The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[franciscanheart]

 they don't actually… a miracle is someone not able to walk spontaneously getting up from a wheelchair, but a miracle wouldn't involve someone inexplicably turning into a unicorn…

I'm not going to go too far down this rabbit hole because I was merely poking at what appear to me to be holes in your argument, but here's one more for fun: A woman shouldn't be able to conceive a human without intercourse, but she DID. A woman shouldn't be able to conceive a human without sperm, but she DID. So, if a woman were to become pregnant (clearly by a miracle) through natural sexual expression, why would that not be considered a miracle? (In this case, "natural" should be understood as "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind".)

The article said several times not to look at the court case in 'binary', 'black and white' terms. Well what is that implying? A binary black and white reading would be that the court decision is either all good or all bad. If we are being encouraged not to view it as such, then this entails that there must be both some good and some bad.

So, what is the good here, from the Catholic perspective? 

Shouldn't the question be, "What good can God not bring about?"

[MarysLittleFlower]

Good post. I had a very similar impression of the article.

I do like the emphasis on human encounter. Valuing other individuals (while, of course, upholding God's Truth) is so important in evangelization and in human relationships in general. But, then again, that's a rather obvious point. Maybe I'll have more concrete thoughts to share later on.

i thought that was a good point too... There were a few things that were too ambiguous to me or used words that have been known to be used by people who want to change Church teachings. That was confusing

 

[franciscanheart]

Perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of natural? It can be confusing a little and sometimes easy to confuse the Natural Law with things that happen in nature. For example many will argue that homosexual sexuality is not against Natural Law because animals in nature do it and so it's believed to be natural. Animals, such as the male lion will kill off all the cubs of a pride it takes over, but it is hardly within Natural Law for a man to kill the children of a woman he marries. The Natural Law is 'written in the hearts of every man and woman', we have the rational to know right from wrong whereas animals do not. Although many may deny it aloud today most still know in their hearts the natural order of sexual intercourse is between man and woman, because the female's sexual organ is the natural (ie natural law) vase for the male's sexual organ and not other orifices.

Is this where we deviate into discussing anal and oral sex and why those things are licit but others are not?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Even when I was a Catholic, I never presumed to know God's will other than he wants us all to be with him. Dont know how that translates into you dictating who can and cannot be miraculously impregnated. Should add that chapter to the CCC too.

I don't think its too much to assume that things that contradict God's moral law that He gave are against His Will too. Since this moral law comes from His Will. 

[Ice_nine]

Is this where we deviate into discussing anal and oral sex and why those things are licit but others are not?

hmm if we're gonna go there shouldn't we move this to the "other" forum?

[franciscanheart]

i thought that was a good point too... There were a few things that were too ambiguous to me or used words that have been known to be used by people who want to change Church teachings. That was confusing

I'm not well versed in all the subtle nuances of the big bad wolves with agendas so I'm going to have to take your word on it. I just wonder why everyone is so quick to assume the worst and point out the bad stuff without supporting what good was shared or expressed.

Are we all really so blind as to not see that we're doing here exactly what the article suggests we should not? Perhaps I liked so much of what was said because it was truthful in it's delivery (a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics don't agree not because they don't understand but because they don't agree) and suggested an approach I've been praying for for at least a decade.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Wait, I thought that was the whole thing about miracle magic -- that they do defy logic and reason.

i read something on that once.. God does not contradict Himself with miracles. Like His moral law. Our faith has parts that are above human reason but not against reason..

[Nihil Obstat]

Shouldn't the question be, "What good can God not bring about?"

No, I do not think so. God can bring good from any situation, no matter how horrific or evil. Pick any terrible event in history - usually we can show some good that came about. Does not mean that the event in question cannot be viewed as wholly evil. Take that recent black mass in Oklahoma for example. There were many encouraging aspects of the Catholic response, including processions and Masses in reparation for evil. Good strong statements. That was the good God brought about. But the event itself, the black mass, is black-and-white-definitely-binary 100% bad. It would be rather silly to tell someone not to think of that black mass in a binary black and white manner, because that is exactly what it is.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Is this where we deviate into discussing anal and oral sex and why those things are licit but others are not?

Actually according to philosophers like Dietrich von Hildebrand its not true that "anything goes" in marriage. Marriage acts can be lustful and incorrect too. Even theologians who allow more than him typically might not allow sodomy in a marriage. (Sodomy referring to your example... I just don't like using those words).

Am I correct, anyone??

 

I'm not going to go too far down this rabbit hole because I was merely poking at what appear to me to be holes in your argument, but here's one more for fun: A woman shouldn't be able to conceive a human without intercourse, but she DID. A woman shouldn't be able to conceive a human without sperm, but she DID. So, if a woman were to become pregnant (clearly by a miracle) through natural sexual expression, why would that not be considered a miracle? (In this case, "natural" should be understood as "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind".)

Shouldn't the question be, "What good can God not bring about?"

The difference is it contradicting God's moral law. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Nihil Obstat]

Actually according to philosophers like Dietrich von Hildebrand its not true that "anything goes" in marriage. Marriage acts can be lustful and incorrect too. Even theologians who allow more than him typically might not allow sodomy in a marriage. (Sodomy referring to your example... I just don't like using those words).

Am I correct, anyone??

 

At the risk of derailing this thread, I fully agree.

Edit to add: this is a topic more appropriately discussed with a good and orthodox confessor or spiritual director.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[MarysLittleFlower]

No, I do not think so. God can bring good from any situation, no matter how horrific or evil. Pick any terrible event in history - usually we can show some good that came about. Does not mean that the event in question cannot be viewed as wholly evil. Take that recent black mass in Oklahoma for example. There were many encouraging aspects of the Catholic response, including processions and Masses in reparation for evil. Good strong statements. That was the good God brought about. But the event itself, the black mass, is black-and-white-definitely-binary 100% bad. It would be rather silly to tell someone not to think of that black mass in a binary black and white manner, because that is exactly what it is.

 

yes the good is in God's response and action, not in the event itself

I'm not well versed in all the subtle nuances of the big bad wolves with agendas so I'm going to have to take your word on it. I just wonder why everyone is so quick to assume the worst and point out the bad stuff without supporting what good was shared or expressed.

Are we all really so blind as to not see that we're doing here exactly what the article suggests we should not? Perhaps I liked so much of what was said because it was truthful in it's delivery (a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics don't agree not because they don't understand but because they don't agree) and suggested an approach I've been praying for for at least a decade.

I think why people including me got cautious is because there's a whole movement in the Church trying to make the Church accept things it doesn't just to be "pastoral" and a lot of the heterodox movements have used this language before too... Like people who wanted to use V2 in any way they want without tradition. I have no problem with kindness to individuals.. Just it needs to be with doctrinal purity. I don't know what the article meant but it sometimes ambiguous and didn't clarify if it agrees with those sub movements or not? 

At the risk of derailing this thread, I fully agree.

Edit to add: this is a topic more appropriately discussed with a good and orthodox confessor or spiritual director.

ok! And yes I agree about talking to a good priest. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Yet that fact does not justify the church’s retreat from public life. The church is by its nature a public body.

Tobiah Says " for some reason my quote thingy is messed up or i haven't yet figured how to use it, but here's my reply. Hun i disagree, st paul in corinthians states we are to mind our own buisness and judge church matters not world matters and also Our Lord says that The father rewards that which is done in secret. Not that we don't protest any direct attack formed against the body of Christ Soooo... That's all i've got. But if it's individuals protesting against public policy than ok but don't rope the church in on it kind of thing, also i do agree with one point in the o.p and that is that there is a difference between evangelising and activism, one is christian the other is not i'm guessing. Like the I.R.A had catholics in the organisation but is not to be mistaken as church official, although perhaps it was a worthy cause.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

 

i think those verses are referring to something else... We interpret Scripture with the mind of the Church and the Church does teach that society and the state should abide by moral laws and morality is determined by the Church cause its from God. So the interpretation of those verses is more complex  the part about doing things in secret refers to not showing off for vanity or pride. Can you provide the verse from Corinthians?

Edited July 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

1Cor 5:12-13

[MarysLittleFlower]

1Cor 5:12-13

if you read the whole passage its referring to not keeping bad company.