Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


THE POPE POSES AS A FRIEND OF FAMILIES

The pope says that couples who cohabit have rejected any necessary link between sex and marriage. He says they harm their marriage if they bring that outlook with them into it. He says that they might agree to be faithful but for them its just a personal preference. He says that it is not based on the nature of sex. He says that its not based on the meaning and purpose of sex. He means they ignore the teaching that having sex implies being united in marriage for life. He says the couple make the rule to be faithful and since it is their rule they will feel free to stick to it or abandon it or modify it. He says that if they see sex before marriage as okay they must see it as okay under certain conditions to have sex with other people during marriage.
 
Clearly such a teaching encourages people not to marry unless they repent for living together. It forbids their wedding if the priest has no reason to think they have repented. It implies that they are only serious about having their own rules and not being married. They pretend marriage. Such a teaching denies protection to the family unit headed by couples who lived together before marriage.
 
Such a teaching implies that sex indicates that the man and wife must live together no matter what - even if he beats her up every night. To avoid the backlash, the pope refuses to admit that this is his belief.
 
Imagine if someone felt they were in love with an adopted sister or brother. The pope would say it would be wrong to admit this love to the other person. The proper answer is that it might be wrong. The loved one could be upset and embarrassed at the revelation. It could cause trauma to the relationship. Or as there is no biological relationship, the revelation might be just what the adopted sister or adopted brother wants to hear. It might turn out to be the greatest love story ever. So is revealing the feelings right or wrong? Nobody knows - the unexpected can happen. The most you could say is that it might be wrong but it all depends. To say it will be wrong or would be wrong is an attempt to manipulate the person into saying nothing. It is not about loving them but manipulating them. It is accusing them of being bad if they do not listen to you. The truly respectful approach would explain what could go wrong and advise the person to tread carefully. But it would clarify that they cannot be punished by condemnation for whatever course they take.


The unbeliever might tell the person that he or she must never tell the adopted sister or brother that he or she loves them for it is wrong. He or she thinks its wrong for it will hurt them and hurt the wider family.
 
If you tell somebody that something is wrong that does not necessarily mean you think that they should pay for it or suffer for it. In other words, it does not necessarily mean you think they should be punished. A teacher will not punish a child for making a mistake or two in the homework.
 
Back to our love for an adopted brother or sister scenario. The pope will be more concerned that God will be offended. He will therefore have less concern for the brother and sister than the unbeliever would. A person can only have so much concern so the pope gives the concern to God. The pope however believes that all wilful wrong is sin and must be punished.
 
The pope permits natural family planning which like contraception implies that the husband and wife do not want the gift of fertility to work. Yet he condemns contraception for allegedly implying that. He claims natural family planning makes conception unlikely but it is okay as it is still open to life. But why not let the couple use a condom with a pin-prick in it then? That would be open to life despite reducing the risk of pregnancy!
 
The pope teaches that a Catholic judge who issues a decree of divorce is only saying that the marriage does not exist any more in the eyes of the law but not saying it ceases to exist in the sight of God and so the judge is free from sin (page 307, Question 1265, Radio Replies, Volume 3). The Church says that the judge is not to blame for the law. He only gives the effects of the law so his declaring a marriage to be dissolved is a merely legal one and does not imply he is trying to end a marriage that God has made.
 
But why not let somebody that believes in divorce do the job? The Church says that divorce is evil because it declares a marriage that still exists to be non-existent and then it lets the judge give a divorce. The damned hypocrisy! Would the Church permit a Catholic judge give out a court decree that permitted a person to be raped? It would not argue then that he should abide by the law and that he is not commenting on or opposing God's law.
 
If the law opposes God or endangers marriage, the judge cannot give out a decree of divorce and must resign. The law is claiming that it is more important for it to treat a marriage that still exists in the sight of God as a non-marriage than for it to respect God.
 
If the Church really believes the judge is acting without sin, then why does it fight so hard against legal divorce? To take a parallel case why fight the legalisation and liberalisation of contraceptives?