Time to grow up - an end to the folly of abstinence only sex ed?

Because Gonk showed it was irrelevant.

I'm glad you changed your stance to that, because it sounds a whole better than

So now you agree with me that there could be good explanations for divorce, that it doesn't necessarily have to mean a person can't keep commitments?

Well, it was a bit unclear apparantly. Because you made it into 'better not marry'. All I meant was that no government here in the Western world would contemplate banning divorce. The government that would do that would get ousted, because the people wouldn't stand for it - it takes away one of their liberties. So it's just an unrealistic idea. Unless the West turns fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim, it won't happen. And that's why I said: let's just drop it. It's fantasy. It's what-if.

I'm glad you think you know what papers I sign, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Like I said before, I'm not ever getting married. I don't know what 'prenup' is. But I'm best man for one of my best friends this summer! Anyway, please stop making assumptions.

I suggested dropping the idea of banning divorce because it's extremely unrealistic.

 

I suggested dropping the idea of banning divorce because it's extremely unrealistic.

I did not say to ban divorce. I said it needs to be made a lot harder to get. For cases involving abuse, I think there should be the option of divorce. For cases involving flat-out deceit as the basis for marriage, there should be the option of divorce. For forced or arranged marriages, there should be the option of divorce.

And BTW, I still think that if you can not honor your commitments, you're irresponsible.

 

Ok. But remember that a modern marriage commitment includes the idea that divorce is a possibility. People go into it knowing that. Yes, I agree that you have a responsibility to not do this on a whim or because you and your spouse are having transitory difficulties, and to make an effort to work things out. And you have a responsibility to any children you may have to make sure they are cared for in both mind and body, something which can be affected by the divorce of parents. But if there are irresolvable conflicts, there is nothing inherently wrong with exercising one's right to divorce.

 

You're over-simplifying again, and you're taking into account the individual circumstance. The truth is that in this era people grow and change dramatically. Let's say a couple gets married with the pre-discussed agreement that they do not want kids, and then ten years later the husband really does want kids, but the wife is adamant about not having them. Is this a healthy and stable relationship to remain in for the rest of their lives? Recognizing human psychology as a factor in the relationship, the clear answer is no. There is going to be years and years of resentment that will manifest in any number of ways, all of which are harmful to the family.

 

Actually, refusal of one party to have children is considered grounds for divorce and annulment in the Catholic Chruch, so I don't have a problem with that one. Even if both parties didn't want kids going into it, the Church would consider then that the marriage was not undertaken with the desire to fulfill its purpose, and so an annulment would be given if the two later divorced.

Other scenarios for consideration?

 

So American legal policy should be based on Catholic doctrine?

I remember learning something in school about how that sort of thing's not supposed to go down. I think it rhymed with 'bloundation clause'...


EDIT:

I mean, 'Blestablishment clause'. Too much Asimov lately...

 

That would be wonderful! And why not? It would be better than what we have now.

 

First Amendment.

Jeez, don't they make you guys READ the constitution before you swear an oath to defend it?

 

Color me quite skeptical on how "wonderful" it would be. Catholic doctrine interferes with a number of exceptionally private matters (such as reproductive control, both in terms of wanting children and wanting to avoid children), it is very regressive in handling matters such as public health, it does not handle moral ambiguity well, and public policy by nature is mired in ambiguity and ambivalence, etc.

 

Just what we need: a society with a sicker fascination on sex than the one we have now. Only instead of marveling at the beauty we can be told that we're evil for liking it.

Ah, to hell with it. Bill Hicks on Catholicism.

So 'better'...not really. Worse and even more fricked up than what we have now.

 

We also haven't answered the question of *which* Catholic doctrine.

Pre-Vatican II?
Post-Vatican II?
Vatican II in light of Benedict's comments and efforts to restore more orthodoxy?
Opus Dei vs. "cafeteria Catholicism"?
Would conscience still have trump over doctrine when the moral agent cannot follow the edicts?

So, yeah, not a good idea.

 

I want Post-Vatican II: The Reckoning.

 

Some Anglican Church for me, please.
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/King_Henry_VIII_from_NPG.jpg]

 

I love that there are Bill Hicks fans around here.

Major EDIT:

So basically everything I posted has already been discussed on the last page. I don't want to be redundant.

Clones:
Live your life according to your principles, raise your children and instill in them the values you think to be constructive, but please let others figure things out for themselves.

Failing to educate kids about sex and biology leads to kids making irresponsible decisions...and kids in the 1950s had sex before marriage too, you know.

 

I like people who think the 1950's were a golden era for the United States. True, a lot of things were different and easier, but there was also racism, the red scare, and women were seen as housewives. Hardly the idyllic paradise that some people (Mitt Romney included) would have you believe. So, anyway, just a small rant.

 

Failing to educate kids about sex and biology leads to kids making irresponsible decisions...and kids in the 1950s had sex before marriage too, you know.



I've read a variety of articles in the past year that basically illustrated that premarital sex rates have been basically constant for just about forever. It just wasn't talked about so much.

Here's one

 

I'm using the 1950's as an example BECAUSE so many people consider it to be a golden age, which it clearly was not. That's my whole point. Marriages were not happier, racism and sexism were accepted and normal parts of our society, and kids went around having sex before marriage commonly.

Next thing you know, Clones will be suggesting that pregnant teen girls be sent to the convent or have their babies taken away from them to be adopted without their consent. Also things that happened in every era prior to the 1960's.

As a Catholic, you should understand that no one is perfect and even those who value waiting until marriage before having sex fall into "sin". Congratulations, you listen to the radio and watch the news. I think it's a wonderfully naive and self-important statement to be assuming that the American media actually gives accurate news reports. Half the time, watching Fox news or CNN involves sitting while a bunch of analysts, "news contributors", experts, and whoever else they can hire to participate in their circus spout a bunch of numbers and abstract figures and opinions based on questionable sources out the TV, until the average viewer is just left stunned and confused. How is the average person supposed to weed through all that information and make an informed decision about anything?

Just because you watch the news doesn't make you any more informed or enlightened about the world, thank you very much. Please take your smug self-possession somewhere else.

EDIT:
I know it's easy to assume that since you have "THE TRUTH" everyone else is totally living in darkness and if they only knew what you knew everyone would agree with you. Because you're right of course.

But as a recovering Catholic who is informed about doctrine, history, and biblical interpretation of the Catholic Church, please spare us. Until you've sat down and had tea face to face the The Man himself, don't have the audacity to presume that you and your club are the only people that have any hint of the truth in their lives.

#2:

I'm also really excited to have Clones tell us that the reason why marriages and the modern family are falling apart is because women or betraying Jesus by leaving the home and pursuing careers, thus perverting their role as leg-spreaders and food-makers. If only we could stop wishing we could be like men and the state of society would be a lot better off.

 

Vatican I was superseded by Vatican II. That's an easy one to answer.

Opus Dei vs cafeteria Catholicism. You forget what we lay people like to call "obedient" Catholics. You don't have to mortify (Opus Dei) yourself to be obedient. But Opus Dei tends to be more obedient than cafeterians.

Give me the text from which you found the "conscience trumps doctrine . . . follow the edicts" statement, so I can understand in what context you are using it.

 

Except that it produced significant backlash within Catholicism, and was criticized both by people who felt the reformations were too much, and those who felt it did not change enough. Additionally, there is some question about Benedict's statements concerning interpretation of the Council, as noted here. So the question isn't as easy as you might think - Catholicism isn't one unified body by a long stretch, so your expressed desire to base U.S. law on Catholicism creates more problems than it solves.

But again this speaks to the nature of what constitutes orthodoxy within Catholicism, and speaks to the nature of the divide within Catholicism itself. Simple "obedience" isn't a virtue - this same tradition places primacy on reason (that is the core analytic of the natural law, which I'll get back to shortly) and active involvement in the world. Simple obedience to the fluctuating dictates of the Pontiffs throughout history doesn't make for human intellectual development. Further, the Catholic Church enjoys no special position in either secular or spiritual truth - the spiritual claims it makes are of equal epistemic and ontological worth as the Rastafarians and Raelians. Catholics have simply been around longer, so there is more ideological difference occurring as the religion spreads (the problem with all religions that spread to new regions - they are syncretic by nature, which always produces conflicts between orthodox and reform movements). There is *way* more doctrinal difference than you are admitting, which makes the question of "which Catholicism" germane and fundamental.

That's impossible for me to do - it was discussed in my undergraduate and graduate education, and that covers twelve years of classes, so I do not remember the specific citation. The context was the development of Catholic social and sexual ethics in light of natural law. The doctrinal claim is that individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter, so when an individual finds his/her conscience in conflict with established Catholic doctrine, the individual can follow conscience instead of dogma. Now this doesn't just happen arbitrarily - it's not flipping a coin or engaging in superficial rationalization. This is the result of a deep exploration of conscience and profound moral questioning. Now, the upshot is that doctrine also argues that all "rightly formed" consciences will recognize the truth of the doctrinal position, which basically amounts to "Well, if you didn't have this defect in conscience, you would see the truth of our position". The broader context deals with the primacy of reason in discerning our place, role, and duties according to the Eternal Law. If you feel the urge to read the Summa Theologiae and its sequelae in Catholic doctrine, feel free.

 

Personally I like the Jesuits.

 

Except that it produced significant backlash within Catholicism, and was criticized both by people who felt the reformations were too much, and those who felt it did not change enough.

Criticisms, however, do not invalidate the changes the Council made. The changes stand. And since virtually every change was in discipline or form and none were in doctrine or dogma, the case really is open and shut. I think you are mistaking the failure of Catholics to be obedient with a lack of unity. The Church itself is unified in its teaching, but the teachings come from only ONE place: Pope and Majesterium. If Nancy Pelosi wants to break with Church teaching, she has broken unity. If some errant priest somewhere wants to reject the Church's teachings on morals or the divinity of Christ, he has broken unity. But for Catholics, it's VERY easy to find out what the Church teaches: it's in the Catechism. The fact that individual Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on birth control only means there are disobedient Catholics. It doesn't mean that the Church has different branches that can practice different things.

But again this speaks to the nature of what constitutes orthodoxy within Catholicism, and speaks to the nature of the divide within Catholicism itself.

I don't think you really grasp the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholics have a head on Earth, and his job is to preserve the deposit of knowledge. We have a visible head, a vast deposit of knowledge, and orthodox Catholics recognize the authority in both. Those who don't want to recognize his authority, those who willingly cast aside the Church's teachings do not divide Catholicism -- they pretty much have created their own religion. And truth is, if they wanted to find a church that believes everything they do, they probably could find one. But it won't be Catholic.

Simple "obedience" isn't a virtue - this same tradition places primacy on reason (that is the core analytic of the natural law, which I'll get back to shortly) and active involvement in the world. Simple obedience to the fluctuating dictates of the Pontiffs throughout history doesn't make for human intellectual development.

But simple obedience to the dogmas (which survived despite some very bad popes) can be a virtue and should not be scoffed at. Simple faith is of great value . . . but only if you believe that faith in a divine being has any value to begin with. If you truly believe that your god is just and perfect, and that your religion was founded by that god, then you will have no issue following the dictates of that religion. By the same token, belief that is arrived at through intelluctual pursuit is just as acceptable to God. But once you say you believe, the proof is in how you obey the "laws" of that religion.

Further, the Catholic Church enjoys no special position in either secular or spiritual truth - the spiritual claims it makes are of equal epistemic and ontological worth as the Rastafarians and Raelians.

The fact that you refer to religion in terms of epistemology and ontology seem to indicate that you view religion as merely philosophical. If I may, I think that is where you disconnect from a believer's standpoint. To me, it's not just a neat discussion or fascinating piece of history to analyze . . . it's something that ultimately will affect all of creation for all of eternity. It is your opinion that the Catholic Church holds no special position with regard to truth (I don't distinguish between secular and spiritual, for there are not two sets of truth). I disagree. If Catholicism were lived out in full obedience world-wide, there would be peace. Of course, the decision to live that life must be left to free choice. I may rhapsodize about an all-obedient, all-Catholic world, but God didn't create it that way. In giving us free will, He gave the ability to choose our own eternities. We can choose to found our

 

If Stalinism were lived out in full obedience world-wide, there would be peace, too. Not to mention Islamism, Protestantism, Nazism, Pacifism...pretty much EVERY 'ism' would result in peace if EVERYBODY could be convinced to play along.

 

I think you really need to explore and understand the history of Catholicism with a more critical eye. There are certainly doctrinal differences, and this has produced differing opinions regarding the catechism as well as social practices. There are missionaries who provide their nuns with condoms, as rape is a significant concerns, despite "official" policies regarding violation of the principle of totality. There have been a number of movements within Catholic ethics (such as Fletcher's Situation Ethics and its derivatives) that have been at odds with the magisterium. This is not a unified body, despite what your doctrine tells you, and this is why there were calls for reform like Vatican II. Again, the Catechism is useful as a core dogma, but it is not comprehensive nor nuanced enough to deal with practical situations, which is why there are these schisms. Further, the differences in reaction to Vatican II demonstrate that "orthodox" Catholicism is still in debate - if Vatican II were as cut and dried as you present it to be, there wouldn't be room for Benedict to reassert or refine the teachings.

I really don't think you want to make this suggestion, anymore than you wanted to assert a "greater" understanding of sexual education policies. I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, went to a Jesuit university (Georgetown), and a Spiritan graduate school (Duquesne). Throughout all of this, I was educated in Catholic dogma and Protestant responses, including *significant* detail on the nuances and doctrinal differences between them. I currently teach comparative religion, which has required me to look into the history of Christianity in great detail. So I would greatly appreciate it if you refrained from making ignorant comments like this, m'kay?

It's interesting that you should phrase it that way. While it is true that Catholicism has a much greater degree of structure (including an ostensibly hierarchy), the most resounding critique of Catholicism throughout history has been its disconnectedness with the Earth. It's reaction to challenge and criticism (e.g., the treatment of Galileo and Copernicus, the unwillingness to accept evolution until JPII), the horrific consequences

 

No, the proper response would be how are we measuring peace? Catholicism has allowed people to die in the past for not believing as they do. Also, the pedophile priests don't exactly strike me as a religion that would bring about peace. Especially considering how they've avoided paying restitution to the families of people who were molested and initially covered it up. Ditto to believing condoms are evil and ineffective and saying that AIDS can be spread through sweat (IIRC). I'm having trouble imagining what a Catholic world would look like, but all I can come up with is a world that's sexually repressed, where STD's are everywhere, teenage pregnancy is high, and where little boys are molested with impunity. Wait, sounds like the United States of today. Congrats, you have a Catholic nation.

 

it is also known as a totalitarian regime. just absolute control.