DHK,
Thanks for the response. It is heartening to know that I'm not just left here waiting.
You said: Perhaps. I made one or two posts and then you answered with a full page of posts which I didn't want to take the time or energy to go through. If you are going to devote so much time to one point then take one point at a time.
A response: What's more important than the number of times you posted is the nature and content of your posts. They were, as I said above, what I'd describe as presented in a "shotgun" format. You brought up a host of issues. I didn't. If you didn't want me, a new party here at this forum, to respond to each point, at least briefly, other than for rhetorical effect, I wonder why you presented so many assertions only to tell me to "take one point at a time." For my part, I would have been happy to address things point for point.
You continued: For example, concerning birth control or contraception, it seems apparent that Pope Francis changed the church's position which would be a change in doctrine.
A response: It is understandable that it would seem to you that Pope Francis has changed the Church's position. The conversation you're referring to (concerning Zika and contraception) was indeed confusing and fraught with ambiguities. But what is really the case and what "seems" to be the case are often quite different things. A number of prominent moral theologians chimed in shortly after those remarks were published and expressed some confusion. First of all, though, regardless of the conversational ambiguities that come about as an extemporaneous interview is translated and presented by a biased media, the Pope cannot "change" Church doctrine in such a manner. The conditions which must be met for a Pope's teaching to be understood as binding are quite specific and well-defined. Further, as far as settled dogmatic teaching goes, Pope's do not have the authority, even if they tried to, to change teachings of that nature.
You continued: But this isn't the first time. Changes in doctrine are not new with the RCC.
A response: You have stated a number of times now, the notion that Catholic doctrines have changed. In the Church, the idea of the development of doctrine is certainly held. The notion of the moral law changing, however, is something that is rejected heartily in the Catholic Church. If you're not speaking of "development," though, and actually are making the claim that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teaching, I'd ask for just one example of such a change, please.
You also said: It makes changes to fit in with other nations and societies whenever it deems it is necessary. I saw that on the missionfield.
A response: Could you please give me, again, just one example of a *doctrinal* change being made as the Church seeks to "fit in with other nations and societies"? Again, just one example of such a "change" would be interesting to look into.
You also said: I see here in Canada as Catholic priests work hand in hand with the native people blessing the water of a lake nearby hereby. The priest prays and the chief prays to his god. The water of the lake is now blessed by both gods, and supposedly has supernatural healing powers.
A response: Again, you're bringing numerous topics up. If you'd like me to respond to only one thing, I'd be more than happy to do so. However, as long as you raise different topics, in the interest of truth-seeking, I'll take the time to respond, no matter the sacrifice. In the case of a priest blessing the water of a lake, do you object on Biblical or rational grounds for a priest doing such a thing? If so, why? Secondly, the fact that a "chief" or other indigenous elder prays to his "god" hasn't a thing to do with what the Catholic priest is doing. For the Catholic priest believes in Christ and prays to the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the native chief prays to some sort of "Great Spirit." Catholic evangelists have had to work alongside the native groups across the world as they've attempted to convert the Nations. The fact that a Catholic priest or a community of evangelists patiently stands by while a chief prays to his traditional deity isn't a mark against the Catholics, is it? If so, why? Finally, the water of the lake is not "blessed by both gods" and Catholics know that. Why? Because there is one God. If that one God blessed the lake, it's indeed blessed. Further, as far as supernatural healing powers go, I am concerned with actual doctrines of the Church. I am talking about things a person could read in the Catechism. If your point is simply to say that there are superstitious, syncretist communities around the world, well, I won't argue against that claim. I'll agree. These superstitious matters, though, where they appear, far from representing Church doctrines, are things the Church strives to address and prevent from spreading.
You continued: Thousands of people come here, deceived into thinking that wading into the waters of this lake will heal them. Do they really get healed? I doubt it?
A response: Again, in judging these crowds of people, some maybe desperate, some maybe superstitious, some maybe ignorant, some maybe well-informed, you're not speaking directly to Catholic doctrine.
You continued: Back to the topic.
Here is an article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/catholic-church-vatican-bishops-birth-control
A response: It's interesting that you phrased your comment in that manner, as if "contraception came to be banned." Your phrasing implies it was once accepted and then only later came to be banned. In truth, it was held to be immoral universally among Christians. One by one the "Mainline denominations" have compromised Christian moral principles and accepted it. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church holds fast to the truths of Christ, however. It's interesting, also, that you appeal to, of all people, an outspoken opponent of Catholic teaching and an aggressive proponent of abortion. Is this author really a trustworthy source?
You closed with this: It goes through some history how contraception came to be banned today. If the Pope changed it then it was a change in doctrine, not that its position hadn't been changed before. Nothing is new.
A response: The article was quite worthless, really. It presented nothing revelatory or in the least insightful for those of us who know what it is we believe and why we believe it. Faithful Christians strive to learn the faith from those who uphold it authentically, not those who devote their lives to tearing it down. Finally, you've repeated your assertion once again, namely, that the Church's position has changed before. Once again, if this alleged doctrinal change has occurred as frequently as you maintain, it should be quite easy for you to present to me just one case of a change in Church doctrine. For example, you could share with me something like "The Church once taught X" (and provide citations) and follow that up with another statement such as "Then the Church came to teach not-X" (and provide citations).
Thanks again, DHK, for your response.
In Him,
Herbert VanderLugt
