posted
I just read an article (I'll have to look for that link...) about a group that is so thoroughly opposed to the use of prophylactics (specifically: Condoms) that they opposse it even in the case where it's being used to reduce the chance of the transmission of AIDS--even when its used between a married man and woman.
Just wondering what people think about the underlying (im)morality of that attitude.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume that they are against sex for any reason other than procreation, and definitely not recreation?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people have issues. I don't understand it either. They're not the only ones doing it either. There are plenty of groups trying to stop other people from doing things they don't approve of. Many many many.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhhm well imma teenager in highschool, so obviously i find this condom oppression very disturbing. Weight out the benifits of condom use versus their morals, and it just dosent add up
Posts: 59 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that practically all people will agree that some boundaries on sexual behavior are a good thing
What those boundaries are, and how much it matters whether others stay within those boundaries, is something that varies wildly from one person to the next.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: a group that is so thoroughly opposed to the use of prophylactics
Yeah. The Pope is a founder member.
Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's very easy to carry a philosophical point too far and ignore reality.
I understand and even to a certain extent endorse the philosophical underpinnings of the opposition to condoms, but I certainly would not object to a husband who had a venereal disease using them with the express purpose of attempting to prevent infecting his wife. Not in a million years.
I'm all for strong moral stances, but they *must* be tempered with love, understanding, and compassion or they are, IMO, far worse than the sins they denigrate.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
I thought the movement was just for married couples if one of the spouses was HIV positive. I think the mvoement doesn't include single people. I could be wrong. Anyone else know more specifics about it?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the mvoement doesn't include single people.
The Catholic Church believes that sex between unmarried people is immoral, so I seriously doubt it (edit: would include single people).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Reverend Tode of the Church of the Virgin Everyone was answering questions on the radio one fine afternoon. He had come storming into town, demanding and exorting for the end of dancing. He loudly proclaimed the evils of dancing, and the terrible destructive sins that such gyrations lead too.
So Bob called him up to ask a few questions.
"How can I help you sir?" asked the minister.
"Well," started Bob, "You are all against sinning and dancin, but there are those who claim you are against the lawful intercourse between a man and his wife."
"Heaven's forbid!" shouted the minister. "Why the good book tells us to go forth and multipy. That would be a tad difficult if we forbid such lawful relations."
"And you aren't in the business of telling my wife or I how we should hold those relations?" Bob asked.
"No sir. As long as you are married to each other, and are one man and one woman, how you consumate those relations is your choice."
"So if my wife were to be the more aggresive, or I were to bend her over the bathtub, you would have no problems?" Bob continued.
The minister cleared his throat. "Well, I don't think we should get into specifics here on this radio station, but no sir. The bible has no qualms with that."
"How about," asked Bob, enjoying himself, "if we were to make love standing up?"
"Oh no!" answered Minister Tode. "No sir. That is not allowed. Why, it might lead to dancing."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic Church claims that one of God's primary purposes for giving us the ability to have sex was to let us reproduce, and that condoms etc. so blatantly shut off the possibility of reproducing that using them offends God (in the way that you would probably be offended if you gave someone a fancy outfit and found out they were wearing it to cover themselves while painting their house).
The most recent Church teaching is that there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex if you're married to your partner. The rhythm method (modern versions of which, according to the Church's experts, are just as effective as anything artificial, according to various studies carried out among the poor in places such as India) is fine because God also designed us so that women naturally can't get pregnant some of the time; God simply wants us to discipline ourselves so that sex doesn't dominate our marriages.
This at least is the most charitable interpretation I can give of the Church's rules. I myself left Catholicism for no religion at all a while ago.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would caution about using the term "Church" when referring only to Vatican or Papal teaching.
A national survey in 1995 found that:
95% of Catholic women who had sex had used contraceptives.
75% of fertile Catholic women who are sexually active were using contraception.
Fewer than 3% exclusively used the "rhythm method".
A council of Bishops, theologians, and laity brought together to study the issue of birth control was overwhelmingly in favor of opening the issue. Paul VI rejected their findings out of hand.
So while the Vatican may call such teachings authoritative, I would argue that the Church does not.
posted
The Vatican has never claimed to be a democracy. The practices of a majority of Catholics are irrelevant to its doctrine (even though the practices may arguably make that doctrine largely irrelevant.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Church teaching" does not refer to what the majority of Catholics do. It refers to what the Church actually teaches. Within a diocese, the Bishop has the final say as to what that is, subject to the Vatican. It's one thing to disagree with that teaching, it's another to misidentify the teaching.
And those teachings, to date, include the unacceptability of artificial contraception.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not just talking about what Catholics do - I am talking about what Catholics believe. I agree that that is the Vatican's position. That is not the same as saying it is the Church's position.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well said Dag, The key is that the Church currently teaches that the use of prophalactics is a sin, even if 95% of the church doesn't agree.
and to Boothby: While I'm not 100% in line with the Church's official teachings on this matter, I am dissapointed at the way the discussion was started: as a seemingly rediculous precept held by a fringe group...
If it's because you honestly didn't know about the background of this issue then so be it, but though many may disagree with some aspects of it, this teaching has a strong moral/philosophical/theological basis that has been clearly laid out in the Catechism and other church documents. it's not some crazy unfounded practice just pushed by some crazy minority.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I didn't even realize that he might have been talking about the Catholics all along.
I can respect their views, and as far as I know, they're not trying to make condoms illegal or to even campaign against non-catholic condom users.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We may have to disagree on this. "The Church", according to Vatican II is "the people of God". Millions of Catholics, including priests and bishops and cardinals, are as much the people of God as anyone else.
"Teaching is not a unilateral activity. One is only teaching when someone is being taught. Teaching and learning are mutually conditional." Bishop James Malone
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Official Catholic Teaching, as layed out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (that being the main source of officially endorsed Catholic teachings), is that the use of contraceptives is an improper use of one's sexuality."
I see the issue as kinda like speeding in north dakota... it's technically against the law, even if nobody necessarily thinks a speed limit is necessary and/or follows that law. However, when I got pulled over there I didn't argue with the cop because I knew that according to what was written, even if many of the state legislature don't agree with it, is that I shouldn't have been going that fast...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I can understand that thinking; it is a concept that has been pretty widely promoted in recent centuries. But there have been many times when the laity arrived at the "correct" position before the hierarchy. One of the earliest and most notable was the "Arian Controversy" in the fouth century.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may seem odd that I am making such a big deal of this. Perhaps it would make more sense if I explained why.
Prior to Vatican II, the hierarchy of the Church has gathered more and more power around Rome. Vatican II went a long way to correcting some of those abuses. Since Vatican II there has been a backlash, an attempt to undo a lot of what Vatican II accomplished. Much of that is done by promoting the idea that the Church and the hierarchy of the Church are the same thing. They are not.
I am convinced that much wrong occurs when the we start thinking that way. Decisions are made in the name of "protecting the Church" that are only protecting the power of the hierarchy.
"There is a solid principle in political science that says the governing elite of an organisation will eventually think that it is the organisation. That's a mistake that the Catholic bishops have made: thinking that they alone are the church."
"The real truth is the undeniable fact that the Catholic church is all of its members and the most important people in this church are those who are most rejected and farthest from the institutional throne rooms."
Those are two quotes from Fr. Tom Doyle, one of my favorite priests and canon law experts, on the dangers of clericalism. It is from an essay he wrote on the sexual abuse scandal. It isn't online and, at a couple of page is too long to post here. I am happy to e-mail it to anyone interested, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I see the issue as kinda like speeding in north dakota... it's technically against the law, even if nobody necessarily thinks a speed limit is necessary and/or follows that law. However, when I got pulled over there I didn't argue with the cop because I knew that according to what was written, even if many of the state legislature don't agree with it, is that I shouldn't have been going that fast...
That's another reason that I insist on the distinction. While I can accept Vatican teaching to be wrong, irrelevent, or disregarded, I think it does the Church harm if we ascribe such teaching to the whole of the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that the "Church" is actually the congregation and not the heiarchial structure of the papacy sounds more Protestant than Catholic to me.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The papacy is and the apostolic succession is important to the church. It is not the only source of authority nor of correct teaching.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's not some crazy unfounded practice just pushed by some crazy minority.
Yes, I realize that "The RC Church" (however you would like to interpret it, as long as it's correct) is not "some crazy minority." Though they are a minority, there are other religious groups far crazier.
And while my original intent was not to sneak in and poke fun at the RC Church, I did want to pose the question in a "value-neutral" sort of way, by not defining the group that held such beliefs, and see how people responded. I figure I was only being slightly disingenuous.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can respect their views, and as far as I know, they're not trying to make condoms illegal or to even campaign against non-catholic condom users.
At least not in the US. In the developing world where teh AIDs pandemic is out of control, the catholic church has official opposed condom use at every level.
quote:Yes, I realize that "The RC Church" (however you would like to interpret it, as long as it's correct) is not "some crazy minority." Though they are a minority, there are other religious groups far crazier.
The catholic church might be a minority in the US, but last time I saw the numbers they were the majority of Christians globally. Does anyone have recent numbers on that?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Boothby was refering to their relative numbers among Christians, but as compared to all non-Catholics, religious or not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The latest stats I've seen are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion non-religions, 0.9 billion Hindu's and it drops off dramatically from there.
So Christians are a minority, but it is the largest religion in the world by a considerable margin.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the feeling that the RC (radio controlled?) Church disallows any and all sexual positions that might not, somehow, even accidentally, lead to impregnation as being "sinful."
Man! What a bunch of sticks in the mud!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boothby, honey, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? Do you want an honest discussion about the theology of sex from a Catholic perspective. I am happy to do that - and have on this forum.
If your point is just to paint Catholics as sexually repressed, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prophylactecs do not cause adultery, promiscuity, or premarital sex. They are, however, much easier to stamp out.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Yes, if you consider genital to "other orifice" sex.
IP: Logged |
posted
I am confused as to why someone who would disregard prohibitions (such as they are) against adultery, promiscuity or pre-marital sex would be likely to obey a prohibition against prophylactics. The only point I can see for the ban as far as the "keeping people from having sex" motivation is to make them unavailable. And the people for whom they are most unavailable is likely where they are most meeded.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) prophylactics are easier to control because, while some people may still want to use them, stores and manufacturers can be closed down if they produce or sell them.
2) If they are unavailable then some people will not have sex for fear of disease and parenting children. Not many, but some.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb, interesting point on your opinion that this teaching (and possibly others) is damaging to the church as a whole. It definately explains the need to separate the church versus the church heirarchy...
My view is basically that while I don't think that the "extreme" views held on this issue and some others by official church doctrine are strictly necessary, I do think the ideas behind them are sound. therefore I accept that many/most of us aren't going to have the self-control etc to fully abide by all the strictures layed out by the clergy. However, I think having these stricter rules out there is important as a guiding line to keep us going relatively straight.
Here's an analogy (cause I like analogies)... The fences at the grand canyon are generally something like a few yards away from the edge of the cliff (it's been a while so I may be off a bit, but just assume this is true). Now the purpose of these fences is to keep us from falling in to our deaths, however, it's not strictly necessary to stay 10 yards from the cliff, and in fact impedes our view. However, I know of a lot of people that will sit on the fence (in a somewhat precarious manner) or kids that will dart through the fence to get a closer look etc... (basically that many don't strictly stay behind the fences).
now, we could move the fences closer to give a better view, with the understanding that generally people go closer than 10 yards, but likely as not even with the closer fences, you'll still have people going further forward etc... People make their judgements based on a relative distance from the strict official rules. So sometimes it's beneficial to make the rules fairly strict, knowing that they will be broken in a relatively harmless manner, instead of making them at the harmless point, but allowing that many will go the same distance from that new rule but this time into the danger zone.
I'm certainly not saying that your view is wrong, and I wouldn't necessarily say that this teaching is 100% non-damaging. I will say, however that this teaching, even if not often followed is still in a way holding Catholics back from possibly more damaging activities. If I can feel like a rebel by not wearing a condom, then maybe I won't be as tempted to break other, more damaging taboos...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grimace, to borrow your analogy I think we should teach people how to be safe without fences. How to judge how close they can get, where the ground is likely to be unstable, how to climb back from a fall, how to rescue each other. I think that this would result in a lot fewer broken bodies than making rules and teaching people (by example) to disregard them. Also, it prevents people from injuring themselves on the fence.
A heartbreaking number of people have been injured on the Catholic "fence" of sexual teaching. Both by running up against it and by crashing through it without any idea of how to cope with what is on the other side.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
