[sdegutis]

I should point out that, as I said in the other thread, I'm Catholic. And I didn't just inherit my Catholicism, I worked hard to find it. And I examined many of its precepts and tenets (including birth control), and found them each to be reliable and founded on a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith. So they're my own beliefs. Not inherited, and not held blindly.

That's why I can't support the inclusion of contraception anywhere, among other things. I'm well aware that in some people's eyes this makes me an enemy of women, an enemy of the poor, etc. But I stand by my views without shame or regret, because I have acquired and maintain them with all the integrity I can muster.

[run4_too]

I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical.

The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to prevent conception and waiting until Tuesday to have sex. The church condemns one yet supports the other; completely inconsistent. The only way to have a consistent opinion on the topic is to decree that all forms of martial interaction approaching sex end with insemination - a completely ludicrous idea (regardless of whether or not you support that), to be honest.

The church is causing real damage with this doctrine, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa. With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward, to be honest. I was curious as to your reaction in that event.

[sdegutis]

> With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward

There are many "liberal Catholics" in the world, and organizations dedicated to "modernizing" Catholic doctrine. They're pushing and hoping for things like ordaining women as priests, allowing abortions, gay marriage, etc. [1]

But they'll never succeed. Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable. [2] So by definition it's impossible.

Yes, there will always be polls trying to demonstrate that doctrinal change is possible given a strong enough public voice [3], but this is and will always be impossible. All those polls do (and I would argue are meant to do) are make people think they're on the right track with their dissent, and that it's not really apostasy, just a harmless opinion.

[1]: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm

[2]: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change...

[3]: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/16/2943221/rise-pr...

EDIT: more idiomatic formatting of sources

[dragonwriter]

> Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable.

If doctrines couldn't change, we wouldn't need to have dogmas (which are doctrines which have been infallibly proclaimed and which, therefore, are, in principle, immutable.)

More importantly than the theoretical questions, church teachings do change, even if that means retrospectively reinterpreting doctrine to change how it is taught while maintaining the pretense of consistency, or reinterpreting something that was previously viewed as doctrinal as something other than doctrine.

This is particularly visible in the area of, say, "when a morally cognizable human exists in pregnancy", a relatively important matter on which Church teaching has changed radically over its history.

[sdegutis]

It's true that advancements in science have led to a more fuller understanding of when a human life begins. But that doesn't mean there was ever a change in the doctrine that human life cannot be aborted during pregnancy. They're unrelated concepts.

[dragonwriter]

> It's true that advancements in science have led to a more fuller understanding of when a human life begins. But that doesn't mean there was ever a change in the doctrine that human life cannot be aborted during pregnancy.

Early forms of the "understanding of when human life begins" were themselves understood at the time as doctrines (and in some cases were doctrine proclaimed by Ecumenical Councils, such as that of the Council of Vienne in 1312.)

[dragonwriter]

> The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". action renders the position on contraception completely illogical.

The position on contraception is not based on the idea that "sex should 'always be about procreation'."

Whether it is logical or not may be debatable, but claiming that an element contradicts a proposition that is outside of the position to start with isn't a way of showing that.