http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/catholics-church-contraception-abortion-survey

As a Catholic, I find this to be a thoroughly healthy situation. It is almost inevitable that the Church is governed largely by elderly, celibate bureaucrats who may well be out of touch with 'the real world'. I don't question their sincerity, but I do question their breadth of vision. Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air, but he can't do everything.

In the last century or so (and in the Church you have to think in such terms), the proportion of educated people in all countries has escalated. More people think for themselves; more people have the equipment to make (and question) moral judgments.

The Church is going through a difficult period, but I think this is inevitable, and will eventually lead to a stronger and more vital Church.

It will result in a weaker church but remain vital in what context?

The whole idea is based on divine edict so peoples subjective view has no bearing on the subject in the slightest. If the edict is just going to be discarded then what remains is nothing more than a club, committee and the Pope as CEO.

A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking corporate officer (executive) or administrator in charge of total management of an organization. An individual appointed as a CEO of a corporation, company, organization, or agency typically reports to the board of directors.

[...]

The responsibilities of an organization's CEO or MD are set by the organization's board of directors or other authority, depending on the organization's legal structure. They can be far-reaching or quite limited and are typically enshrined in a formal delegation of authority.

Typically, the CEO/MD has responsibilities as a director, decision maker, leader, manager and executor. The communicator role can involve the press and the rest of the outside world, as well as the organization's management and employees; the decision-making role involves high-level decisions about policy and strategy. As a leader of the company, the CEO/MD advises the board of directors, motivates employees, and drives change within the organization. As a manager, the CEO/MD presides over the organization's day-to-day operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer

On the board of directors you have the Father, the Sun and the Holy ghost. Pope Insanity IX wants to usurp the board and take control of the whole malodourous edifice. Think about Stalin and how just replaced the figurehead of the Tzarist regime who for hundreds of years had nurtured a following of millions in a sea of credulity.

Anyway, vital.

To use the above, if the church is going to change according to people wishes then what is it for?

There will be some for whom the church would appear to be vital. For those who do not respond to methadone, bar going cold turkey, the only option is heroin.

On a plus side.... As a business venture, the Catholic church would certainly be a coup. Unbelievably slow to change at a fundamental level, impervious to reason, a deep hearted hatred of both themselves and others but the best part is close to total legal immunity on a global scale. Sure, have to throw the occasional Christian to the wolves (lions) but it does calm them down for a while. Any other institution and the police around the world would have been all over it for years.

Interesting link and pdf.

Both Uganda and Congo both have huge figures of those who oppose contraception (54% & 49%). Part of a vast area of the world where the use of condoms in an effort to reduce HIV infections would benefit greatly. Where did that come from I wonder?

The worst of all this is that I agree with the church on contraception and women priests in that they are only doing what they are told. Celibacy on the other hand is totally made up! Well, it's all made up but you can't get to celibacy through scripture as far as I can see.

I don't find you very convincing, notmyself, but then I wouldn't, would I?

It's interesting how two reasonably intelligent people can look at the same article and see different things.

I don't find you very convincing, notmyself, but then I wouldn't, would I?

It's interesting how two reasonably intelligent people can look at the same article and see different things.

[...] if the church is going to change according to people wishes then what is it for?

Perhaps I did not explain this question well enough. In this context the church is there to spread the good news is it not? The vicar of Christ supposedly has a direct line with the man upstairs does he not? One can only presume that the word of God has changed unless people are just making it up as they go along.... However, the CC is supposed to be a promoter of the truth, which does not change.

Fellow member Humpty Bear posted some time back that he would be a worse person if he did not have belief. Certainly not the first or last time I have heard this but it does make one think. Is the CC a club for the dregs of society? Perhaps all this vitriol I direct at the CC and others is all wrong and I should be thankful that the CC and others are taking care of things as best they can. If they stood down then billions of followers would be worshiping idols again. Where would it stop? Y'all should be happy we is keeping them off the streets.

Psychological evolution:

Imagine if you will a very large population of our human ancestors. Tough life though not just subsistence living. Now think about this in psychological terms. What did they do about other members of the large group with mental ailments? Likely they were ostracised or killed (died).

If you really think the Catholic Church is as you portray it, notmyself, you are so far from understanding what makes it tick that I see little point in trying to discuss things with you.

You will never understand Christianity at all if you cannot accept that human reason cannot explain everything.

I do not think the Church is there to provide 'good news'.

It is there to provide moral guidance, to collect the knowledge of past generations and steer us away from the grievous errors that have beset our ancestors. To maintain a society that can live together in harmony.

That it frequently fails in this, that the message is often misunderstood, that men strive to seize power by means of church (mosque, temple, synagogue or other convention) authority does not mean that the basic idea is wrong, merely that we, the human race, are a contrary bunch who don't much like to be told what to do, even if it is to our benefit. This applies also to listening to parents and other law-makers.

If you really think the Catholic Church is as you portray it, notmyself, you are so far from understanding what makes it tick that I see little point in trying to discuss things with you.

1. to make a likeness of by drawing, painting, carving, or the like.

2. to depict in words; describe graphically.

3. to represent dramatically, as on the stage: He portrayed Napoleon in the play.

No no my friend, I am commenting on a self portrait created by the church.

You will never understand Christianity at all if you cannot accept that human reason cannot explain everything.

We arrive at the impasse again IB. In order to dispel the use of logic or reason you use the very same thing. I let it go the first time but now I am going to ask you to back that up.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/do-you-approve-of-how-pope-francis-is-leading-the,35251IX38f/

I do not think the Church is there to provide 'good news'.

It is there to provide moral guidance, to collect the knowledge of past generations and steer us away from the grievous errors that have beset our ancestors. To maintain a society that can live together in harmony.

That it frequently fails in this, that the message is often misunderstood, that men strive to seize power by means of church (mosque, temple, synagogue or other convention) authority does not mean that the basic idea is wrong, merely that we, the human race, are a contrary bunch who don't much like to be told what to do, even if it is to our benefit. This applies also to listening to parents and other law-makers.

It does provide good news, the news of salvation. If some people choose to reject that, it does not alter the fact that that is what is offered.

It does also provide moral guidance, but it should be emphasised that the basis of that moral guidance is positive (Love God, love thy neighbour), not negative. That Christians often seem to be much keener on "Do NOT...." is their fault, not their basic Christian heritage.

That we are indeed a contrary bunch you have only to read notmyself's posts to find out. Surely to reject the positive message and to replace it with as negative an approach as you can get is as perverse as the human race gets!

That we are indeed a contrary bunch you have only to read notmyself's posts to find out.

lol

I point out areas of obvious hypocrisy, speaking of which. Most people have heard of a murder of crows, flock of sheep etc. I've not found a collective noun for Catholics specifically but many many times over the years I have heard 'A hypocrisy of Christians' used.

That we are indeed a contrary bunch you have only to read notmyself's posts to find out.

lol

I point out areas of obvious hypocrisy, speaking of which. Most people have heard of a murder of crows, flock of sheep etc. I've not found a collective noun for Catholics specifically but many many times over the years I have heard 'A hypocrisy of Christians' used.

Congregation, surely?

Unless one is discussing the leading prelates, when it may be a convocation.

If you're up on these things - it is a (what) of hares?

[You seem to be running a few :-) ]

There are two words for hares, HB, a husk or a down. Both of them come from the list prepared by Dame Juliana de Berners in the 15th or 16th century , many of whose group nouns have never been seen elsewhere.

One which notmyself will like is a superfluity of nuns.... that sounds as if it comes from the dissolution of the monasteries!

There are two words for hares, HB, a husk or a down. Both of them come from the list prepared by Dame Juliana de Berners in the 15th or 16th century , many of whose group nouns have never been seen elsewhere.

One which notmyself will like is a superfluity of nuns.... that sounds as if it comes from the dissolution of the monasteries!

So I had an ask around a few researcher friends of mine. Most had heard of a hypocrisy which I could have guessed but a couple said it was a burden of Catholics. Can't find anything on that collective noun on the 'net so I shall remain agnostic in that regard.

If Catholic lay people don't agree with the principles of Catholicism then they should go find another religion.

The Church shouldn't even consider watering down the morality therein. Utterly ridiculous to have the blind leading the blind.

If the Church holds that a baby is/has a soul from conception; they should strongly oppose all forms of abortion, that is, unless they want to make their moral frame-work look like a farce..

I'm not a Catholic, fwiw.

If Catholic lay people don't agree with the principles of Catholicism then they should go find another religion.

The Church shouldn't even consider watering down the morality therein. Utterly ridiculous to have the blind leading the blind.

If the Church holds that a baby is/has a soul from conception; they should strongly oppose all forms of abortion, that is, unless they want to make their moral frame-work look like a farce..

I'm not a Catholic, fwiw.

Which goes to show that the CC promulgates not what is true but rather what they believe to be most acceptable to their flock. The game was over when they accepted evolution as that dispels original Sin.

On this short thread alone you have 2 'dyed in the wool' Catholics who can't even agree on something as simple as spreading the good news. I've a good 30 years research under my belt, have likely more intimate knowledge of the CC than members IB and Humpty Bear put together, yet am accused of not understanding the CC.

ND - I am not RC, although I have considered joining (I've had one Catholic wife, have a RC daughter and will marry another RC this year). However my father was a Jew and my mother's father was one of a dozen men who founded a very high-church CofE congregation in the late 1800s.

I have lived among muslims in muslim countries for about 25 years, I am interested in both politics and various religions. I am utterly opposed to women in the clergy and have strong opinions on various other forms of human behaviour.

I also love to argue.

have a RC daughter and will marry another RC this year

I wish her and her future husband the very best.

I am utterly opposed to women in the clergy

On what basis?

On contraception and abortion, my approach is Take precautions, No abortions. In other words, any contraception up to and including the morning-after pill should be legitimate, and even encouraged. And Catholics should be urging the Church to accept this. After all, the most rigid Catholic theologians say that conception, and the beginning of a new human being, takes place when the sperm fertilises the ovum, not before. If someone argues that that is the lesser of two evils (I don't agree with this), I would say that we must accept that to minimise the numbers of unwanted babies. We had a thread about abortion quite recently.

RandomSand, it's true that a hundred years ago, the Church did not encourage people to think. But this is 2014, and now we're encouraged to! You may think that is making a virtue of necessity; I think it is a natural progress due to the development of the human race over time.

notmyself, you repeatedly refer to your research background. Did your research start, as all good research should, with a completely open mind, or was it motivated from the start by a wish to debunk Christianity?

have a RC daughter and will marry another RC this year

I wish her and her future husband the very best.

I am utterly opposed to women in the clergy

On what basis?

First quote - sorry, my poor phrseology - my daughter is RC, I am about to marry an RC woman.

Second quote - basically upbringing. On both my parents' sides it was tradition that the community was guided by a man brought up to serve his community.

notmyself, you repeatedly refer to your research background. Did your research start, as all good research should, with a completely open mind, or was it motivated from the start by a wish to debunk Christianity?

Started not so very long after beginning high school so I would have been approaching 12 I suppose. 11y 9m? Had a general idea of what religions were but it was not something I had even bothered to consider thinking about before that. Once I started what would be called comparative religion at school I became interested. Being raised in London I had friends whose parents were from Pakistan, India, Africa, West indies, Israel, Ireland to mention just a few. As well as school books and such like I had a wealth of potential information at my fingertips which I went about using. Friend's parents had no issue talking to me about all manner of things and perhaps considered me a good influence on their son/ daughter because I was very polite. Never missed a please or thank you. I remember very early on asking my father if it was true that people believed in these stories I was being educated on and was told yes son, millions of people. It was only when I went to Uni. to study psychology that I realized why people believed in what they did and how damaging it was. Religious belief is indistinguishable from a neurosis and should be treated as such. 3 years into my degree I found out that it was considered unethical to treat religious belief for what it is and I would never hold a job if I even tried. Soon after this information I jacked it in a went travelling the world.

After I retired in 2006 aged 39 I found I had ample time on my hands so decided to put this knowledge to good use (religious belief and psychology) and ended up doing counselling over the internet, helping people who have come out as atheist in the southern US and have been abandoned by their friends and family and often lose their job. These people are in such a mess mentally that they cannot function. As a general rule, you have a matter of weeks before they falling into a black hole of depression, homelessness, alcoholism and/ or drug addiction. I've been doing this charity work for quite some time and have been considering giving it up for many months. I'm finding it harder and harder to put aside the despair of the people I help and this is not healthy. Problem is, I enjoy helping people.

notmyself, you repeatedly refer to your research background. Did your research start, as all good research should, with a completely open mind, or was it motivated from the start by a wish to debunk Christianity?

Started not so very long after beginning high school so I would have been approaching 12 I suppose. 11y 9m? Had a general idea of what religions were but it was not something I had even bothered to consider thinking about before that. Once I started what would be called comparative religion at school I became interested. Being raised in London I had friends whose parents were from Pakistan, India, Africa, West indies, Israel, Ireland to mention just a few. As well as school books and such like I had a wealth of potential information at my fingertips which I went about using. Friend's parents had no issue talking to me about all manner of things and perhaps considered me a good influence on their son/ daughter because I was very polite. Never missed a please or thank you. I remember very early on asking my father if it was true that people believed in these stories I was being educated on and was told yes son, millions of people. It was only when I went to Uni. to study psychology that I realized why people believed in what they did and how damaging it was. Religious belief is indistinguishable from a neurosis and should be treated as such. 3 years into my degree I found out that it was considered unethical to treat religious belief for what it is and I would never hold a job if I even tried. Soon after this information I jacked it in a went travelling the world.

After I retired in 2006 aged 39 I found I had ample time on my hands so decided to put this knowledge to good use (religious belief and psychology) and ended up doing counselling over the internet, helping people who have come out as atheist in the southern US and have been abandoned by their friends and family and often lose their job. These people are in such a mess mentally that they cannot function. As a general rule, you have a matter of weeks before they falling into a black hole of depression, homelessness, alcoholism and/ or drug addiction. I've been doing this charity work for quite some time and have been considering giving it up for many months. I'm finding it harder and harder to put aside the despair of the people I help and this is not healthy. Problem is, I enjoy helping people.

There's a spiritual doctrine in nearly all religions as follows;

The ultimate truth is such that we can't comprehend it with our intellect.

Any speech about the ultimate truth can only be a profanity.

Therefore all words and intellectualisms regarding the ultimate truth are profane.

notmyself,

You say you have studied all these profanities comparatively, and because of your subtle discernment, you are somehow qualified to classify the ultimate truth that all religions point towards as nothing but a "neurosis" of humanity itself!

Without prejudice to any of humanity's religions, without wanting to indoctrinate your good-self, or indeed, slander your own experience by saying what you have seen in your life is not true and just; Today, I only wish to point out this paradigm to you.

What more can I say ?

Taking this new-paradigm as a jumping-off-point I say the following:

Without insight gleaned from our true capacity (where our our true capacity is more comprehensive within this new-paradigm than the old) our ability to understand the profound is limited.

Therefore, without that which is commonly named "faith" we would be limited in our own ability by only having the capacity to comprehend that which is profane.

And, from being in limited capacity (i.e having ability-without-faith which I already exclusified as the paradigm-of-no-faith) we might then self-limit ourselves and therefore easily classify the profound as "neurosis".

However; Existing as they do, and being in plenty-&-available to those who would wish to learn, the classical spiritual & religious texts (and teachings) (which are too numerous for me - in fact it would be wrong - to pick out any specific example) do thankfully inform us that - paradoxically for you, notmyself - our own limited ability to understand the profound *is* the very neurosis which simultaneously limits our own ability in life, and at the same time, is the true cause of all human-neuroses.

Unfortunately, you will likely fire off your reply within hours. I only hope - for not only your own sake but also for those around you - that you might somehow, at least, comprehend the nature of this paradigm.True learning in these matters takes most people a lifetime... not minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or even years.

Regards.

Perhaps the astute reader might already guess that the ultimate truth that all religions point towards is not easily known from books or the spoken word.

That's why faith is such an important concept for any further learning to take place. Without faith; we have (potentially) self-limited ourselves and put matters which might be profound into the realm of "neurosis".

Ironically; The "true-believer" would say to the nay-sayer this: In our search for "truth" within our own lifetimes, lack of faith becomes a neurosis which limits our own potential.

_ the above simplifies my previous post _

There's a spiritual doctrine in nearly all religions as follows;

The ultimate truth is such that we can't comprehend it with our intellect.

Any speech about the ultimate truth can only be a profanity.

Therefore all words and intellectualisms regarding the ultimate truth are profane.

I agree most if not all facets of the same untruth make the unsubstantiated claim that words and thoughts have a magical attribute.

The rest of what you say is sophistry based upon this claim.

Perhaps the astute reader might already guess that the ultimate truth that all religions point towards is not easily known from books or the spoken word.

Ultimate truth is something that you introduced as nothing more than an assertion. Perhaps I should introduce the invisible leprechaun in my shed who goes by the name of Colin. It would hold as much weight.

That's why faith is such an important concept for any further learning to take place. Without faith; we have (potentially) self-limited ourselves and put matters which might be profound into the realm of "neurosis".

The word 'faith' is a label used to describe belief without reason.

Ironically; The "true-believer" would say to the nay-sayer this: In our search for "truth" within our own lifetimes, lack of faith becomes a neurosis which limits our own potential.

A true believer? Would that be like the no true Scotsman?

There's a spiritual doctrine in nearly all religions as follows;

The ultimate truth is such that we can't comprehend it with our intellect.

Any speech about the ultimate truth can only be a profanity.

Therefore all words and intellectualisms regarding the ultimate truth are profane.

I agree most if not all facets of the same untruth make the unsubstantiated claim that words and thoughts have a magical attribute.

The rest of what you say is sophistry based upon this claim.

Magical?

Most talk about religion and spirituality addresses, for the reader, the subject of the divine in the best way possible. It's up to the reader to foster this paradigm of faith - call it an open mind if you like - so that they're able to build upon an initial framework of understanding and take in the bigger picture. In this way the allegory may conceptualise into a form of comprehension in their mind. If one dismisses anything that they don't already understand as "magical" then how can learning take place? Up to U !

I am utterly opposed to women in the clergy

On what basis?

Second quote - basically upbringing. On both my parents' sides it was tradition that the community was guided by a man brought up to serve his community.

So what was a tradition leaves you utterly opposed to sexual equality?

From what you have said in the past you seem to be also against gay marriage. Not happy that you don't have to have one and you are marrying an RC lady in any case, you object to it anyway on the basis, presumably, that it is not traditional. In order to not be called a hypocrite, you MUST have the same view toward slavery.

Magical?

Any speech about the ultimate truth can only be a profanity.

Profanity

: offensive language

: an offensive word

Examples of PROFANITY

The comic uses too much profanity.

My mom will not tolerate profanity.

I have never heard my father utter a single profanity.

Spin it as you wish.

Suppose this, notmyself;

The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.

Whilst I'm not personally a follower of any religion myself :- The Hindu and Buddhist religions mostly line-up with what I believe.

According to these religions, it is said that our logical mind ceases to function after the death of the mortal body but we then continue to exist emotionally and spiritually.

So, the majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been or are concerned with their own emotional and spiritual state of being because they figure like this "I can develop my intellect, but it will cease to be of service in a few years, but my feeling will live-on. Therefore it's this intelligence that I will seek to cultivate".

Magical?

Any speech about the ultimate truth can only be a profanity.

Profanity

: offensive language

: an offensive word

Examples of PROFANITY

The comic uses too much profanity.

My mom will not tolerate profanity.

I have never heard my father utter a single profanity.

Spin it as you wish.

I'm certainly not spinning anything. I certainly don't have any need to accuse you of the same.

Far from it. I can see that you fail to appreciate my own perspective as your own opinion differs so much from it. I think this is the natural outcome when two people have radically opposing view-points so I don't hold it against you.

~ If it may help you in any way then please allow me to clarify...

I don't use the word profane in the worldly sense. I mean it like so: Compared to a divine truth, of which we can't really talk about properly, anything that we try to say about the divine will naturally become a profanity.