Gay marriage thread

[ahinton]

I'm not sure you're right about Aquinas regarding artificial contraception and abortion. He is known to have condemned both in the strongest terms. Anyone in any doubt can enquire for themselves! I don't know about the 'many saints' who took 'a dim view' of the dogmas you mention, you'd have to be more specific.

Whatever his or others of his contemporaries' views may have been on those two subjects (and, after all, "artificial contraception" as it's now understood was hardly available in their day!), it's the here and now and the future with which we're principally concerned; the Catholic Church's traditional view on these two phenomena have, as you surely agree, been pretty inflexibly negative and, as such, out of touch with the realities of contemporary life. Likewise with celibacy for the priesthood, since celibacy is a lifestyle choice, not something to be imposed upon a particular group of people by a Church or lawmaking institution.

At least you are the first here to appear to suggest that the Catholic Church is open to change on doctrinal matters. Other members are howling their anger that it is 'unyielding' and 'unbending'. Only one of these positions can be correct.

Not the first, I think; we can surely all hope for the best and some of us actually do!

[Flosshilde]

f the second Lord Acton

Goodness - you'll be telling us that there's a Lord Neasden next!

[Flosshilde]

the Catholic Church's traditional view on these two phenomena have, as you surely agree, been pretty inflexibly negative and, as such, out of touch with the realities of contemporary life.

& certainly as far as contraception is concerned ignored by a very large proportion of Catholics in the UK.

[amateur51]

Though Paul Feyerabend suggested the Inquisition had a point. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Meth...2508833&sr=1-1

Did Feyerabend suggest this at the time?

Aaah relativism!

[amateur51]

Goodness - you'll be telling us that there's a Lord Neasden next!

You called?

[Flosshilde]

Duchess, surely?

Although not so long ago you were insisting that you should be addressed as 'Princess'

[amateur51]

Duchess, surely?

Although not so long ago you were insisting that you should be addressed as 'Princess'

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Whitman

[Flosshilde]

Get you! You'll be saying that you're omnipotent next.

[amateur51]

Get you! You'll be saying that you're omnipotent next.

Not since the diabetes, dear

[Flosshilde]

That's good - you can be a priest now!

[ahinton]

& certainly as far as contraception is concerned ignored by a very large proportion of Catholics in the UK.

Very sadly, so far, yes - so let's hope for a change...

[ahinton]

That's good - you can be a priest now!

But somehow I don't think that he "will", even if he "can"...

[Pabmusic]

...That is hardly the same as making a dogmatic statement that slavery is okay one day and then the next day dogmatically declaring it to be wrong....

Though isn't this what the Catholic Church has done? After all, it's been around long enough to have seen social morals change.

The Bible unequivocally endorses slavery, giving rules for treating slaves (such as it's all right to beat them as long as they don't die within a day or two). The New Testament adds gems such as slaves should obey their masters, even if they are cruel.

This underpinned much of the justification of slavery within Christian cultures until the 18th Century. The Catholic Church, being the oldest, agreed. Then the morality of society as a whole changed, and slavery is now seen as profoundly wrong. Most Christian sects (including the Catholic Church) now agree with the revised version, despite what the Bible says.

This is a good example of how Christianity often adapts to accord with contemporary secular morality.

[Barbirollians]

One wonders how different the Catholic Church might be had John Paul I survived longer than a month .

[scottycelt]

Though isn't this what the Catholic Church has done? After all, it's been around long enough to have seen social morals change.

The Bible unequivocally endorses slavery, giving rules for treating slaves (such as it's all right to beat them as long as they don't die within a day or two). The New Testament adds gems such as slaves should obey their masters, even if they are cruel.

This underpinned much of the justification of slavery within Christian cultures until the 18th Century. The Catholic Church, being the oldest, agreed. Then the morality of society as a whole changed, and slavery is now seen as profoundly wrong. Most Christian sects (including the Catholic Church) now agree with the revised version, despite what the Bible says.

This is a good example of how Christianity often adapts to accord with contemporary secular morality.

I don't think one can easily "accuse" the Catholic Church of 'often adapting to accord with contemporary secular morality', Pab,..

We are talking about dogma and doctrine (at least I am) not the evolving of different stances on certain issues. In any case, this evolution had as much to do with contemporary religious thought than secularism. Popes had condemned slavery before it was abolished by secular states. However, as far as I know, whilst the Catholic Church now strongly condemns slavery there is no dogma or doctrine attached to it which invokes the rare 'infallibility clause'.

Non-believers love to refer to Galileo & The Spanish Inquisition when citing that a Pope and the Church can get things badly wrong. However, the great scientist Galileo was a convinced Catholic himself and certainly not anti-Church and a 'secularist'. That is often conveniently forgotten by those who still raise this centuries-old issue!

Thankfully, though some may not have noticed, things have moved on a bit since then but this has little to do with essential Catholic dogma and doctrine which is wholly resistant to change.