> > But faith and morals themselves sometimes seem dangerous. For example > the AIDS in Africa thing. On the one hand you can say that it's the > Pope's job to say, "condoms are wrong, birth control is wrong." If > people are so weak that they break this moral truism (if you agree) > then they deserve what they get.
For starters, I am not a practicing catholic. My parents are, most of my family is, 12 years of catholic school, and an upcoming catholic wedding....have given me a fairly good understanding of that faith, however. So what I expound now is NOT my preaching, merely what I've gleaned as the teaching of the catholic church.... The church doesn't necessarily teach that "if you break a moral truism, you get what you deserve". In fact, forgiveness of all sins for the truly sorry is a basic tenent of the faith. The church would teach abstinence ahead of contraception to control an STD. Now you and I both know that this simply does not work in the real world, especially in third world countries with little education, etc. But that being the case....should the church just throw up its hands and discard it's morals simply because the real world operates differently? "We can't change it, so we might as well go along with it". > > On the other hand, even if you agree that birth control is wrong, the > Pope has to know that people are sinners and that despite their best > efforts the urge (which God created) will overcome their self-control. > This is how AIDS has spread and killed hundreds of millions. By > condemning birth control as immoral is he also condemning millions to > death? The Church believes that there is no burdern given to a human person that they do not have the inherent capability of bearing. I heard this constantly when I had to take my marriage classes. As such, your notion that "God gives people this urge that they cannot resist", would be rejected by the Church. Again, they'd say resist the urges. The immorality of birth control then condemns no one to any particular fate. > Further, is birth control immoral? Think if all 1.1 billion had > unprotected sex all the time even when married? What then? That > seems immoral. I personally don't think birth control is immoral, but it's fairly easy to see why the Church does. They teach that sex is the ultimate expression of love, and the church believes that in order for the love to be true, it must be given openly, freely, and completely. Any restriction of any aspect of this act....sabotages the entire expression. If you can't give yourself completely (ie condom restricting yer little swimmers), you shouldn't give yourself at all. > > So while an ultimate arbiter makes sense, some of the decrees don't > seem too; which makes you wonder if anyone is the ultimate arbiter of > morals. I don't believe so. > Jesus would be the ultimate arbiter of morals, to a Christian. Now, a Catholic believes that the Pope is the human embodiment of Christ, on earth. This is the HUGE stumbling block when it comes to the various christian faiths. Indeed, it was a focal point for the ultimate schism in the church around 1066 (if memory serves). So, as a catholic, you would be accepting the Pope as the ultimate arbiter on matters of faith and morals, just as you would Christ. This is purely the church's dogma that addresses your questions....maybe sometime i'll give my personal take on this stuff :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154817 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
