Here's A Bomb

[Socrates]

where is this Church that goes "on and on" about homosexuality and gay sex / premarital sex / contraception/ second marriage, etc.??? what part of the world do you live in that this what you hear from the Church day in and day out? 

 

you know what I think? I think the Church doesn't go on and on about this stuff, but its THIS STUFF that contradicts the world, that rubs the world the wrong way --- and that's why the world is hyper focused on these issues.  Am I getting that idea across? It's not the Church that's obsessed. Its the world that's obsessed with the fact that the Church refuses to go along with the times on these issues. 

 

THIS.

 

In most parishes (at least in the U.S.) "controversial" sexual sins are never even mentioned from the altar.

And I don't think anyone can honestly say that even the "ultraconservative" Pope Benedict "went on and on" about these issues to the exclusion of all else.

 

It's the world that's unduly obsessed, not the Church.

 

Yes, I think it's fair to say the media only portrays the Catholic church through the prism of certain moral questions. They only go after the issues that are, in this threads words, a bomb. But I also don't see the church declining to talk to them about those things in favour of something else. I don't know about anyone else but I've lost count on the prayer cards, clergy notices, petitions, talks, conferences, newsletter releases, prayer pleas, commentary and 'Where we stand on . . ' leaflets I've seen on these issues over the years. Lets say it's a lot. That's not even getting to the secular media, the Vatican, this latest synod, and the influence Bishops try to exert on the media and politicians regarding these issues.

Maybe these issues also keep coming up because the power the church has over policy (usually around sex somehow) in some countries leads to people being upset and disaffected (accusations such moral precepts cause more discrimination, reduced rights, ignorance and deaths). Maybe the media just doesn't get how a group could still hold to such views on sex and relationship issues. I'd be surprised if I've ever seen an invited speaker, repeating Catholic news story or petition about something other than the usual hot potatoes. To say 'it's all the world, not us' is fairly amusing to me. It takes two to tango, and the church isn't exactly a passive partner. Great selective commentary by the way. :flex2:

 

 

I honestly get the impression that people of your ilk will only be happy if the Church shuts up about sexual morality altogether.

 

Since these issues have become political hot-topics with the press for civil "gay marriage" and such (something the Church certainly didn't start), they will be objects of media attention.  If the Church/orthodox Catholics remain completely silent, people will only hear the propaganda of "the other side."

 

It's also ironic how you and others sure spend a lot of time posting and "going on and on" about these issues, and how the Church needs to talk less about them.  Physician, heal thyself.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Socrates

[Benedictus]

I honestly get the impression that people of your ilk will only be happy if the Church shuts up about sexual morality altogether.

 

No, not shut up. But the church should also move other issues up the priority list. It might get some positive attention and be taken more seriously by a wider group of people. 

What about the church facing the critical pressing issues, such as the environment and food sustainability, growing populations, protecting children & the vulnerable, safeguarding global community, health care, tackling political and religious extremism etc. Where's the synod on any of that? Instead we have Cardinals talking about how the latest synod meeting keeps them awake at night because it's talking about the challenges of divorce and same sex unions :crazy: Meh, more abstract moralizing hoop jumping.  The church should be saying more on what values, ideas and solutions the church offers to the table on critical life and death issues for the world.

Very often people have the impression the teachings of the church make matters worse to those in the poorest and most challenged places. What's being done to tackle that? Where's the updates, media, commentary, and proof the church is with the people? The poorest people hear the church is against their liberation, partly as it has denounced liberation theology and all political attempts to free themselves. 

Many people don't see the church doing anything for them.  That's, at least in part, why they ditch Catholicism and go to evangelical churches who tell them God can change things, including the system.  In the poorest areas of Brazil, where I've been anyway, the people will tell you the Catholic church is not helping them practically follow its teachings on sexual morality. It's a pipe dream in these places. The issues why they don't, even if they wanted to, comes back to poverty, hunger, poor living conditions, disease and death. Then people wonder, and then complain at the moral woes, when people use contraception, have abortions, commit crime, and want to kill themselves when they can't care for themselves in these places. What's the church debating? Same sex unions, irregular families and divorced Catholics!
 

 

 

Since these issues have become political hot-topics with the press for civil "gay marriage" and such (something the Church certainly didn't start), they will be objects of media attention.  If the Church/orthodox Catholics remain completely silent, people will only hear the propaganda of "the other side."

There are many conservative churches who don't have a bad reputation in the public discourse and or with the media. Muslims and Orthodox Jews, and other conservative groups, don't feel the need to shout or deal with the media in the same way the Catholic church does. They do better as a result of stepping back. 

If you want to dance with the devil then you can't complain if he doesn't let the music stop! If you play with the media for gain (or attention) then you should also expect a chase when it's less convenient. They don't do half measures. If the church seems to influence policy that impacts a nation, where the majority aren't in agreement (or even Catholic), then you should also expect a reaction. There is a time and place to advance a message. It doesn't always need the mainstream media.
 

 

It's also ironic how you and others sure spend a lot of time posting and "going on and on" about these issues, and how the Church needs to talk less about them.  Physician, heal thyself.

I don't think I've ever started a thread on these issues :blues: Deflection doesn't amount to much. It's important to speak out against the perceived imbalances, ignorance and hypocrisy of some of the stuff commented on, or released out of, official and unofficial channels. I don't spend 'alot of time'. It's as long as a post is, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things. You probably spend more time screaming at the daily newspaper, in all the wrong places!

 

Edited November 5, 2014 by Benedictus

[Socrates]

No, not shut up. But the church should also move other issues up the priority list. It might get some positive attention and be taken more seriously by a wider group of people. 

What about the church facing the critical pressing issues, such as the environment and food sustainability, growing populations, protecting children & the vulnerable, safeguarding global community, health care, tackling political and religious extremism etc. Where's the synod on any of that? Instead we have Cardinals talking about how the latest synod meeting keeps them awake at night because it's talking about the challenges of divorce and same sex unions :crazy: Meh, more abstract moralizing hoop jumping.  The church should be saying more on what values, ideas and solutions the church offers to the table on critical life and death issues for the world.

Very often people have the impression the teachings of the church make matters worse to those in the poorest and most challenged places. What's being done to tackle that? Where's the updates, media, commentary, and proof the church is with the people? The poorest people hear the church is against their liberation, partly as it has denounced liberation theology and all political attempts to free themselves. 

Many people don't see the church doing anything for them.  That's, at least in part, why they ditch Catholicism and go to evangelical churches who tell them God can change things, including the system.  In the poorest areas of Brazil, where I've been anyway, the people will tell you the Catholic church is not helping them practically follow its teachings on sexual morality. It's a pipe dream in these places. The issues why they don't, even if they wanted to, comes back to poverty, hunger, poor living conditions, disease and death. Then people wonder, and then complain at the moral woes, when people use contraception, have abortions, commit crime, and want to kill themselves when they can't care for themselves in these places. What's the church debating? Same sex unions, irregular families and divorced Catholics!

 

Okay, I'm starting to really wonder what bizzaro alternative universe you post from.

 

The reality is that the Church speaks out a lot on social justice issues and poverty, as well as conducts and sponsors numerous charitable programs to help the poor and suffering, on everything from international relief efforts to the local parish level.

 

All of the modern popes have written and spoken far, far more about social justice and helping the poor than they have about sexual sin.  And that includes the "ultraconservative" Benedict XVI.  Bishops and priests have also been heavily involved in charitable efforts, and drives to raise money for the less fortunate.  And that's true even in the conservative parishes I've belonged to.

 

Maybe you need to put down your copy of America for a bit, and actually read the encyclicals of the Holy Fathers before you continue railing about how the Church doesn't care about the plight of the poor.

 

The Catholic Church actually does more actively to help the poor than any other single religious body.  This is not to encourage complacency, or to suggest we can't all give more, but to claim that the Church neglects the poor and social justice in order to focus on sexual issues is just plain false.

I'm sure the Church could find ways to be more effective at aiding the poor and evangelization, but the problem's not the Church's moral teaching.

The Church is growing most rapidly in impoverished Africa, and the African Church is quite "conservative" on moral issues such as homosexuality.

 

(As I don't share your leftist ideology, I'm sure we disagree on how these issues are best handled at the political/economic level, but that's another debate.)

 

 I also tend to think the current so-called Synod on the Family is neither necessary nor prudent, but for different reasons than you.  But it's wrong to act as though this synod is the be-all and end-all of modern Church activity.  Besides, it wasn't called for by "conservative Catholics."

 

 

There are many conservative churches who don't have a bad reputation in the public discourse and or with the media. Muslims and Orthodox Jews, and other conservative groups, don't feel the need to shout or deal with the media in the same way the Catholic church does. They do better as a result of stepping back. 

If you want to dance with the devil then you can't complain if he doesn't let the music stop! If you play with the media for gain (or attention) then you should also expect a chase when it's less convenient. They don't do half measures. If the church seems to influence policy that impacts a nation, where the majority aren't in agreement (or even Catholic), then you should also expect a reaction. There is a time and place to advance a message. It doesn't always need the mainstream media.

 

 

You've got to be kidding me, right?  Muslims are an example for Catholics of effective public discourse to the world??

 

Muslims may blow up buildings full of "infidels," behead Christian children who refuse to convert, rape and murder women who won't convert, and engage in many acts of violence and terror in many parts of the world against their religious enemies, but heck, at least they don't do anything really offensive, like call homosexuality "disordered"!  (They just stone homosexuals to death.)

 

(And yes, I'm aware that not all Muslims engage in or support such barbarism, but these are the things done in the name of Islam that are making news headlines around the world today, and are too large in scale to be dismissed as only a negligible fringe.)  

My point is that to insinuate that Muslims present a kinder, gentler face to the world than Catholics is beyond ridiculous.

 

And yes, it's more pc and "cool" for those in the secular liberal media to bash Catholicism than Islam (in part, because it's a safer target).

But if western liberals are truly more offended by the Church's opposition to "gay marriage" than by Muslim murder and mayhem, the problem's with their own sick outlook, not the Church.

 

And much as I respect Orthodox Jews, they're largely an insular group not much known for evangelization, with minimal impact on the outside world.  The Christian Faith, by contrast, is evangelical, with Christ commanding His Apostles to "go and make disciples of all nations."

 

And, no, I'm not shocked by the behavior of the liberal media and world.

Christ's message was hardly popular with everyone, and was distorted by His enemies, and led to Him eventually being nailed to a cross, as well as the martyrdom of many of His disciples.

You seem to want a "non-controversial" Church universally loved by the world.

But such a Church would not be following its Founder.

 

 

I don't think I've ever started a thread on these issues  :blues: Deflection doesn't amount to much. It's important to speak out against the perceived imbalances, ignorance and hypocrisy of some of the stuff commented on, or released out of, official and unofficial channels. I don't spend 'alot of time'. It's as long as a post is, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things. You probably spend more time screaming at the daily newspaper, in all the wrong places!

 

 

I don't subscribe to a newspaper, or really waste much time with the liberal media, but whatever.

 

My point is you and others who complain about how Catholics talk to much about sexual morality, seem to spend as much time on here posting about sexual issues as anyone else, rather than on other things you apparently think are more worth our while.

[Benedictus]

 

The reality is that the Church speaks out a lot on social justice issues and poverty, as well as conducts and sponsors numerous charitable programs to help the poor and suffering, on everything from international relief efforts to the local parish level.

 

I said it's a priority issues, not a matter of the church never speaking or encouraging charitable work.

 

 

All of the modern popes have written and spoken far, far more about social justice and helping the poor than they have about sexual sin.  And that includes the "ultraconservative" Benedict XVI.  Bishops and priests have also been heavily involved in charitable efforts, and drives to raise money for the less fortunate.  And that's true even in the conservative parishes I've belonged to.

Maybe you need to put down your copy of America for a bit, and actually read the encyclicals of the Holy Fathers before you continue railing about how the Church doesn't care about the plight of the poor.

The Catholic Church actually does more actively to help the poor than any other single religious body.  This is not to encourage complacency, or to suggest we can't all give more, but to claim that the Church neglects the poor and social justice in order to focus on sexual issues is just plain false.

 

 

 

Benedict wasn't overly politically conservative. I didn't view him as ultraconservative either on other matters, but the labels vary and only go so far. My view is that the church doesn't apply the same political pressure it applies in other areas. Speaking and releasing statements on the 'plight of the poor' is one thing. Pushing for those words to hit the ground running in terms of tackling the systemic and global problems is another. This can't be solved by feeling bad for the poor and giving some money to charity, it needs mobilisation. If the church pushed to implement a global strategy then we'd see some of these root and nail problems being dealt with.

The world has a sizeable Catholic population, if each and every practising Catholic was working to the full on these issues (with church support, sanction and resources) we'd see changes. But, as yet, we don't. I know many Catholics are trying, especially in developing nations. Many priests have also found little support when they tackle economic reform or try to move Catholics to action, being accused of theological liberation heresies, mixing religion with politics and making things difficult for the church with certain governments and so on.
 

Right. Of course the church, and many individuals, have played a positive role. When I say 'church', I'm being general, because most of the work that is done is off the back of religious orders, priests and others who take the initative to do something (usually on their own steam and finances). However, some have the view that the influence the church has had in poor and developing places has done some long term damage.

 

I'm sure the Church could find ways to be more effective at aiding the poor and evangelization, but the problem's not the Church's moral teaching.

The Church is growing most rapidly in impoverished Africa, and the African Church is quite "conservative" on moral issues such as homosexuality.

 

 

 

Yes, one impacts the other. One doesn't totally cause the other. But there is a difference in how these are dealt with and advanced. The moral teachings do have an impact on the poor, unless you think the teachings on contraception, as an example, have no implications for the poor. The involvement of the church in education and health has another  impact on this. It shapes what will be deemed good enough for 'the needy' and the limits are set on what is morally good for others, when they have little power over the choices that are made for them. The church only has this challenged when people have been liberated from economic dependence and political influence, and it is at pains to cope with it when it does (and holds on for as long as it can).

It could be said that a poor nation that isn't developed is more useful to the church than a rich one who ignores it. The church has to challenge the perception, or what some see as the reality, that there is a power dynamic to keep people poor (whilst forever saying the opposite, and using Catholic NGO's to maintain a foothold in those areas).
 

This continent is generally bigger and more populated. It makes sense that as a whole host of countries go through a series of development that this will be matched by changes in their religious identity. It happened with Europe, America and other colonial places in their time. Things change at different rates. The challenge, and friction, of our modern era is globalization. It brings people together who are at different stages and, who in the past, wouldn't have been confronted with global variance and difference. The issue is: how can the church challenge the world to deal with global developmental issues, without causing more and more conflict and anxiety (or injustice).

Did the African countries come to aninformed decision about their faith adoption in the first place? No it was imported by colonial masters and clerical missionaries. They still hold, in large parts, a theology that was left by those evangelists. The damage some have done is for others to write books about. But education is a major problem now, as is healthcare. So is the exploitation of them on an ongoing basis by the West, American corporates included. When people are dying, uneducated and superstitious they tend to find fundamentalist notions appealing. When people have zero and need hope it's no wonder such views help them get through. But getting angry and demanding reform would be the best long term strategy many could have, especially for their children. Will the church help on that? I guess we'll have to go figure.
 

 

(As I don't share your leftist ideology, I'm sure we disagree on how these issues are best handled at the political/economic level, but that's another debate.)

 

You're right - I want reforms. If I remember correctly, you wanted Capitalism (staus quo) where existing power brokers and corporates trickle money down to the poor they 'help' (whilst using them and draining their countries dry of resources). .
 

 

 

I also tend to think the current so-called Synod on the Family is neither necessary nor prudent, but for different reasons than you.  But it's wrong to act as though this synod is the be-all and end-all of modern Church activity.  Besides, it wasn't called for by "conservative Catholics."

 

It was called by the Pope, wasn't it? He was praying and discerning the holy spirit with all the needs of the people of the church. Leadership, right? :shutup: Well, whetehr it's needed or not. It is definately an over indulgent synod, especially from the view of those who live on less than a dollar a day and see no synods on anything relevant to their pressing context. It seems the Pope 'gets it' more than some obviously do, but should he should maybe know better coming from a country like Argentina. Maybe he has more up his sleeve yet to come. Although I suspect,  that he may think if you mend 'the family' issues then all other economic and political problems go away. It's part of the myth in some places. That would be a mistake. But lets see.
 

 

 

You've got to be kidding me, right?  Muslims are an example for Catholics of effective public discourse to the world??

 

Muslims may blow up buildings full of "infidels," behead Christian children who refuse to convert, rape and murder women who won't convert, and engage in many acts of violence and terror in many parts of the world against their religious enemies, but heck, at least they don't do anything really offensive, like call homosexuality "disordered"!  (They just stone homosexuals to death.)

(And yes, I'm aware that not all Muslims engage in or support such barbarism, but these are the things done in the name of Islam that are making news headlines around the world today, and are too large in scale to be dismissed as only a negligible fringe.)

My point is that to insinuate that Muslims present a kinder, gentler face to the world than Catholics is beyond ridiculous.
 

 

 

Wow, you don't like to stereotype much do you? Well, there must be a few billion Muslims in the world. They aren't all thinking and doing those things. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Political issues have a lot to do with why many of those countries, with large Muslim populations, are hacked off with certain western powers. Exremists come out of the shadows (and gain power) when real life issues aren't handled correctly (political, religious and economic instability) and or injustices occur and nobody listens or cares. Many of the countries now facing problems didn't have these exact problems 20 years ago. The whole area was destablized by western influences, be it to get oil, get trade deals, remove a regime or replace a leader. A conflict is rarely a one sided crusade. There should be more reflection at why people react, and act, as they do. Does this land at the feet of Islam? I'm no fan, and some of it's interpretations are dire. But I'd say that about some aspects of Christianity as well, past and present.  But it's a distraction to blame religion and ignore the other factors going on in those regions. Religion is a secondary factor that marks out the lines of resentment more clearly.

 

Do Muslims present that to the media, or do western people portray that image? I'm sure you feel more warm about your Muslims neighbours who may live and work in your neighbourhood. Oh, maybe not! Anyway, my point was that Islam (and others) doesn't use the media to advance it's religious objectives in the same way the Catholic church does, who then complains about it when the media comes back for more.

You've decided to go to long measures to drag 'Muslims' through the dirt to paint the Catholic church as better, missing the whole point. Just ebcause I said Muslim doesn't mean a whole rant on the evils of Islam is necessary. That's up to you, but not the game I'm interested in playing. I wasn't making the point Islam is a good or desirable religion. I wasn't saying all Muslims are good or that all countries, who have Muslim majorities, are great places to live. :shocking:
 

 

 

And yes, it's more pc and "cool" for those in the secular liberal media to bash Catholicism than Islam (in part, because it's a safer target).

But if western liberals are truly more offended by the Church's opposition to "gay marriage" than by Muslim murder and mayhem, the problem's with their own sick outlook, not the Church.
And much as I respect Orthodox Jews, they're largely an insular group not much known for evangelization, with minimal impact on the outside world.  The Christian Faith, by contrast, is evangelical, with Christ commanding His Apostles to "go and make disciples of all nations."

 

 

:| Western media isn't a shrinking violet. They report on the horrors all the time. They pick on Catholciism because it's connected to Western culture, more than some other religions are. They also have lots of examples, because the church gives them and provides interviews (and press releases) about what it wants tosay, what it wants to influence, stop , alter or change. They will then comment on it, and as many aren't interested in the church (and a large segement of the public agree) they will tell it to get lost or back off. If the church wants to be in the middle of political and media controversy then it shouldn't complain when something gets written against its position. It should change tactic and gear if it wants to remain relevant. Less big guns and more work on the ground to grow disciples. They have their heads either in the clouds or think they're in a past era a lot of the time. Need to face facts a bit more, things have changed. Stop crying about it.
 

It's not a debate about the merits of each religious example. You're distorting the point. Plus, they don't convert so much now because of historical persecution (by Christians and others). They aren't as influential or present in the US. But they are in other places.

 

 

And, no, I'm not shocked by the behavior of the liberal media and world.

Christ's message was hardly popular with everyone, and was distorted by His enemies, and led to Him eventually being nailed to a cross, as well as the martyrdom of many of His disciples.

You seem to want a "non-controversial" Church universally loved by the world.

But such a Church would not be following its Founder.
 

 

I don't subscribe to a newspaper, or really waste much time with the liberal media, but whatever.

 

 

I don't think the media is great, liberal or not. It makes no difference. You should maybe give up assuming your opinions 'know' what others want. I want a controversial church for better reasons than you'd give me credit. You're better off sticking to what's written, extrapolation isn't working out well for you.
 

In terms of the newspapers, sarcasm was lost. I don't read America either, not on my side of the universe

 

 

 

My point is you and others who complain about how Catholics talk to much about sexual morality, seem to spend as much time on here posting about sexual issues as anyone else, rather than on other things you apparently think are more worth our while.

 

is that really your point? It's a bit lame. Blame the people who create the threads on sexual morality issues so often then, not the people saying something contrary to lots of the stuff that passes for props on here. If something needs saying, then I 'll have a go at it.
If you remember correctly there were posts on here about political philosophy, economic poverty and so on (plus other stuff). You spent all your time telling everyone it was Gods desire  and the church (because you know), to support a prime Capitalist setup and how any talk of change was leftist, communist and liberation theology heresy. Yeah, that all went well.

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Benedictus

[Lilllabettt]

Did the African countries come to an informed decision about their faith adoption in the first place? No it was imported by colonial masters and clerical missionaries. They still hold, in large parts, a theology that was left by those evangelists. [...] When people are dying, uneducated and superstitious they tend to find fundamentalist notions appealing. When people have zero and need hope it's no wonder such views help them get through. 

 

 

Are you a patronizing white male by any chance? 

 

Cardinal Kasper is that you?

[Credo in Deum]

 

 

Did the African countries come to aninformed decision about their faith adoption in the first place? No it was imported by colonial masters and clerical missionaries. They still hold, in large parts, a theology that was left by those evangelists. The damage some have done is for others to write books about. But education is a major problem now, as is healthcare. So is the exploitation of them on an ongoing basis by the West, American corporates included. When people are dying, uneducated and superstitious they tend to find fundamentalist notions appealing. When people have zero and need hope it's no wonder such views help them get through. But getting angry and demanding reform would be the best long term strategy many could have, especially for their children. Will the church help on that? I guess we'll have to go figure.

 

 

You mean colonial masters like the Apostle St. Mark?

[Amppax]

You mean colonial masters like the Apostle St. Mark?

 

Well, I think the reference is more to sub-Saharan Africa. But in that case, you could still refer to the deacon Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Clearly colonial oppressors. 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Amppax

[Benedictus]

Are you a patronizing white male by any chance? 

 

Cardinal Kasper is that you?

 

Trust you Lillabett. :troll:
 

[ardillacid]

...Saint Thomas More is speaking to the man whom wants to marry his daughter,...

who

[Socrates]

Are you a patronizing white male by any chance? 

 

Cardinal Kasper is that you?

 

Yeah, that buncha ignorant, superstitious African jungle primitives doesn't know what's best for them.  They're clearly in need of an enlightened white Englishman to teach them the path to salvation through gay ritez and leftist politics.

 

 

. . . When people are dying, uneducated and superstitious they tend to find fundamentalist notions appealing. . . .

 

 

Would you be referring to "fundamentalist notions" like those taught by the Church since the 1st century, and published in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

[Benedictus]

Yeah, that buncha ignorant, superstitious African jungle primitives doesn't know what's best for them.  They're clearly in need of an enlightened white Englishman to teach them the path to salvation through gay ritez and leftist politics.

 

Divert and deflect. I thought that was a tactic of the media spin you dislike so much. Maybe you just haven't anything to contribute. I haven't pointed out anything that hasn't already been commented on plenty of times elsewhere. There's a whole field on post colonial theology and theory.

Go after the issues if you like, but you have a habit of throwing assumptive labels around. Your points might seem more weighty if you stopped making bloopers. FYI -  I don't identify as English. I'm not sure why I would or why it's relevant.  Not all Europeans are white -  I'm not. I don't identify as leftist, liberal or conservative either.
 

Would you be referring to "fundamentalist notions" like those taught by the Church since the 1st century, and published in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

No, not really. I'm talking of fundamentalism, as mostly a trend since the end of the 19th century. Although some other ideas were fundamental before that (by and large), but are no longer accepted.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Benedictus

[KnightofChrist]

Lilllabettt set up us the bomb.

[Socrates]

Divert and deflect. I thought that was a tactic of the media spin you dislike so much. Maybe you just haven't anything to contribute. I haven't pointed out anything that hasn't already been commented on plenty of times elsewhere. There's a whole field on post colonial theology and theory.

Go after the issues if you like, but you have a habit of throwing assumptive labels around. Your points might seem more weighty if you stopped making bloopers. FYI -  I don't identify as English. I'm not sure why I would or why it's relevant.  Not all Europeans are white -  I'm not. I don't identify as leftist, liberal or conservative either.

 

My apologies for being mistaken about your nationality/color.  (I had the impression from one of your posts I read that you were English, but perhaps I was wrong.)

 

However, my main point still stands, as does your condescending and dismissive attitude towards African Catholics.

 

And whatever you call yourself, the socialistic ideology you repeatedly spout on here certainly sounds leftist to me (or at very least left-wing).  But it sounds now like you're just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.

 

 

No, not really. I'm talking of fundamentalism, as mostly a trend since the end of the 19th century. Although some other ideas were fundamental before that (by and large), but are no longer accepted.

 

 

Yes, properly speaking "fundamentalist" refers to a particular school of Protestantism which started in the 19th century (despite being now used as a broad slur which usually means no more than "religious people I don't agree with").  

However, I was specifically talking about Catholics, and specifically about Catholic teachings on sexual morality (which are not a 19th century invention, but have always, and still are, part of Catholic moral teaching.)

 

If this is not what you were talking about, perhaps you could clarify as to exactly what "fundamentalist notions" you were referring to.

 

In any case, this sounds like a different tune from your original contention that Catholic teachings on sexual morality were somehow preventing the spread of the Faith in poor countries.  It's more wealthy, decadent cultures that have such a huge issue with such moral teachings.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Socrates

[veritasluxmea]

It's more wealthy, decadent cultures that have such a huge issue with such moral teachings.

When ever people start talking about WASP culture problems and African problems, I'm always reminded of this article. 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

 

 

Barry and Bonnie Hewlett had been studying the Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa for many years before they began to specifically study the groups' sexuality. As they reported in the journal African Study Monographs, the married couple of anthropologists from Washington State University "decided to systematically study sexual behavior after several campfire discussions with married middle-aged Aka men who mentioned in passing that they had sex three or four times during the night. At first [they] thought it was just men telling their stories, but we talked to women and they verified the men's assertions."

In turning to a dedicated study of sex practices, the Hewletts formally confirmed that the campfire stories were no mere fish tales. Married Aka and Ngandu men and women consistently reported having sex multiple times in a single night. But in the process of verifying this, the Hewletts also incidentally found that homosexuality and masturbation appeared to be foreign to both groups.