Abstinence Only Programs?

[Debora123]

No. He did not say that.

Peter Seewald:“Are you saying,then,that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

Pope Benedict: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution,but,in this or that case,there can be nonetheless,in the intention of reducing the risk of infection,*a first step in a movement toward a different way,a more human way,*of living sexuality.”

Note how the blessed father did not respond with “No, I am absolutely not saying that. It is an intrinsic evil and should never be used regardless of any circumstances whatsoever. Doing so is always grave matter.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Peter Seewald:“Are you saying,then,that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

Pope Benedict: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution,but,in this or that case,**there can be nonetheless,in the intention of reducing the risk of infection,*a first step in a movement toward a different way,a more human way,***of living sexuality.”

Note how the blessed father did not respond with “No, I am absolutely not saying that. It is an intrinsic evil and should never be used regardless of any circumstances whatsoever. Doing so is always grave matter.”

 

[Debora123]

No one here is saying that condom use is a real and moral solution. We all know the real and moral solution is for people to understand sexuality and wait until they are married.

I only sated that the pope claimed that it was “a step in the right direction.” Which he did.



And here he says it again:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals,as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom,where **this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization,**a first assumption of responsibility,on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

 

[1ke]

Well according to the POPE it is not intrinsically evil for a prostitute to use a condom to protect the other person from diseases. Using a condom in this case wouldn’t be “an extra sin” added to the premarital sex taking place, it would be “a step in the right direction.”

This is simply untrue.

What the Pope *actually *said is that a condom using prostitute might be seen as moving *towards *a moral awakening (meaning the intent to avoid harming another can be seen as some sort of stirring of conscience).

When asked, "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

The Pope replied that the Church “does not regard it [condom use] as a real or moral solution”.

 

[1ke]

I only sated that the pope claimed that it was “a step in the right direction.” Which he did.

He did not say it is a “step in the right direction.”

He said it is the first step in a moralization. Meaning, the person’s conscience is awakening.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No one here is saying that condom use is a real and moral solution. We all know the real and moral solution is for people to understand sexuality and wait until they are married.

I only sated that the pope claimed that it was “a step in the right direction.” Which he did.



And here he says it again:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals,as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom,where **this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization,**a first assumption of responsibility,on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

It does not state at all that it is a “step in the right direction” that is your phrase.

He starts off be saying “does not regard as a real or moral solution”. Meaning, The Church believes condom use is immoral.

 

[ahs]

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals,as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom,where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization,a first assumption of responsibility,on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

 

[Debora123]

This is simply untrue.

What the Pope *actually *said is that a condom using prostitute might be seen as moving *towards *a moral awakening (meaning the intent to avoid harming another can be seen as some sort of stirring of conscience).

When asked, "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

The Pope replied that the Church “does not regard it [condom use] as a real or moral solution”.

You forgot to finish his sentence, which after your quote, starts with a “but”:

Pope Benedict: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution,but,in this or that case,there can be nonetheless,in the intention of reducing the risk of infection,a first step in a movement toward a different way,a more human way,of living sexuality.”

 

[Debora123]

It does not state at all that it is a “step in the right direction” that is your phrase.

He starts off be saying “does not regard as a real or moral solution”. Meaning, The Church believes condom use is immoral.

Well in this particular case, the pope is not referring to condom use being immoral, He is referring to it as being “a step towards moralization.”

Again, no one here is saying that it is a solution.

 

[Debora123]

He did not say it is a “step in the right direction.”

He said it is the first step in a moralization. Meaning, the person’s conscience is awakening.

All I know is the way he answered the question. He could have answered it a completely different way that reiterated that condoms use would still be a grave sin in this case. He didn’t.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well in this particular case, the pope is not referring to condom use being immoral, He is referring to it as being “a step towards moralization.”

Again, no one here is saying that it is a solution.

What are you trying to say, using the Pope’s quote?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

All I know is the way he answered the question. He could have answered it a completely different way that reiterated that condoms use would still be a grave sin in this case. He didn’t.

He said they were not moral. That was the first thing he said.

 

[utah_rose]

Disagree that abstinence education does not work. I think you should have abstinence programs in schools, but I also think as part of that there be truth told about contraception i.e. the fact that condoms have a 15% failiure and one in 250 fails etc. Expose the myths of the safety of contraception. These studies show abstinence education works:

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a division of HHS, The American Public Health Association’s (APHA): citizenlink.com/2010/08/obama-administration-blocks-release-of-pivotal-hhs-abstinence-study/

Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine: townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/02/05/abstinence_education_works_after_all

Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html

nationalreview.com/articles/229086/killing-abstinence/robert-rector

ncregister.com/daily-news/abstinence_education_works_for_high-risk_youth

I agree about the abstinence thing. It depends so much on how correct a poll can be and if they’re not “messing around” with the answers.

Why is it that 50 or so years ago, abstinence from sex was a no-brainer!

I think a lot of this comes from our culture now, but what about the parents? Are they showing a good example? Do they monitor what their kids are watching on tv, the music they’re listening to and at least be there to answer questions their kids (teens is too late) may ask about sex?

We grew up in a much restricted era. A lot of parents didn’t talk about it or perhaps were embarrassed. On the other hand, we had good programs on TV, the music wasn’t as questionable and kids weren’t so influenced by their peers.

And religion (not only the Catholic religion) had a lot to do with. I don’t remember any religion condoning safe sex let alone contraception or abortion. Sex was supposed to be reserved for marriage, and if a girl was promiscuous she had a “reputation” and was avoided by her peers. If a guy was like this, most girls wouldn’t go out with him.

Of course many girls were afraid of getting pregnant, and sadly the dawn of “the pill” and the “sexual revolution” changed all of that. All the same though, if parents would show a good example in their marriage, prohibit their kids from dating at an early age, and show an interest in their activities, maybe abstinence wouldn’t be such a “bad” word.

I know that I hated “the rules”, but sure was glad as a parent that my parents and most of my friends parents made sure we obeyed them.

 

[Debora123]

What are you trying to say, using the Pope’s quote?

Thank you for asking.

Trying to back up my posts in the page previous to this one. Mainly posts 113 and 114.

That was my only reason for going into this whole thing right now.

 

[Debora123]

He said they were not moral. That was the first thing he said.

He said they were not a real or moral SOLUTION. Which they are not, and I think we can ALL agree on that. The real and moral solution would include saving sex for marriage.

Even non Catholics would agree that they (condoms) are not a solution.

 

[ahs]

I agree about the abstinence thing. It depends so much on how correct a poll can be and if they’re not “messing around” with the answers.

Why is it that 50 or so years ago, abstinence from sex was a no-brainer!

I think a lot of this comes from our culture now, but what about the parents? Are they showing a good example? Do they monitor what their kids are watching on tv, the music they’re listening to and at least be there to answer questions their kids (teens is too late) may ask about sex?

We grew up in a much restricted era. A lot of parents didn’t talk about it or perhaps were embarrassed. On the other hand, we had good programs on TV, the music wasn’t as questionable and kids weren’t so influenced by their peers.

And religion (not only the Catholic religion) had a lot to do with. I don’t remember any religion condoning safe sex let alone contraception or abortion. Sex was supposed to be reserved for marriage, and if a girl was promiscuous she had a “reputation” and was avoided by her peers. If a guy was like this, most girls wouldn’t go out with him.

Of course many girls were afraid of getting pregnant, and sadly the dawn of “the pill” and the “sexual revolution” changed all of that. All the same though, if parents would show a good example in their marriage, prohibit their kids from dating at an early age, and show an interest in their activities, maybe abstinence wouldn’t be such a “bad” word.

I know that I hated “the rules”, but sure was glad as a parent that my parents and most of my friends parents made sure we obeyed them.

+1! I think I grew up in a more liberal time (the 80’s-90’s) but even back then I realized how twisted “sex-education” was and wondered why we weren’t being taught to abstain. I simply CANNOT imagine sending my children to a public school to learn about “sex-education”. I believe the parents should take on that responsibility.

 

[glamourdollxoxo]

It’s been show abstinence only education does not work. I think they should teach both abstinence and regular sex education, but to ignore that statistics is like sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Debora123]

It’s been show abstinence only education does not work. I think they should teach both abstinence and regular sex education, but to ignore that statistics is like sticking your head in the sand.

Yes.

Abstinence should be emphasized and encouraged above all else. Health benefits of saving sex for marriage should be discussed in depth, and it should be noted profusely that abstinence is the ONLY sure and “safe” way to prevent STDs and pregnancies.

However, facts about contraception should be taught as well, but not specifically encouraged. What they are, how they work, pregnancy prevention success rate, STD prevention success rate, etc etc, should all be stated as facts, not as solutions or specific options.

…This way teenagers don’t feel like they are expected to go out and “do it anyway.”

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Your bolding here is a strawman. I never said we should go around doing whatever we want.

 

[divinefaith]

It is *better *

If the school presented contraception, abstinence, etc, as “choices” and the Church’s teaching as a *preference *or a *rule *or a *choice *rather than the Truth– then yes, your school did you a disservice as that is a shame.

My school did not say contraception was a choice. Our health teachers had an obligation to notify us of the Church’s opposition to pre marital sex and ABC.
But just so we understand what contraception really is they taught us what gets used: condoms’ withdrawal, pill etc The health teacher still said they opposed to CAtholic morals…