My conversation was mostly about books and movies and minding one's own business. "Top Jesuits" are completely not my problem.
Thanks for playing, though.
I guess it may have been better to introduce the information along lines of possibility of being able to better understand others, with this being applicable in this context, first to Catholics understanding others Catholics, then possibly onwards from there.
My own editing of the sources is not what is important in that regard...but the links to the three different articles, all written by highly regarded Jesuits, one in '68, one '93, and the last in 2008, do indicate the subject matter is not going away. Those articles, taken all together, can be informative, with each supporting one another to a large extent, particularly as to factions now within the RCC.
As one of the men noted...the lack of there being much in the way of open discussion also brought with it as unintended side-affect, a weakening of regard/and or respect for "authority" within the RCC itself, not to mention further diminishing of that same sort of thing without the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism. So I posted what I did (in part) as a favor to Catholics in general.
If I interrupted the turning of this thread into a chat thread --- excuse me.
If any wish to better understand "the other" even those in their own midst, perhaps those three articles can help, and assist also in the answering of Mr. Akin's question.
By now...it may have been a zero sum game time-wise, to have just gone ahead and checked out what was laid in front of more than a few here. I pinged several persons, including one whom said in regards to contraception, practicing such;
saying so while crossing out "Catholics", and aiming the comment at non-Catholics.
The Jesuits, admittedly in part, and not without some equivocation, still MUCH refute that woman's statement (ya' wanna talk about copy/past?...sheesh!) as does yet another Jesuit, here;
as was previously mentioned and linked to on this thread, but somehow seems inconvenient for some to consider...though that sort of lack, I get the impression would NOT all that much apply to yourself.
Mr. McCormick, again;
I view the matter of the churchs teaching on birth regulation as dominantly an authority problem. By that I mean that any analysis, conclusion or process that challenges or threatens previous authoritative statements is by that very fact rejected. Any modification of past authority is viewed as an attack on present authority. Behind such an attitude is an unacknowledged and historically unsupportable triumphalism, the idea that the official teaching authority of the church is always right, never errs, is always totally adequate in its formulations. Vatican II radically axed this idea in many ways, but nowhere more explicitly than in its November 1964 "Decree on Ecumenism": "Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment"