Spain's Catholic Church backs Condoms

[Avatar4321]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050119/ap_on_he_me/spain_catholics_condoms

Maybe its just me, i was unaware that that the Church could ignore the Pope like this? I think the following comments from the article are the most telling.

The change in view was welcomed by the Spanish Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals.

"I think it was absolutely inevitable that the Church would change its stance," said federation president Beatriz Gimeno.

The Catholic Church is supposed to be a moral authority in the world. It shouldnt be giving into social pressure from activists groups like the SFLGT. Besides with arent they supposed to be looking up to the Pope for guidence in this area? Since when can the church in one nation ignore the teachings from the head of the church. i mean im not a catholic and its not that important to me otherwise but i cant figure out how these guys can be allowed to contradict the leadership whom they claim to believe is following God like this. it makes no sense to me.

The fact is if people lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ we wouldnt have to deal with AIDs. It would die out within a few generations. So maybe they should get down to teaching the doctrines of Christ rather than giving into the world or i predict there will be a mass exodus from the Catholic Church. But then Im not sure the Catholic Church taught the doctrines of Christ to begin with or id be catholic. But as there becomes less and less distinction between the Catholic Church and the world, Catholicism will cease to be a power in the world.

 

[5stringJeff]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050119/ap_on_he_me/spain_catholics_condoms

Maybe its just me, i was unaware that that the Church could ignore the Pope like this? I think the following comments from the article are the most telling.

I also thought that the Vatican's policy on condoms (or any other policy) would be binding on other Catholic churches.

The fact is if people lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ we wouldnt have to deal with AIDs. It would die out within a few generations. So maybe they should get down to teaching the doctrines of Christ rather than giving into the world or i predict there will be a mass exodus from the Catholic Church. But then Im not sure the Catholic Church taught the doctrines of Christ to begin with or id be catholic. But as there becomes less and less distinction between the Catholic Church and the world, Catholicism will cease to be a power in the world.

The problem is that most groups, like Planned Parenthood, or the multiple homosexual rights groups, etc., despise the Christian teachings of monogamy within marriage and abstinence outside of marriage. To them, offering such suggestions goes against their right to have sex with whomever, whenever. But the hard facts are that people who practice sex outside of marriage are putting themselves at risk for STDs and/or unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem is that most groups, like Planned Parenthood, or the multiple homosexual rights groups, etc., despise the Christian teachings of monogamy within marriage and abstinence outside of marriage. To them, offering such suggestions goes against their right to have sex with whomever, whenever. But the hard facts are that people who practice sex outside of marriage are putting themselves at risk for STDs and/or unwanted pregnancies.

Ive said it before and ill say it a thousand times. There is no right to sex. if there was then millions of women would be depriving men of their rights every night. Sex is a privelage not a right. as much as i know it must pain people to realize that its a fact of life.

 

[Bonnie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050119/ap_on_he_me/spain_catholics_condoms

Maybe its just me, i was unaware that that the Church could ignore the Pope like this? I think the following comments from the article are the most telling.



The Catholic Church is supposed to be a moral authority in the world. It shouldnt be giving into social pressure from activists groups like the SFLGT. Besides with arent they supposed to be looking up to the Pope for guidence in this area? Since when can the church in one nation ignore the teachings from the head of the church. i mean im not a catholic and its not that important to me otherwise but i cant figure out how these guys can be allowed to contradict the leadership whom they claim to believe is following God like this. it makes no sense to me.

The fact is if people lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ we wouldnt have to deal with AIDs. It would die out within a few generations. So maybe they should get down to teaching the doctrines of Christ rather than giving into the world or i predict there will be a mass exodus from the Catholic Church. But then Im not sure the Catholic Church taught the doctrines of Christ to begin with or id be catholic. But as there becomes less and less distinction between the Catholic Church and the world, Catholicism will cease to be a power in the world.

A house divided against itself cannot stand..........Back in the late sixties there was a second vatican counsel in which they attempted to "modernize" the church...It was at that point the devil entered the Chruch and started causing confusion (a Schism within the church) and what is now happening as a result of this is the watering down of the Catholic church, and certain people who's intellect has been darkened have come into the church and made changes to certain traditions they "deemed" would help keep the church intact,(so they said).

Catholics now can take Communion (to Catholics Christ's actual body) in their hands and place it in their own mouths, additionally now lay people are giving out communion in this way. This was never meant to be the practice. I personally would never actually touch the host but rather still take it directly from a priests hand, that's what Im more comfortable with. Lots of other changes as well. No more masses in Latin which I miss terribly as it is the most beautiful mass one can ever go to, even if your not Catholic. I have to travel to Philly if I want to ever go to one that still has the Latin music.

 

[5stringJeff]

Catholics now can take Communion (to Catholics Christ's actual body) in their hands and place it in their own mouths, additionally now lay people are giving out communion in this way. This was never meant to be the practice. I personally would never actually touch the host but rather still take it directly from a priests hand, that's what Im more comfortable with. Lots of other changes as well. No more masses in Latin which I miss terribly as it is the most beautiful mass one can ever go to, even if your not Catholic. I have to travel to Philly if I want to ever go to one that still has the Latin music.

OK, I was raised Protestant, so I have never heard of priests putting the bread in your mouth for you. I just assumed that's how everyone did it!

 

[Bonnie]

OK, I was raised Protestant, so I have never heard of priests putting the bread in your mouth for you. I just assumed that's how everyone did it!

Yes in the Catholic church it was always the priest that places the host on your tongue, so it gets blessed then passes from his finger to your mouth. Lately the church has allowed people to put their hands out and the priest places the host in their palm at which point they place it in their mouths. It sounds like a small thing, however if you look at from the perspective of a Catholic believing that is the body of Christ not just symbolically his body then really we as sinners should not be touching it as it enters our body. Now the church allows lay people to give the host as well citing the lack of priests within each church to give out communion which is valid, as long as that's actually the reason.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes in the Catholic church it was always the priest that places the host on your tongue, so it gets blessed then passes from his finger to your mouth. Lately the church has allowed people to put their hands out and the priest places the host in their palm at which point they place it in their mouths. It sounds like a small thing, however if you look at from the perspective of a Catholic believing that is the body of Christ not just symbolically his body then really we as sinners should not be touching it as it enters our body. Now the church allows lay people to give the host as well citing the lack of priests within each church to give out communion which is valid, as long as that's actually the reason.

My next question (not attacking - please don't take it this way): since the priest is a sinner as well, wouldn't his act of touching the Eucharist have the same effect as anyone else touching it?

 

[Bonnie]

My next question (not attacking - please don't take it this way): since the priest is a sinner as well, wouldn't his act of touching the Eucharist have the same effect as anyone else touching it?

Of course I don't take it as an attack, Im happy to respond.
In answer to your query, yes priests are sinners but are also, or, are supposed to be in a constant state of grace, meaning they are given the grace to touch the host after they bless it. And since they are not having sex (no comments from the peanut gallery) they are in a much greater state of grace than we the population are. In other words they are more sheltered, and live holier lives, pray more etc. They are the actual modern day apostles which is why they don't get married, they marry the church instead. I hope that makes sense the way I explained it???

 

[MissileMan]

And since they are not having sex (no comments from the peanut gallery) they are in a much greater state of grace than we the population are.

Are you saying that having biblically authorized sex sullies one's soul?

In other words they are more sheltered, and live holier lives, pray more etc. They are the actual modern day apostles which is why they don't get married, they marry the church instead. I hope that makes sense the way I explained it???

I've heard/read from several sources that the Catholic Church banned the marriage of clergy to prevent the acquisition of, and/or the production of heirs, so that upon death, the church could retain any assets amassed.

 

[Bonnie]

Are you saying that having biblically authorized sex sullies one's soul?

No, what im saying is that sex and marriage can be distracting for a priest since his main job and allegiance is to God first then his congregation. Specifically sex for priests is a wordly activity that can consume his precious time and energy. At least in the Catholic religion, many Christian faiths condone and even support clergy having wives and families. Priests are suppose to aspire to living a simple unwordly existence.

I've heard/read from several sources that the Catholic Church banned the marriage of clergy to prevent the acquisition of, and/or the production of heirs, so that upon death, the church could retain any assets amassed.[/

QUOTE]

I have heard this explanation as well, however even before European land acquisitions, it was expected that priests live a life similar to Jesus's apostles, so they could concentrate on spreading the word of Christ, again without any distractions of women and children.

This topic has, as Im sure you are already aware, come up many times for debate. For now the Vatican says no marriage for priests, don't know what their position will be in the future.

 

[5stringJeff]

Looks like they're backtracking...

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7383618

 

[Bonnie]

Looks like they're backtracking...

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7383618

LOL looks as if the Pope took them out to the woodshed :teeth:

If you read the article the word COULD is prominent, I suspect this was used as their way of leaving a little ambiguity for a bit of future back peddling.

 

[Annie]

Bonnie, you are a better person than I. For some reason, I have mucho trouble explaining things like this. Often thought if more Protestants know what our beliefs really were, there would be less judgement on their part. Yet, it always seems to come down to 'bible verses' I'm not good at that, though I read has always seemed pointless to me to memorize.

 

[5stringJeff]

Often thought if more Protestants know what our beliefs really were, there would be less judgement on their part.

Those darn Protestants! :

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, you are a better person than I. For some reason, I have mucho trouble explaining things like this. Often thought if more Protestants know what our beliefs really were, there would be less judgement on their part. Yet, it always seems to come down to 'bible verses' I'm not good at that, though I read has always seemed pointless to me to memorize.

You know Kathianne, bible verses are not my forte either, although I have and still do read it i prefer to leave it to others to make the case using scripture.........And I probably should not be doing that. I find it easier to speak in plain language when making my points.

My real concern regarding the Catholic church is this idea of the church relenting on some of it's most foundational ideals and tennants of the word for fear of not appealing to the masses of people. I hope that is not the case and if it is, I hope it's not widespread. I would really hate for the church to keep evolving to suit the ever decreasing morality of it's followers. Look at what's happening even in the Epsicopalian faith with it splitting into two groups now the progressives who think it's perfectly normal and right to have an openly gay minister, and the others who want a more traditional church.

In the Catholic church you have Catholics for Choice! what is that?? Catholics that think it's okay to abort babies and still be good Catholics. It's mind boggling, but that's the presence of evil trying to subtly worm it's way in the fabric of truth. Good thing God promises his church will always be. But it's going to take some big hits in the mean time.

What are your ideas about the man that is being considered to take over for Pope John Paul? I understand he is very conservative, much the way his predecessor is.

 

[Bonnie]

Those darn Protestants! :

The way I see it we are all in this together, all Christians fighting for the preservation of church and faith.

 

[5stringJeff]

The way I see it we are all in this together, all Christians fighting for the preservation of church and faith.

I agree! Katherine and I have had a couple of discussions about this before, but as I posted before, I have no problem including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant under the "Christian Umbrella."

 

[Annie]

I agree! Katherine and I have had a couple of discussions about this before, but as I posted before, I have no problem including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant under the "Christian Umbrella."

Hear! Hear!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, what im saying is that sex and marriage can be distracting for a priest since his main job and allegiance is to God first then his congregation. Specifically sex for priests is a wordly activity that can consume his precious time and energy. At least in the Catholic religion, many Christian faiths condone and even support clergy having wives and families. Priests are suppose to aspire to living a simple unwordly existence.

As a sidenote - those are the main reasons for the difference between a PRIEST and other "ministers/pastors/preachers" or whatever designation is given to other religious leaders. I think a priest is expected to "toe the mark" or have a much "holier" approach to life than say a preacher who also has a wife and kids, etc., to condend with as well. A priest can spend more of his time dedicated to the spirtual side of life.

Which is exactly why the recent exposure of homosexual pedophiles found within the priesthood was so damaging to the Church. Their fall was considerable, given the expectations of a priest.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

This is strange cause I just watched that South Park episode about
the Catholic Priests getting caught with the little boys.
I know it's not that funny in real life but South Park has a way
of making a situation I can't stand seem funny.