This is a lie. Misinformation. I know of no Catholic that ever made a covenant with the RCC concerning contraception. I never did in the 20 years that I was a Catholic and their position was more strict then than they are now.
Your statement is foolish and deceptive. It is an outright lie.
DHK posted this in response to my assertion that Aquino is a Catholic and as such he has a covenant with his church. As usual he has misrepresented what I said by assuming all covenants are made by some sort of public oath. Not so. This is an implied covenant which every Catholic has with the Church. Indeed every Baptist, and every member of any other organization, has an implied covenant to do certain things by virtue of his membership in the organization. Now, here is what the Code of Canon Law has to say about adherence to principles of the faith:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
This, DHK, is where we get the pejorative term “cafeteria Catholic.” These people pick and choose what they want to believe and reject the rest. It is true that few are disciplined but they are subject to being disciplined.
Then, after I stated that all Catholics are supposed to be obedient to the pope, their bishop and their pastor, DHK said:
Supposed to be? But are they? Are you speaking of 100% obedience? In case you don't know the Bible no man can keep the law, which is included in the Catholic Catechism. What you have demanded is impossible of any man. Again a foolish statement and meant to be very deceptive.
100% obedience? Of course not. Are members of your church 100% obedient to everything your church teaches? I haven’t read the entire Catechism but I have read a lot of it and have found nothing that says we must obey the O.T. law. That is the only law that scripture says is impossible to keep.
When I reminded DHK that Hebrews 13:17 says to obey them who rule over you, he responded:
The Bible gives no position on contraceptives. Don't take Scripture out of context.
Don’t be so sure. What about the command to be fruitful and multiply? Anyway, Hebrews 13:17 doesn’t limit us to only being obedient to teachings on the Bible. I realize many Baptists (at least those of the SBC stripe) chafe at that, but it’s right there as something we are commanded to do.
If the RCC was consistent with this position then they would be obligated to excommunicate 50% to as many as 90% of the members of the entire RCC organization (approximately one billion) people. There wouldn't be much of a RCC church left would there? Few people really side with the RCC leadership on this issue. But they are picking on Aquino for political gain, acting like the Taliban: "Do what I say or I will_______(Kill, excommunicate, kidnap, harm,") you choose. They are thugs. Where is this methodology of spreading Christianity and living the Christian life taught in the Bible. It isn't. It is only practiced in pagan religions that teach fear.
In the law of every civilized jurisdiction in the world there are people called prosecutors, whose responsibility is to bring law breakers to justice. The fact is there are too many law breakers to prosecute them all. If they did, nearly all of us would be in jail for something. So they use a military tactic called economy of force. In order to have maximum effect, they only prosecute the most serious crimes. However, if the wrongdoer is a prominent person, they will often go after him because of the notoriety of such a case. By prosecuting a prominent person, it will serve as an example to many others.
The United States Department of Justice is especially fond of this tactic. The Catholic Church appears to be doing this in the Phillipines. By singling out Aquino, the Catholic Church is simply getting the most bang for the buck, and possibly influencing public policy was well. You can’t call it thugggery unless you want to call every prosecutor in the civilized world a thug.
Moreover, everyone and every institution who cares about public policy tries to influence it. Why do you think people contribute money to candidates running for public office? And as for churches, it isn’t limited to the Catholics. If you want to see democracy down and dirty, you should observe a referendum on the sale of alcohol in the rural South. The Baptists and the Church of Christ people take a very high profile stance against it, even to the point of intimidation. Fighting a local option election is the only time Baptists and Church of Christ members will ever fellowship. But go to one of their strategy planning meetings (and I did a number of years ago) and you will find them as thick as thieves.
I don't believe I have ever voiced my personal opinion on contraceptives, but that is irrelevant
.
Oh, but you have, on Post No. 104 of this thread you said, "I don't advocate fornication. I don't advocate adultery. But
I do advocate the limiting of the spread of AIDS, and all of the accompanying problems. I do advocate a family, even a Christian family having the right to limit the size of their family according to their financial status or ability. Apparently the RCC doesn't believe in that either."
No, that is not true. I have told you before that we have soul liberty in our churches. We have Cals and non-Cals (a big issue among Baptists). We have those who believe in contraceptives and those who don't. We have those who believe in the KJVO stance and those who believe in modern versions. Our church allows for that freedom that our ancestors (the Baptists) fought for more than any other--soul liberty.
Maybe you do. Since I know very little about your church, I can’t really say. But assume that I presented myself for membership and stated that I believe in baptismal regeneration and I don’t believe in eternal security of the believer (both of which are true as to my beliefs), would you admit me to membership? Or better yet, why don't you give targus a straight answer to his inquiries about what your church would do to people who took a stance you probably disagree with?
You have posted lies about Aquino and thus defamed his name and character. You posted lies about the RCC, things that are not true. Why do you persist in this?
How have I defamed Aquino? Please quote me where I did. And you of all people are in no position to accuse anyone of posting lies about the Catholic Church. Your mentality reminds me of the attitude Saul of Tarsus held toward Christians before his conversion. Besides, I am one of the few around here who usually gets it right about doctrines of the Catholic Church.
