The fruits of VII: Who cares what the Church teaches
#11
(07-22-2010, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: Would such an all out attack on the Church's moral teaching from the secular world have been successful (or even possible) in a pre-Conciliar world?

Limiting the number of children to one two in a family in the Western world started in the 19th century, definitely unrelated to the XXI ecumenical council. This was somewhat delayed in the US, but the present status is certainly independent from the council. The reproductive factor has strong correlation with the wealth, and no correlation at all with religion, or religious adherence, except for some extreme minority groups, like the ultraconservative Jews.

Apparently  you believe that the XXII ecumenical council had mythical power to change the word even backward. It had not.
Reply
#12
(07-22-2010, 04:35 PM)glgas Wrote:
(07-22-2010, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: Would such an all out attack on the Church's moral teaching from the secular world have been successful (or even possible) in a pre-Conciliar world?

Limiting the number of children to one two in a family in the Western world started in the 19th century, definitely unrelated to the XXI ecumenical council. This was somewhat delayed in the US, but the present status is certainly independent from the council. The reproductive factor has strong correlation with the wealth, and no correlation at all with religion, or religious adherence, except for some extreme minority groups, like the ultraconservative Jews.

Apparently  you believe that the XXII ecumenical council had mythical power to change the word even backward. It had not.

I'm wondering if you can back any of this up with fact.  I don't think most American families limited their number of children to one or two in the 19th century.  That seems to have been quite uncommon in that time period.  And while it is possible that increased wealth and moving away from farming via the Industrial Revolution might have slightly lowered sexual frequency and thus children, there is no proof or logical reason why the 19th century prosperity magically caused an increase in people saying "to hell with the Church's teachings" and committing sins with impunity (or legalizing them) like straight up contraception and the murdering of the unborn.  Having a few less kids is one thing.  Purposefully going against the teachings of the Church is another.  My point is that the latter, and the massive apostasy that these decisions have gone with, would not be possible without the recent attempt to make the Church more acceptable to Modern Man.
Reply
#13
Walty, I found out from a Chicago History Web Site that the original Mayor Daley was double crossed by the downstate pols. He had certain men of his in the Legislature and when it came to legislating around the pill, Chicago was always exempt. Then they double crossed him and legalized it's sale in Chicago in 1964-1965. I also found that Chicagoans of African descent prior to the legalization had less out of wedlock births than their European descent neighbors. The complication which sent it over the edge was we ran out of jobs for the emigres coming from the south, after reading the Daily Defender published here, to start new lives. As they kept coming and without jobs and the family still down in the south this exploded. Catholics at this time were in lock step with mayor Daley. Chicago was very Catholic then, but further defined by nationalities, neighborhoods and Churches.  Many thought him a phony but no one could out Catholic Da Mayor. All the major channels covered him at Sunday mass, stations of the cross, first communions, confirmations, funerals, and his example led all the other Catholic pols to try to have them and their families covered at their respective Churches. No matter if you were caught with your fingers in the till, you practiced Catholicism. One might say they were insincere but objectively speaking they set the example. It is curious to note the coincidence of the 1964-1965 pill legalization and the Mass of Paul VI of the same time. This is why I see this as a pincer movement of the Adversary. Then follows the NY state push to legalize abortion which ends in Roe v Wade, Teddys theologian's excuses and Patrick Moynihan abandonment of morals, and it only serves to fuel my tin foil hat brain.
tim
ps This is about Chicago, other cities have other stories but I'd bet there are similarities nation wide.
Reply
#14
Walty, I forgot to work this in, but this is way important, mea culpa. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae was released in 1968. The entire Church was primed and waiting. The forces of evil had spread abroad that Pope Paul VI would probably liberalize the teaching. To say it was much anticipated is understatement. Around it swirled the beginning of the world over population hoax and the eventual starving of the entire third world, all of India, China, Latin America (old term),everyone behind the Iron Curtain at the hands of the godless commies. You get the idea it was tense and it was propaganda to the max. So when it was not the liberalization as expected the rest with Teddy's theologians and Patrick Moynihan followed. An anecdote is another Catholic Politician Intellectual Mario Cuomo was in NY and he provided cover for disobedience from Thomas Aquinas which made him sound way smart to the average joe. When this is all added together I can see how it wasn't human intellect behind this it was praeternatural. We ain't that smart to bring all of these disparate motions to come to bear in a suceeding blows like this. My motto "God severely  limited our intelligence after the fall but He put no restrictions whatsoever on our stupidity."
tim
Reply
#15
(07-22-2010, 04:44 PM)Walty Wrote:
(07-22-2010, 04:35 PM)glgas Wrote:
(07-22-2010, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: Would such an all out attack on the Church's moral teaching from the secular world have been successful (or even possible) in a pre-Conciliar world?

Limiting the number of children to one two in a family in the Western world started in the 19th century, definitely unrelated to the XXI ecumenical council. This was somewhat delayed in the US, but the present status is certainly independent from the council. The reproductive factor has strong correlation with the wealth, and no correlation at all with religion, or religious adherence, except for some extreme minority groups, like the ultraconservative Jews.

Apparently  you believe that the XXII ecumenical council had mythical power to change the word even backward. It had not.

I'm wondering if you can back any of this up with fact.  I don't think most American families limited their number of children to one or two in the 19th century. 

Gassy's right on this the population control started in the late 19th century. I had to do a paper for it in school.The thing is though it  usually involved in eugenics How to create the perfect man and how to make blacks be born white".It was really weird and then it all sorta came to a head with the Nazi's and Obama.
Reply
#16
I understand the history behind population control. My point is that it shouldn't have ever become an internal struggle within the Church. The seaping in of heresy which allowed for theologians and prelates to dissent from traditional morality and strict adherence to both tradition and authority is, in my opinion, a direct result of the opening of the gates of the Church, so to speak, to modern thought.
Reply
#17
You're absolutely right. It's just that the Adversary was ready and waiting to pounce. The opening of the aggiornamento let it slip in to the Church. What I see is a plan with a lot of moving parts orchestrated by a superior mind. In other words not happenstance. Which is why I believe we can not fix this with normal human action. And I like to write little paragraphs for those browsing.
tim
Reply
#18
(07-22-2010, 08:24 PM)Walty Wrote: I understand the history behind population control. My point is that it shouldn't have ever become an internal struggle within the Church. The seaping in of heresy which allowed for theologians and prelates to dissent from traditional morality and strict adherence to both tradition and authority is, in my opinion, a direct result of the opening of the gates of the Church, so to speak, to modern thought.

For sure.
Reply
#19
(07-22-2010, 08:24 PM)Walty Wrote: I understand the history behind population control. My point is that it shouldn't have ever become an internal struggle within the Church. The seaping in of heresy which allowed for theologians and prelates to dissent from traditional morality and strict adherence to both tradition and authority is, in my opinion, a direct result of the opening of the gates of the Church, so to speak, to modern thought.

Naturaly the truth as always is complex, and between dialectic opposites.

In the winter of 1942-1943 over 2 million German troops died, because Hitler forced them to stay until the last man, in their posts. The generals wanted to retreat and save their people, calling that the reality requires compromises.  Hitler did not let them.

You are right that there was no internal struggle whithin the Church about the sexual issues. Until the 17th Century the Catholics where quite lenient, like the Old Testament suggest, and the protestants were significantly more strict about the sexuality. Then the protestants get laxer and the Catholics stricter, but nobody questioned it, becose every drop of seed was necessary for the survival of the humanity.

By the end of the 19th cnetury the basic principle (every drop of seed is necessary for the survival) changed; but the Church kept the prescriptive moral unchanged in the significantly different environment, and what was really wrong, w/o emphasizing the primary goal, the at least three children per Catholic families, and to keep together the family for the interest of the children.

We had to face the fact that the Catholics left the Church not due to the New Mass, most of them did not even noticed the change, but to the rules which required heroism  just for the shake of the rules, w/o any goal. The heroism itself is nothing, God expect goals; the valued procreation, keeping the family together
Reply
#20
Laszlo said;

"You are right that there was no internal struggle whithin the Church about the sexual issues. Until the 17th Century the Catholics where quite lenient, like the Old Testament suggest, and the protestants were significantly more strict about the sexuality. Then the protestants get laxer and the Catholics stricter, but nobody questioned it, becose every drop of seed was necessary for the survival of the humanity. "

Could you expand on the leniency in the Church toward sexual sins ? I don't recall being told about this. I helped my nephew when he was in college and on some source material written by a feminist  she explained that the Church changed fornication from a venial sin to a mortal, where she then launched into her skewed vision of the subject. I checked and found no such thing, and warned my nephew she was dead wrong about it being venial.. So, I'm concerned that I was mistaken.
tim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)