Aussie Archbishop slams Catholics who defy church on contraception

He'd probably be disgusted if paedo priests used condoms when they were raping kids. Thank feck his generation and ilk are due to die soon.

Thanks for the kind words, lokionline. It's always a delight to read your comments. I mentioned the bible only because the Catholics who defend RCC teachings against contraception claim their teaching to be "from God." And they claim scripture is "the word of God." And they claim that their authority to teach "comes from God" (ultimately from Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament). But I completely agree with you that the interpretations of scripture and natural law by today's bishops should have little influence on a rational thinking person! "Cult" is the right word for a religion whose teachings have ossified in slavery to an over-interpreted past that excludes current science and theories of knowledge, a cult whose liturgy and practices amount to a formulaic approach to salvation. What would Jesus do? He'd laugh them to scorn.

..."If the OT prophets or the NT evangelists who knew Jesus (or knew his words) considered contraceptives immoral, surely one of them would have written down such an opinion."...

eiriamach, a chara. I respect your opinions, you consistently offer up the most cogent posts on this site.

However, I do not understand why you feel the opinions of these men from so long ago has the influence you wish to ascribe to them.

They may have represented the tenor of their times but they were not well informed about the world or nature. In fact, to suggest they or the leaders of our current religious cults have any authority when it comes to pronouncing on the "Natural Law" is ludicrous. Our body of knowledge about the natural world has left that worldview far behind.

Their opinions therefore have little relevance except for folks who see cults as the answer to our modern challenges.

But then again... I guess the folks you address with these posts do act as if they are part of a cult.

Andrew007, everything I've read on the subject indicates that your explanation at Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 PM is an accurate interpretation of Genesis 38:8-9. When I wrote at Jun 13, 2012, 09:03 PM, I just wanted to work in the point that contraceptives were in use by the biblical-era generations in most of the ancient world. If the OT prophets or the NT evangelists who knew Jesus (or knew his words) considered contraceptives immoral, surely one of them would have written down such an opinion.

esatdigiwank, I like your post, below! For the Lord to dictate every matter concerning intimacy leads me to wonder where he is coming from! Dose he feel it is his domain to threaten us all with "eternal damnation", if we deviate, and don't then say, "I'm sorry Lord", after each "transgression"?? A just God would not conduct Himself that way. He would accept us with dignity, and expect us to lead decent lives, respecting our fellow human beings. In matters of male/female attraction, He would expect us to RESPECT our partners, not deny our natural feelings. That is the goal we should all strive for!

Thanks, Portia777! I always try to balance what is right with traditional teachings. As a teenager, I basically rejected Matthew 5:28, and vehemently do so today. Any demonization of sex before marriage, or fantasies of the same (even after marriage)constitute an unnatural control the Church/Bible seeks to impose on the masses. As I have said, I answer to the woman I am with, not Jesus or the Church! If I treat her right, I feel I am a decent man, which Jesus should respect. That's a more democratic & realistic outlook thsn what those repressive brothers said, in that 1970's movie, during a high school dance: "Be sure to leave some room for Jesus"!!

SingleDonald. Well said. This man has never known intimacy- in to me see.........and should we dare ask why he does not wish anyone to see into him?

Just a distraction from their own crimes, is all this is. Try to keep everyone busy discussing contraception which is not the same as raping and torturing children, is it? The old mind games again "it is all her fault". S/he used the pill without asking the hierarchical man in the fish hat for permission.How can people even bother to listen to men like this who has no knowledge of marriage or sex with women.Is it that these men fear wombmen for they are creators?Are they jealous ?

Easy for the archbishop to make this comment. Alter boys don't get pregnant

"If you want to have sex without procreation then screw the altar boys up in the choir loft like we do!" -- Father O'Flaccid

If only the constructs of 'God' & 'Religion' did not exist to complicate daily living, and ceased to fool all of us . “Such defiance sets up an inner conflict which undermines faith and causes mistrust of Christ’s mandate to teach on matters of human sexuality.” Not sure JC had a valid mandate to teach these matters if He Himself had never consummated things with Mary Mags' I'd say the rc control freak Hickey has many inner conflicts within his mind to deal with, not to mention contradictions. RC should stay out of tampering with family life and stick to what its best at: hoarding/banking.

@eiriamach, in this issue (regarding contraceptives) I agree with you. You're correct in saying that there is "NO scriptural prohibition against contraceptives", and I would strongly suggest that Onan was condemned not for his deliberately spilling his seed onto the ground per se, but rather doing it so that his brother's widow, whom he'd married, would not have a son that would carry her first husband's (his brother's) name, in line with the practice of Levitical Marriage that the ancient Hebrews adhered to (at least until the time of Jesus). Levitical Marriage was an institution in which widows would marry the brother(s) (or nearest male kin) of their husbands, so that they and their children would be cared for, and if childless so that their future children would carry on the name of the deceased husband, so that his family and clan name would not die out. Hebrew society was clan based (hence the tribes), and in the endemic warfare and disastrous famines and plagues of the era, it was considered crucial that family lines and clans would not die out (this was reinforced by the fact that virtually all (agricultural) property was organised according to clanship). It was clearly patriarchal and deeply traditional, but it was also a system in which everyone knew their place (BOTH male and female) and was provided for. An example of this is the story of Ruth: Boaz marrying Ruth wasn't just an act of love, but was him carrying out his expected duty by his dead kinsman, Ruth's dead husband. But, before he married her, Boaz ensured that he had the legal right to do so.

@Gearoid4: yes, it is true that the Pill facilitated the "era of casual sex", but it certainly didn't cause it, as people were already having casual sex and behaving sexually immorally before that, as indicated by the evidence provided by eiriamach (Jun 13, 2012, 08:55 PM EDT), as well as Christian publications before the 1960's (RC incl.), and statistics regarding children born out of wedlock and the fact that babies from single mothers were very often confiscated and given to married couples up until the 1970's. Furthermore, I would suggest that the Pill by itself did very little, as it was the so-called "Sexual Revolution", sparked by the unprecedented but fraudulent works on human sexuality by the deviant monster(s) Alfred Kinsey et al, coupled with increasing godlessness, which created the mindset that increasingly rejected traditional sexual morality. I'd also like to see the studies showing the efficacy of "NFP", can you post them? Lastly, I agree with your comments regarding God's laws on gender and marriage, which many liberals seem to ignore or twist out of shape to suit their own agendas/ideologies.

Also, Gearoid4, "God 'made them male and female,'" is pretty far from "God told them not to use condoms or hormonal contraceptives." There simply is NO scriptural prohibition against contraceptives. The closest anyone has found to it is the story of Onan, who would have escaped censure if he'd used an ancient sheep-intestine condom.

Gearoid4, every summer, right after the first dandelion releases its wispy seeds to the wind, someone drowns on a Jersey Shore beach. These two events always happen in this order, one after the other, for as long as I've researched them! We can prevent these drownings, by your way of thinking, if we keep the lawns and park grass mowed so the dandelions can't go to seed. You use the same post hoc reasoning-- Y happened after X; therefore X caused Y-- when you write, "The Pill facilitated the era of casual sex." Read the *1932* pamphlet "The Truth About Birth Control" (Rev Dr Rumble, Aust Cath truth Soc No. 662a). Its author tries to answer the charge "Your [Catholic] law against avoiding children is not observed by a great many of your Catholic people." There was plenty of casual sex in the 1930s! Catholics used birth control, not just abstinence, for generations before the Pill debuted in the 1960s and the alleged "sexual revolution" began. The fact that you offer this post hoc argument suggests that you know your natural law argument is thoroughly unconvincing. It's a male-imagined "law" that relegates women to the role of baby makers and sole childraisers. Since natural law is knowable by all competent human beings, and since the overwhelming majority of Catholics see nothing immoral in contraceptives and only churchmen consider them "unnatural," isn't it possible that churchMEN misread natural law on sexual matters?