The New Pope Isn’t Going to Solve Any Problems

[Dale]

The American media is thrilled that the Roman Catholic Church now has an American Pope. They are following his every word to see what his policy will be. Of course, the media is far more interested in what the Pope says about international events and political figures than anything he says about religion. The media hopes that Pope Leo will be a peacemaker.

Should we see Popes as potential peacemakers? Here is one problem with that. The Roman Catholic Church not only condemns abortion but every other form of birth control as well. Certainly they oppose any form of birth control recommended by doctors. In modern times, the RCC’s condemnation of birth control goes back to a decree issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968.

I am a critic of abortion, but the blanket prohibition of birth control is completely counterproductive. Much of the world is suffering from enormous overpopulation. Many of the world’s problems can be traced back to overpopulation. Opposition to birth control, or birth control not being available, leads to overpopulation, which means there isn’t enough food to feed the people. This leads to malnutrition and starvation. Population pressure leads to war.

If Pope Leo wants to be a force for peace, the first thing he would have to do is get rid of the RCC’s opposition to birth control. Until then, anything the Pope says about peace is just hot air.

 

[RileyG]

The American media is thrilled that the Roman Catholic Church now has an American Pope. They are following his every word to see what his policy will be. Of course, the media is far more interested in what the Pope says about international events and political figures than anything he says about religion. The media hopes that Pope Leo will be a peacemaker.

Should we see Popes as potential peacemakers? Here is one problem with that. The Roman Catholic Church not only condemns abortion but every other form of birth control as well. Certainly they oppose any form of birth control recommended by doctors. In modern times, the RCC’s condemnation of birth control goes back to a decree issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968.

I am a critic of abortion, but the blanket prohibition of birth control is completely counterproductive. Much of the world is suffering from enormous overpopulation. Many of the world’s problems can be traced back to overpopulation. Opposition to birth control, or birth control not being available, leads to overpopulation, which means there isn’t enough food to feed the people. This leads to malnutrition and starvation. Population pressure leads to war.

If Pope Leo wants to be a force for peace, the first thing he would have to do is get rid of the RCC’s opposition to birth control. Until then, anything the Pope says about peace is just hot air.

Nope. Won’t happen. It’s against natural law per sexual ethics. Best birth control is chastity.

 

[Fantine]

He took the name Leo because the tumultuous times we are living in are very similar to the times in which Leo XIII was Pope. He dealt with the Industrial Revolution and vast migrations from farms to overpopulated cities. Today's Pope Leo is focused on the job changes that AI will bring and as technology takes over more of the tasks that people used to perform. We are also experiencing mass migrations from poor countries to wealthier countries as people seek work. That's a pretty tall order. The church has not changed its position on birth control, but it is not what pope Leo's main focus will be.
Pope Benedict apparently said that he foresaw a smaller, holier Church. He liked the pay, pray, obey Catholics with a focus on obey.
Pope Leo wants to open the Church. His congregation is the world, and bringing them to God involves accompanying them in the struggles of our times.

 

[Dale]

Nope. Won’t happen. It’s against natural law per sexual ethics. Best birth control is chastity.

You can’t evaluate the ethics of an action without looking at the consequences.

You mention natural law as well. People have asked if there is a textbook of natural law. There isn’t. Natural law means anything anyone wants it to mean. Pope Paul VI based his condemnation of birth control on natural law. By doing so, he admitted that there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or anything else in the Bible that leads to that conclusion.

 

[RileyG]

You can’t evaluate the ethics of an action without looking at the consequences.

You mention natural law as well. People have asked if there is a textbook of natural law. There isn’t. Natural law means anything anyone wants it to mean. Pope Paul VI based his condemnation of birth control on natural law. By doing so, he admitted that there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or anything else in the Bible that leads to that conclusion.

I don’t think this is allowed to be debated.

 

[bèlla]

I don’t believe the world is overpopulated and there’s numerous countries experiencing a fertility crisis and failing to replace the old at the rate they should. But I don’t think birth control should be regulated by the church. It’s a personal choice between a man and wife. Nor is abortion included in that statement.

As for the pope, the majority aren’t impacted by his presence or decisions in a significant fashion beyond the ones who follow him. He isn’t making a difference my life on a personal level nor have the others. But why are you debating his position on birth control as a protestant? It’s none of your business. That’s their problem not yours. If they don’t agree they know what do. And it isn’t illegal.

~bella

 

[Dale]

I don’t think this is allowed to be debated.

Can you produce a textbook of natural law?

 

[Fantine]

Someone wrote here once that the natural law is the moral code that is written into the heart of every man. I have since learned that the only moral code that is shared by every culture is the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. There are also many historical variations on moral codes. Even Saint Paul said that slaves should obey their masters, well today we consider slavery to be an abomination and rightfully so. And if that is the case why was not the evil of slavery written into the heart of every man prior to the 20th century? What the writer seemed to mean as far as I could see is that the Catholic Church has defined what is written into the heart of every man and even if some of those things could never possibly have been considered in other cultures and other areas if the Catholic Church says that it's written into the heart of every man than it is. Well I am a Catholic but I am also a rational human being and that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[RileyG]

Can you produce a textbook of natural law?

No?

 

[RileyG]

Someone wrote here once that the natural law is the moral code that is written into the heart of every man. I have since learned that the only moral code that is shared by every culture is the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. There are also many historical variations on moral codes. Even Saint Paul said that slaves should obey their masters, well today we consider slavery to be an abomination and rightfully so. And if that is the case why was not the evil of slavery written into the heart of every man prior to the 20th century? What the writer seemed to mean as far as I could see is that the Catholic Church has defined what is written into the heart of every man and even if some of those things could never possibly have been considered in other cultures and other areas if the Catholic Church says that it's written into the heart of every man than it is. Well I am a Catholic but I am also a rational human being and that doesn't make sense to me.

Very excellent point.

Context is everything, I want to add.

St. Paul was the product of his times, as were the rest of the apostles. Much of his letters were personal and written to specific communities and people of the 1st century. Life was different 2,000 years ago.

Does God condone slavery? No. Look at the book of exodus.

My view only.

Blessings

 

[FireDragon76]

I am sympathetic to traditional Catholic teachings and the moral clarity this often brings, but the teachings often lack ethical personalism and proportionality . Absolute bans on birth control don't really fit with respecting peoples bodily autonomy, their individual needs, and vocation. It also sends negative messages about sexuality and embodiment, potentially, that dishonors the goodness in creation, instead fostering an overly controlling and fearful mindset, instead of embodied wisdom and respect. Forcing parenthood on people who are clearly unprepared for it turns what is supposed to be into a generative gift into something ugly and twisted.

This is where many progressive Catholics, including many Jesuits, differ from traditionalists who believe that we never can see the truth more clearly, that religious teachings have to be stuck in a particular understanding from the past.

 

[FireDragon76]

Someone wrote here once that the natural law is the moral code that is written into the heart of every man. I have since learned that the only moral code that is shared by every culture is the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. There are also many historical variations on moral codes. Even Saint Paul said that slaves should obey their masters, well today we consider slavery to be an abomination and rightfully so. And if that is the case why was not the evil of slavery written into the heart of every man prior to the 20th century? What the writer seemed to mean as far as I could see is that the Catholic Church has defined what is written into the heart of every man and even if some of those things could never possibly have been considered in other cultures and other areas if the Catholic Church says that it's written into the heart of every man than it is. Well I am a Catholic but I am also a rational human being and that doesn't make sense to me.

Truth is revealed in unfolding revelation, not a relic from the past. It's right in there in Jesus' parables. And often times truth is disruptive, coming in a "sign of opposition". Traditionalist Christians don't understand that, but Jesus did. Even to the point he had to walk to the Cross. Sometimes old ways are broken and have to be torn down, so that something newer and better can come from the ruins. History has many of these sorts of ruptures. It's not the slow, steady progress envisioned by Hegel. Truth is usually opposed, mocked, ridiculed, before it's finally accepted as self-evident.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am sympathetic to traditional Catholic teachings and the moral clarity this often brings, but the teachings often lack ethical personalism and proportionality . Absolute bans on birth control don't really fit with respecting peoples bodily autonomy, their individual needs, and vocation. It also sends negative messages about sexuality and embodiment, potentially, that dishonors the goodness in creation, instead fostering an overly controlling and fearful mindset, instead of embodied wisdom and respect. Forcing parenthood on people who are clearly unprepared for it turns what is supposed to be into a generative gift into something ugly and twisted.

This is where many progressive Catholics, including many Jesuits, differ from traditionalists who believe that we never can see the truth more clearly, that religious teachings have to be stuck in a particular understanding from the past.

We did not create our bodies, God did. He also created the Church and the Holy Spirit guides
the Church morally.

We are servants of God, not ourselves.

 

[FireDragon76]

We did not create our bodies, God did. He also created the Church and the Holy Spirit guides
the Church morally.

We are servants of God, not ourselves.

I'm not saying the teachings are wrong per se... just not fully realized or integrated, eg., what often amounts to shallow moralism or legalism. And there tends to be too much focus among Latins on the power of human reason, and not human experience. Mystical and experiential theology, outside of Charismatic or Pentecostal circles, tends to be relegated to a very much secondary status, and what "mystical" theology exists in those spaces tend to be relatively ungrounded from ascetic discipline and moral formation.

 

[Jermayn]

The American media is thrilled that the Roman Catholic Church now has an American Pope. They are following his every word to see what his policy will be. Of course, the media is far more interested in what the Pope says about international events and political figures than anything he says about religion. The media hopes that Pope Leo will be a peacemaker.

Should we see Popes as potential peacemakers? Here is one problem with that. The Roman Catholic Church not only condemns abortion but every other form of birth control as well. Certainly they oppose any form of birth control recommended by doctors. In modern times, the RCC’s condemnation of birth control goes back to a decree issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968.

I am a critic of abortion, but the blanket prohibition of birth control is completely counterproductive. Much of the world is suffering from enormous overpopulation. Many of the world’s problems can be traced back to overpopulation. Opposition to birth control, or birth control not being available, leads to overpopulation, which means there isn’t enough food to feed the people. This leads to malnutrition and starvation. Population pressure leads to war.

If Pope Leo wants to be a force for peace, the first thing he would have to do is get rid of the RCC’s opposition to birth control. Until then, anything the Pope says about peace is just hot air.

The world isn't overpopulated. If everyone on earth stood together, they would all fit inside the area of the city of Los Angeles. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in America, starvation is usually a by-product of drug addiction or untreated mental health conditions. This is just a guess, but we probably throw away enough food to end world hunger in this country alone.

Second, the Bible condemns abortion and, by extension, birth control. God has declared it to be a sin, so it is. Even if overpopulation was a problem, it's still a sin. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of trying to play God by redefining what sin is based on our own feelings.

 

[FireDragon76]

The world isn't overpopulated. If everyone on earth stood together, they would all fit inside the area of the city of Los Angeles.

The issues are more about resource consumption, ecological justice and equity, and the effects of human presence on the biosphere, not physical space.

Second, the Bible condemns abortion and, by extension, birth control. God has declared it to be a sin, so it is. Even if overpopulation was a problem, it's still a sin. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of trying to play God by redefining what sin is based on our own feelings.

We already play God, that horse already went out to pasture and went off the range, never to come back. The Christian life, in the fullest sense, is about co-creation, and what eastern Christian call theosis. The issue is "playing God" well, and living up to humanity's vocation, in a way that is generative and integrative.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm not saying the teachings are wrong per se... just not fully realized or integrated, eg., what often amounts to shallow moralism or legalism. And there tends to be too much focus among Latins on the power of human reason, and not human experience. Mystical and experiential theology, outside of Charismatic or Pentecostal circles, tends to be relegated to a very much secondary status, and what "mystical" theology exists in those spaces tend to be relatively ungrounded from ascetic discipline and moral formation.

Actually, the Church teaches that both faith and reason go together.

What teachings of the Church do you find as shallow moralism?

Just because many don't have the mystical experience of faith, doesn't make the doctrines of the Church wrong.

Mystical experience comes from the revelation of Christ to the individual, but also does not contradict
what is in the Church. Christ asks us to be humble, and humility is linked to obeying the doctrines the Church
provides.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, the Church teaches that both faith and reason go together.

What teachings of the Church do you find as shallow moralism?

Telling divorced people they can never receive communion under any circumstances is not just moralism, but legalism. It's also misunderstanding Christ's teachings. Jesus doesn't affirm the goodness of divorce, quite the contrary, but Jesus isn't primarily interested in the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, of helping people come into a relationship with God.

Transformation and growth occurs through relationships, not abstract rules. That's how Jesus taught. He taught proportionally and contextually to a persons life situation. Christian ethics should therefore be personalist and contextual.

You can most clearly see this kind of pattern also playing out in the stories of the Desert Fathers. This kind of focus on relational healing actually has more in common with Native American spirituality, than it does with the Latin tradition of legalism and social order. That's why I believe in privileging eastern, mystical, and indigenous theologies, over dominant western European models... they contain insights that have often been overlooked.

Just because many don't have the mystical experience of faith, doesn't make the doctrines of the Church wrong.

Mystical experience comes from the revelation of Christ to the individual, but also does not contradict
what is in the Church. Christ asks us to be humble, and humility is linked to obeying the doctrines the Church
provides.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges the primacy of conscience. There is a difference between faithful obedience, and dulling or searing the conscience.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Telling divorced people they can never receive communion under any circumstances is not just moralism, but legalism.

On this you are wrong. Divorced people can receive Holy Communion as long as they are not having
sexual relations with another person other than their husband. They can apply for an annulment,
and many have received one.

It was Jesus who stated that a person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her.
It was Jesus who said this, the Church merely upholds what Jesus taught.

 

[FireDragon76]

On this you are wrong. Divorced people can receive Holy Communion as long as they are not having
sexual relations with another person other than their husband. They can apply for an annulment,
and many have received one.

That's no better. Human beings are complicated and relational beings. Telling them that the only way they can receive God's grace is to break off their relationship, is not the logic of Christ.

God doesn't destroy peoples lives. That's basic spiritual discernment. God draws us deeper into relationship with others, in many cases healing and restoring relationships, not cutting off and isolating people. Relational responsibilities are central to spiritual discernment, any Jesuit that teaches Ignatian spirituality will tell you that.

It was Jesus who stated that a person who marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her.

That's reading Jesus' words out of context. He was speaking to a cultural elite that considered divorce trivial, and women to be property of husbands. He wasn't saying a twice divorced couple who have been married for decades should separate, necessarily. He's saying divorce isn't good. Which is sort of obvious in the modern world. But how we respond to that, with grace or judgement, determines whether we are following Jesus in spirit.

That's why interpreting Jesus' teachings requires embodied and relational wisdom, not just "correct pious answers". This is what incarnational theology is really about.