She could say "we believe sex outside the holy enclave of marriage is foolish and immoral" and also "we recognize not everybody will agree with us, or be able to toe that particular line, and if that's the case it is better to use protection than not" without contradiction.

Well said, Alex. And actually, that's what a lot of Catholic priests will tell people in private discussion. Now, a legalist would say that would be contradicting Church teaching to do it that way - but it really isn't. In a one-on-one situation, people are able to explore the nuances of a situation through the eyes of compassion, and they can come up with a workable solution that honors both the ideals and the realities. I think the current Pope is a very rational sort of person, and would probably agree with this (privately). Can't say that for John Paul II, who was the darling of the legalists.

And just because the reality doesn't always allow us to adhere strictly to the ideal, does that mean we are forced to totally abandon the ideal and seek only the lowest common denominator?

I, for one, think that sexual fidelity in marriage is a wonderful ideal to uphold. But I was ten years between marriages, and my reality was such that I saw no need to be celibate for ten years. So, I had three wonderful relationships that turned out not to be permanent. Did I go go confession and confess what I did as sins? Certainly not. These relationships were good and loving and wholesome, and I did not consider them sinful in any way - but since I knew this decision was contrary to Church teaching, I didn't think it would be right (or rational) to go to a priest to ask his permission for me to contradict Church teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas would back me up on this - but it's well-nigh impossible to explain these moral nuances to a group. It must be done in one-on-one discussion.

My primary moral theology teacher in the seminary was a crusty old Irish-American who had great compassion, a practical nature, a wonderful sense of humor, and a brilliant mind. He believed in law, but he believed it should be applied with compassion and wisdom. He did NOT believe in a legalistic approach to moral theology.

Much of the criticism of churches in this thread, comes from a legalistic perspective. Religious faith should not be a legalistic process, despite the fact that many "believers" see it that way. Religious faith lives in the world of ideals - and ideals that are applied without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, are deadly. When people espouse any ideology without compassion and wisdom and tolerance, all hell breaks loose.

Does that mean we should abandon all ideals? I certainly hope not. I think that all the major religious creeds are rooted in compassion and wisdom - and if they do not remain rooted in these elements, then they have not been true to their origins. Although these elements have been denied by those in power at the head of many denominations, most denominations have many members who have remained true to the roots of their faith.

I also have to say that I have never had much faith in upper management, that I see top leaders as an annoying but necessary evil in all organizations. The heart of any community lies in the people who show wisdom and compassion, the people who deal with others one-on-one.

-Joe-