The Vatican wrestles with a fraught topic

[The 12th Commandment]

Wow. This is pretty big news I think. Especially if they go through with a change. But it's pretty strong medicine that it would even be discussed, isn't it? Help me out here my Catholic brothers and sisters. Is a liberalization of Catholicism something you would support?

"Even at the Vatican, few things apart from the reality of God are absolute. Thou shalt not kill, but there is still just war. Now, behind the quiet Vatican walls, a clash is shaping up between two poles of near certainty: the church's long- held ban on condom use and its more recently focused advocacy for human life from the womb to old age."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/01/news/pope.php

[Teller]

I'm not Catholic KAO, but I've probably studied the catechisms of the Catholic church more than my wife, who is.

What I find is that the younger members of our local Catholic churches are the ones with more progressive views. For instance, my wife would like to see all forms of birth control allowed (save for RU487 or whatever it is). Afterall, is it really a bad thing to have sex for enjoyment in the context of a healthy marriage?

She'd also like to see priests be able to get married. Afterall, they're human too. And of course, she'd like to see female priests.

The fundamental problem I see with the Catholic church (not being critical, as I attend with her as often as possible) is that it's run 100% by old men. Imagine how much positive change could take place if there was, say, a 45-year old woman participating in "policy" decisions.

I do think it's a step in the right direction for the church to consider allowing the use of birth control. I hope it's just the first of several difficult issues the church will tackle.

[SkinsNumberOne]

You pose this question to Catholics, it seems... are you Catholic?

Having grown up Catholic and attended Catholic schools through Confirmation, I feel I can attempt to answer the question, but I don't think it's specifically Catholic in nature. I think this is the nature of human beings. Adaptation with understanding.

Now, this article opens with your quoted line, which I found amusing. I don't think the second part is really viewed as a strict contradiction by the Church, so I view it as either editorial comment or ignorance. The actual focus in the article was quite interesting. I wasn't sure if the Catholic Church was ready to tackle hard issues, and I agree with the sentiment that many Catholics are surprised such a controversial issue was taken up (count me a member of that group, inasmuch as I'm still Catholic).

I would certainly support thinking and interpretation. No conclusions should be written from stone, because I don't believe it's possible for us to have perfect evidence. Our historical pattern of getting surprised by discoveries that proved widely accepted "truths" wrong should show us that.

This was actually a question (one of many) posed to me as the strict practicing Catholic in my dorm of college. I was pretty sure condoms were not acceptable, so abstinence would seem to be the only answer. It could be a purely "what is the purpose for sex" kind of argument. That then begs the question of sex between people too old to procreate. I'm getting off-topic, but I'm trying to explain that these issues are highly complex and I for one am kind of proud that the Church has hopefully decided to at least consider some of them.

[SkinsNumberOne]

I'm not Catholic KAO, but I've probably studied the catechisms of the Catholic church more than my wife, who is.

What I find is that the younger members of our local Catholic churches are the ones with more progressive views. For instance, my wife would like to see all forms of birth control allowed (save for RU487 or whatever it is). Afterall, is it really a bad thing to have sex for enjoyment in the context of a healthy marriage?

She'd also like to see priests be able to get married. Afterall, they're human too. And of course, she'd like to see female priests.

The fundamental problem I see with the Catholic church (not being critical, as I attend with her as often as possible) is that it's run 100% by old men. Imagine how much positive change could take place if there was, say, a 45-year old woman participating in "policy" decisions.

Have you by chance read Belief or Nonbelief? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559704977/104-0124305-6167916?v=glance&n=283155

Excellent book, and it addresses the issue of female priests. You might be disappointed, but I think it's understandable from the context of Catholic or old established (very) organized religion, even if it seems somewhat intellectually disturbing. He essentially says that the Church has been around for 2000 years, and in that time God has not instructed them to have female priests. They would have been led to allow female priests by God otherwise. Because a core part of the doctrine is that God leads the Church in its (or as they like to say, her, since the Church is the bride of Christ) decisions, this type of reasoning without direct regard to the historical context of those decisions compared to modern context (which, by the way, is what Eco provides very eloquently and in great detail).

Great book.

[dreamingwolf]

its nothing new for the church to adopt the culture over which it rules, adopting contraception was only a matter of time.

[zoony]

The fundamental problem I see with the Catholic church (not being critical, as I attend with her as often as possible) is that it's run 100% by old men. Imagine how much positive change could take place if there was, say, a 45-year old woman participating in "policy" decisions.

Isn't that true of most religions?

I see what you're saying, and I feel it too. As a Catholic, I do feel there is somewhat of a disconnect b/w many members (some of whom are young) and the doctrine set forth by the Vatican.

That said... I'm not sure it's a bad thing. I look at the relationship similar to how I felt about my parents when I was 16. I would have liked to see some changes, but I'm not sure those changes would have been best for me in the long run. I can certainly see that now...

It is a loose analogy, but relevant I think.

:2cents:

....

[GrimReefa]

I think the Church's chief concern should be the sexual practices of their clergy, not their parishoners.

[The 12th Commandment]

You pose this question to Catholics, it seems... are you Catholic?

No I'm not Catholic, but I pay some attention to religion and many of my friends are. I think it's a matter of facing reality to examine the issue of reproduction particularly when it's such a fundamental part of our lives. I chose not to put my opinion in the question because I want to see what Catholics thinks about. I hear about the schism between American Catholics and the Vatican and it would seem that the views of American Catholics, at least most of the ones I know and they are quite a few, are being considered. I applaud that.

Having grown up Catholic and attended Catholic schools through Confirmation, I feel I can attempt to answer the question, but I don't think it's specifically Catholic in nature. I think this is the nature of human beings. Adaptation with understanding.

Yes, I agree very much with that sentiment the decision does impact all of us. But in this case we have a specific religion choosing to examine the issue, if the Baptist Church were having the same debate I would think to pose the question to Baptists as well. We can all have an opinion, but their decisions will impact you much more than me, at least in a personal way. Of course the opinion of everyone are welcome.

Now, this article opens with your quoted line, which I found amusing. I don't think the second part is really viewed as a strict contradiction by the Church, so I view it as either editorial comment or ignorance. The actual focus in the article was quite interesting. I wasn't sure if the Catholic Church was ready to tackle hard issues, and I agree with the sentiment that many Catholics are surprised such a controversial issue was taken up (count me a member of that group, inasmuch as I'm still Catholic).

I would certainly support thinking and interpretation. No conclusions should be written from stone, because I don't believe it's possible for us to have perfect evidence. Our historical pattern of getting surprised by discoveries that proved widely accepted "truths" wrong should show us that.

This was actually a question (one of many) posed to me as the strict practicing Catholic in my dorm of college. I was pretty sure condoms were not acceptable, so abstinence would seem to be the only answer. It could be a purely "what is the purpose for sex" kind of argument. That then begs the question of sex between people too old to procreate. I'm getting off-topic, but I'm trying to explain that these issues are highly complex and I for one am kind of proud that the Church has hopefully decided to at least consider some of them.

I think the article did include somewhat of an editorial, but I was surprised not to read about the issue in any of the bigger media outlets. And for what it's worth I think your opinion that it's good to examine these issues shows a great deal of foresight. The impact of whatever decision they make will have a great deal of influence on the lives of the poor Catholic populations in other countries.

[SkinsNumberOne]

(...)

Just to be clear, I was a practicing, strict Catholic from birth/baptism through college and till a bit after college. The change happened for a variety of reasons that I won't go into in depth right now, but probably at around the age of 23 I stopped practicing. The change was much more gradual than sudden though (hopefully an "of course").

If it was unclear, I now don't really refer to myself as Catholic much, although in a certain sense I am Catholic still. I know my parents think so, even though I am now more agnostic than anything else. My family comes from a very strict (and very old) Catholic tradition in India.

That's an excellent point about the effect on poor countries. Sometimes the poorer segments of populations are - seemingly at least - much more stricter adherents to the rules of religion too.