuit of the passions and their fulfillment.
I once read a paper on the link between contraception and sexual immorality and it was very compelling. The linkages between viewing sex as a protected individual right of expression has allowed sex to be taken out of the marriage bed and placed as the apex of expression between one individual for/with another which feeds the popular argument that sex and sexual acts are a protected right of the individual and ultimately undermines any bibical sense of sexual moral conduct or enforcement. Once sex has been separated as an act without consequences, it becomes a right of expression and any moral understanding of it flies out the window... thus our situation today.
When we separate Justification from Sanctification... when we separate Acts from their responsibilities and/or consequenses... we ultimately damage the inherent 'good' of the Act in question. It's something that we seriously must consider deeper as a society.
Wow, those thoughts are amazing. Thank you for sharing.