Why can’t I have sexual relations before marriage? Why does the Church oppose the use of condoms? Does it want people to get sick with AIDS, or for there to be hungry children? etc…

Whenever doubts arise about what the Church says we should or shouldn’t do, that is the question that, with sincerity and the desire to answer it, we should ask ourselves: Why does the Church say that?

The Church, as believers, we must think that it’s not just a simple human institution, but that it exists in the world by divine will, and it’s not “a matter of men.” So, with this thought, when something coming from it shocks us, what we have to do is inform ourselves: why did the Church reach this conclusion? What did they take into account to decide that? That is, take it with great seriousness and respect.

Why can’t I have sexual relations before marriage? Many people, sometimes Catholics too, reject this, because they won’t allow themselves to “waste” their youth without having sexual relations.

You can have sexual relations only if there is love, and not just for the sake of having pleasure at the expense of the other, which in my opinion, is something totally selfish. But I love my girlfriend, and I’m going to marry her: Yes, you were also going to marry the previous one. I believe that when someone decides to marry another, to share the rest of their life beside a person, it’s because they really love them.

Why does the Church oppose the use of condoms? Does it want people to get sick with AIDS, or for there to be hungry children? I’m sure there are many people who think this: “The Church, to defend its things, wants there to be hungry children and for people to get infected with AIDS.” I know I’m not being exaggerated with that opinion: Arjona (the musician) thinks that. The Church says that to combat AIDS there is a solution, and this is chastity, not condoms.

In Barrapunto I often read comments from people who speak with great confidence, but are saying nonsense. For example, they recently posted about The Da Vinci Code. I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t know what this work of fiction is about. Anyway, the post talks about the deceits of this work, and then you can read comments like these:

Much more faith and credulity is needed to believe the orgy of nonsense in the bible and it doesn’t get as much publicity.

Imagine you’re listening to someone talk, and they say “Linux is terrible. I installed it, and when I wanted to enter the graphical environment it didn’t work.” What would your reaction be to these words? Mine: “This guy is saying nonsense.” Sure of his words, he affirms something totally false. Many more comments could be made, but what I’m getting at is this: people speak confidently about what they say, and they don’t know anything. Maybe it happens to all of us: there are times when I’m part of that people, when I give my opinion, sure of myself, about something I don’t know, or don’t completely understand. We have to avoid it.

Always in a discussion (in this case about religion, but it can be about any other topic), one can form two categories of people: those who want to know, and those who want to give their opinion. The first ask because they sincerely want to know, or have doubts about it. The others ask to attack. They reject even the best arguments.

This is another comment in Barrapunto, about the post I mentioned:

Deuteronomy is the false Book of the Law miraculously “found” in the Temple after having been “lost” for centuries. The book of Daniel is subversive propaganda written during the uprising against Antiochus Epiphanes. At least half of the Pauline epistles are more false than a 3 (= pi, according to the Bible) euro coin. The forger of Galatians was especially foolish: “See with what large letters I write to you with my own hand” (Gal 6:11.)

In the introduction to many books of the Bible, like some letters of Paul, it’s clearly stated that, although said letter is signed by who it claims to be, it isn’t. For example, look at these words in the introduction to the First letter to Timothy (it’s the introduction to the pastoral letters):

The cultural changes that occur in all domains of existence also affect the Church. Among the beliefs and practices that are taught to us, not everything comes from Christ and therefore many things can change. But there is also the danger of denaturing authentic faith. Where then will the rule of faith be, to which all our opinions must submit?

This problem already presented itself to the Church when, between the years 64-67, Peter and Paul died as martyrs in Rome. The Church, especially in the West, no longer had those witnesses of Christ whose authority was unquestionable. The Christian message was very difficult to accept, both for the Greeks and for the Jews, and the same well-intentioned listeners understood it -as we do today- according to their own way of thinking, unconsciously deforming it, each according to their own certainties.

So there came a time when anyone could argue; some took the liberty of teaching their own doctrine, convinced that they said things much better than the apostles. How easily the imitation of Christ is replaced by theories and speeches about faith!

The successors of the apostles thus had to defend the doctrine they had received from them. At the same time they had to watch over the selection and formation of the ministers of the Church. Such are the concerns we find in these letters to Timothy and Titus.

These three letters, whose origin is the same, are presented as letters from Paul. However, both their form and content show that they are not from him; they must have been written under the pressure of the circumstances we just mentioned, around the year 90-100. It was intended to put these teachings of the Church under Paul’s authority, giving them the appearance of letters addressed to his assistants Timothy and Titus, who are presented as the models that Church leaders should imitate. Some more personal paragraphs must have been written by Paul himself.

So, after reading that comment in Barrapunto (I remember it, it’s the one that starts “Deuteronomy is the false Book…”), the same person who said GNU/Linux was bad comes to mind. Speaking without knowing.

Many people think they are superior to others because they doubt everything, because they ask questions and no one can answer them. In reality, that person doesn’t want to hear the answers. In my opinion, doubt is a very important component of faith. It seems perfect to me to ask questions, but it seems vital to wait for answers, always with the desire to know, not to attack. And if someone doesn’t know how to answer us, it doesn’t mean there is no answer, but simply that that person doesn’t know it.

In the end, everything aims to reach full happiness, being truly free:

Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him: “You will be true disciples of mine if you persevere in my word; then you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Jn 8:31-32

I invite you to comment on this post. It’s a very interesting topic.