ManOfTheCloth

98% of Catholic women would be wrong then; they would be committing grave sin. Sorry but that is the long and short of it. Your sins will be forgiven though of course but why continue to damage ourselves and others in this way anymore? As Alan said, I wouldn't be here either if my parents had used contraception. I wasn't planned, at least not at the time I came along (I was born only 11 months after my brother) but I was wanted. I was wanted because my parents allowed God to decide when their children were born, that's true Freedom. They are one of the happiest couples I know and are fast approaching their 40th wedding anniversary. This is an interesting article to add weight to my argument. Perhaps my best argument though is my total inability to imagine life without having known one of my brothers, I shudder to think how much love I would have missed out on and would continue to miss out on. The more the merrier I say, plus, growing up we always had an awesome 5 A-side football team! Business Insider

President Obama is trying to enforce US catholic health agencies to provide funding for Contraception. Something which against the teaching of the Catholic Church but also something that Catholics, as a rule of thumb in the US and here in the UK do not take much notice of. Why is this? And if Catholics do not take note, then how can anyone else be expected to? Telegraph I?m posting this because I read an essay last night from a book ?Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader? (ISBN-10: 0898704332 ISBN-13: 978-0898704334) and although I would have before agreed with the teaching Humanae Vitae, I wouldn?t have been able to express my reasons very clearly. When I saw the Obama article today, I thought it was kind of significant. Humanae Vitae was a document published in the 60s outlining Paul VI opposition to birth control and his reasons. Has this message ever been understood by mainstream Catholics, many of whom choose to ignore the directive and some of whom think it unimportant? Perhaps it would be good to give a simple synopsis of the philosophy of this teaching and as I understand it, having read an essay, the reasons can be set out as follows: Any form of contraception places a barrier between a man and his wife. This barrier, which can be inflicted by the man or the woman, attempts to block the ability to conceive. It violates the freedom of the individuals by taking into their own hands the right to decide whether life will be created or not. It removes this from God, the sole creator of life. True freedom is the self abandonment to God. It is therefore sinful. Sin is always damaging to oneself and often to others. It is damaging because a man and a woman exclude God from their sexual relationship, something that should be the most intimate part of their relationship. What couples fail to understand I think, is that excluding God from any part of the union they have with each other only inhibits them from becoming happier, more fulfilled people, more perfectly human. Basically, what I am saying is that including God within the whole of their relationship with each other enhances each and every part of that relationship, including the act of intercourse, so that intercourse truly becomes making love and not something pretending to act as it. They are excluding themselves from a better way of living, madness when you think about it. What parent would ever give a child back? None I hope and the way we try to control life only inhibits life. I have three brothers and I am so glad of that fact, I would be happy had I had more siblings as there is no greater friend than a brother. Large families may have to do without some things but they have so much more. I hope we can learn to trust the Church?s teaching once more because, even if we do not at first recognise the teaching for what it is truly meant to represent, I believe it is full of wisdom. It?s a shame sometimes we have to look so hard to find these pearls but then if they aren?t given to us in the mainstream media and they aren?t given to us at the pulpit or if we aren?t receiving them from the pulpit because we aren?t there or don?t listen, can we be surprised?

I like the letter but not its connotations. You would do well to remember what else happened at the same time as the Politicians' expenses scandal was announced in the mainstream press. Something rather important called the European Elections. That the press chose to release the story at the time they did is what is significant, not the actions themslelves, even though the actions may be highly disheartening. Have you ever heard of a Kansas city shuffle? We cannot allow ourselves to de-base ourselves in the same way, things may very well be bad and they may very well get worse but there is still hope.

Please read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, compelling reading and a book that will open your eyes as well and if you stick with it will give you hope for the future. This link gives a brief synopsis http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

I'm no Muslim but I do know a little about it. Many Muslims believe Muhammad ascended into heaven after his culling spree throughout the Middle East, a warrior in opposition to the peaceful Jesus. Islam can be argued, quite convincingly, to be a form of Arianism, an early heresy. It is why it holds Jesus in high esteem, as a prophet and Mary his mother is revered in it as well. Its roots are Christianity that got skewed for one reason or another.

Although you didn't actually say it, you are right to assert the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection as central and pivotal to the Catholic faith. For me, without it, the whole thing falls down. I wouldn't agree with your statement that it is based on Blind faith however, more, I would argue, on a clear view of faith. Without the resurrection, the faith would not have lasted 2 years, never mind 2000. Many others faiths purporting to have a messiah or a prophet, around the same time in history as Jesus, crumbled for this very reason. The prophet or messiah died and everyone went their own ways. This did not happen with the early Christians, if you read the evidence of what happened in the early Church, it is clear they were spurred on by something very powerful, so powerful, in fact, that it enabled them to give up their lives, in a totally peaceful way. The way others saw them living and supporting each other, encouraged others to join them and this is how the church grew. The Catholic Church has always been here since Christ and it will continue to be so, despite what you may think of its inadequacies, faults and evil actions throughout history, it is still here and it will always be. That is credibility in itself.

I have vivid memories of events, without undergoing regression - of dreams I have had. The majority of dreams we never remember, these are the dreams we hsve in our deepest sleep. Details of perceived past lives, supposedly revelead in regression, is a poor argument for belief in reincarnation.

Narnia, I referred to God working through you by the fact of you having started this thread, that you are searching and that you see so much beauty in the world are the beginnings of the search of which I believe we are created for. I hope I didn't offend you, I know it perhaps can be a scary thought but it should be comforting and reassuring also. I might add that (and I realise you were joking!) that I don?t consider you a saint as I don?t know enough about you but that is a possibility for you, for all of us! Mockney, Science and Theology are not the same thing and you are correct in your assertions that as Science deals with nature, it can never prove the existence of something outside of nature, it can point to order in the universe and so forth and it can point to things that amaze by the intricacy of their design and thus lead us to conceive that a Divine being, a grand designer if you like, was at work. The argument from design is an old argument, you may have heard it referred to as ?The Divine Watchmaker? argument and this is true that this cannot prove the existence of a Divine Being. Further recent works by geneticists such as Francis Collins only add weight to the argument as a whole. I would encourage anyone who is searching to read his book, especially if science is your bag. It is an argument I find compelling if not sufficient enough to stand on its own, it certainly enhances my faith. So when I say that there is no science v religion debate, I maintain there is none. As I said, science complements religion or theology if you like, in much the same way that Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology. Science cannot contradict faith, it can enhance it and help to rationalise it. Ultimately though, as Silverfox points out, science can never answer the ?Why anything instead of nothing at all? question. Aquinas of course, discussed this question in his ?5 ways? centuries ago. I accept it was late when you wrote but I do struggle to understand how you can describe love as a mundane concept, love cannot be explained other than in something greater than us, that being the Divine, God. You are correct in talking about the Dualism of body and soul, the belief that all physical things are evil and only the spirit is good and yes, these are considered heresies and certainly not what mainstream Catholicism or I would purport to. Thanks all for the welcome!

Hello all, I?ve been reading a variety of the posts although I have to say not all posts within this debate as it is vast. I would like to join the debate because, hopefully, I have something to offer and because I care about you all even though I don?t know any of you personally. I?m sure I have missed many valid points but the here are a few of the points I have noticed that appear to be stumbling blocks for many people. The question of suffering ? be it David Attenborough?s parasitic worm or whatever other form of suffering within the world. This is perhaps the biggest stumbling block for belief for many, that is, ?why would a benevolent omnipotent, omniscient being create a world in which there is so much suffering when he could eradicate it all or better still, not create or permit it to be created in the first instance, by duty of the fact of his all powerful, all knowing nature?. It appears to defy logic. Or does it? Let?s try and imagine a world without suffering, at first it seems like Utopia but in order for there to be no suffering, there first needs to be perfect love. I would argue that love is brought about by suffering, that God permits suffering in order to bring about love. We need to choose love, to choose using our free will, if it was forced or automatic it wouldn?t be love, it would be robotic. Think about it. A baby is born crying, such that its mother cares for it, feeds it, cuddles it, nurtures it. If the baby was born self sufficient, there would be no need for this love and affection and the bond of love would never grow, a bond of love that one has to acknowledge as being extremely strong, perhaps the strongest we encounter day to day. I would argue that this is the reason for all forms of suffering. In order that the greatest of our human emotions is stirred up within us, when we see suffering, we relate to it, not on an intellectual scale but within our souls, it affects us. Occasionally it affects us so much that we feel the need to alleviate it in another, where we cannot, this affects us in another way very deeply. Out of these feelings we learn to love, if we are the sufferer, we learn to be loved and to accept love. I believe that is the reason for our existence, to learn to love and to be loved, paradoxically perhaps, suffering is one way in which God brings this about. The debate of science and religion ? absolute poppycock, there is no debate within or between Science and the major Christian Institution, that is the Catholic church. I am totally bemused by this argument and am continually surprised to find that people believe me to be a Creationist (in the American Evangelical way of the word), that because I am a Christian, I must somehow deny the Big bang Theory or Evolution. Well I don?t. I believe the best explanation we have for the how the world came to be is found in the Big Bang Theory. The fact that a catholic Priest, George Lemaitre, pioneered this theory only adds to the absurdity that many aggressive, fundamentalist, dogmatic atheists, such as Dawkins, seek to infect people with. Evolution also sits perfectly well within my belief system, it is perfectly feasible to accept that God started off the process of Evolution and that he knew exactly what he was doing when he started it but there are certain forces at work out there who are trying to make you believe that the two do not go together, well they do, in fact, extremely well. Science complements religion as religion complements science, they are not opposed. If you are interested in further research into evolution from a spiritual aspect, have a look at Francis S Collins? ?The Language of God, A Scientist presents evidence for belief?. Francis Collins led the human genome project in the US and was the guy stood next to Clinton when he announced to the world that they had mapped the human genome. It is extremely well written and addresses many of the age old philosophical questions that are being presented as new in some of today?s ?Humanist? circles. The other point I'd like to comment on at this time is the belief by some of you that the bible is some old book that seeks to stop us from enjoying ourselves or having fun. If you actually read the Gospels, you will quickly come to realise that this is false. Christ enjoyed himself, there are many accounts of him eating with people, enjoying weddings and living life to the full. Take the wedding at Cana, the guests had finished all the wine! Everyone was having a good time, Christ didn?t berate the guests for being merry. He instead performed a miracle to allow them more to drink, substantially more in fact. 6 stone jars each holding 20-30 gallons, we are told. That is the equivalent of 700 litres or approximately 1000 bottles of wine, that does not sound like a Killjoy to me. The eternal torture to which some of you feel you are threatened with is, in my opinion, an eternity without God. If we choose to live without God, without love, then we do it to ourselves, it is not God that punishes. You punish yourself by your own choices. That is what the bible warns against. God loves us and cares for us, He wants the best for us. He knows what is best for us but all too often we think we can go it alone, that we know better. That is pride and was Satan?s downfall. Listen to your soul and that?s where you will find God, he is there in all of us, waiting to be listened to. So, is there a living God, a God that interacts with the world? Emphatically yes and he is living inside and interacting with every one of us. God Bless. PS Well done Narnia, God is certainly working through you!