H
Holly3278
Guest
I am definitely for abstinence only programs. The use of contraception is gravely immoral and should not be promoted no matter what.
- Status
R
rotlex
Guest
It is not that easy an answer for me, and, you missed the point of my original post regarding the op’s question. No matter what a huge majority of the forum members here tout, things are not black and white. On one side, yes, I believe contraception CAN be an evil. I believe that sex outside of marriage is evil\sinful etc. However, I do NOT believe that contraception within marriage, with a couple that has been open to life, and is not using any abortificant method is “evil” per say. I must also add, that I have had this discussion with both my own priests, as well as a number of Orthodox spiritual fathers in the past. You know what? It appears the only time I’m told I’m wrong, or at times going directly you know where, is on these forums, by the self proclaimed all knowing beings that exist here, LOL.
Anyway, my original response was to the op’s post in regards to how one feels about abstinence only education. Read that again if you want my views on that, and don’t, as always happens here, change the subject mid posts.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/
Seewald asks for a clarification: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” The Pope answers, “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.”
What is the Pope saying here?
Is he saying that in some cases condoms can be permitted?
No, he’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — in the point he makes about the male prostitute is a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally wrong so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/#ixzz1XSmMg0ZT
Explanation given by Cardinal Burke.
Seewald asks for a clarification: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” The Pope answers, “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.”
What is the Pope saying here?
Is he saying that in some cases condoms can be permitted?
No, he’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — in the point he makes about the male prostitute is a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally wrong so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/#ixzz1XSmMg0ZT
Explanation given by Cardinal Burke.
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/#ixzz1XSmhO3wL
D
Debora123
Guest
If wearing a condom in this case were still an evil thing, then it wouldn’t be a “step towards moralization,” or a “moral awakening.”
You would never ever EVER hear the pope saying any of this about, say, abortion.
As for the “not a real/moral solution” point everyone keeps bringing up, I’ve already said I totally know it’s NOT a real/moral solution. I’m not trying to say it is, and even mentioned multiple times that I think abstaining until marriage would be the real/moral solution. This doesn’t take away the point I’m trying to make.
M
manualman
Guest
Really? They created an isolated culture that inculcated the values of chastity without subsequently undermining it the other 23.5 hours of the day with debauched sexual messages and that culture produced higher rates of teen pregnancy than America’s? Do tell more please, because I doubt it.
What you are REALLY talking about is that for a short period of time, in some places, school boards managed to impose an abstinance program on staff that did not believe in it and did not teach it willingly and the kids received no comprehensive chastity education support at home as well. Then statistics were gathered and the chastity curriculum was blamed. LOL!
You want incontrovertible statistics? Compare unwed teen pregnancy rates in 1900 and 2000. No spin, no BS, no manipulation. They had no pills, few condoms, no diaphragms, no sex ed, etc in 1900. How come almost nobody got pregnant in their teens? Because we had a culture that taught kids that sex, marriage and babies were inseparable topics. Today we have the aid of enormous scientific and technological means to attempt to separate these things into three separate topics. And what do we have? Rampant unwed pregnancy, abortion, divorce and lower native birth rates than death rates. No coincidence folks. If you want out of the hole, first you have to stop digging.
It’s this simple. Technology is no substitute for values. Sex, marriage and babies are topics that were not designed to be separated. When you try to do so, you create chaos, misery and suffering.
C
Corki
Guest
Debora,Your bolding here is a strawman. I never said we should go around doing whatever we want.
I don’t think you understand what a strawman fallacy is. The bolded words were the Pope’s own words.
D
Debora123
Guest
I know it’s the pope’s own words. I posted it.
I’m talking about the fact that he bolded that part of it. He bolded the part that says we can’t go around doing whatever we want. And I never tried to say we could! That wasn’t my point.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
perhaps click the link and read the entire article.
Your assertation in post 114 that condom use by unmarried people being not sinful has not been proven by the quote that you gave by the Pope. The Cardinal would know that when he writes:
The *idea *that using a condom might protect another person is a spark of altruism.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that it is basic understanding of fallacies in statistical and logical methodologies. Ignorance of a mathematical methodology is not a logical justification to infer the wrong conclusions.Ok well I guess one could always choose to believe correlation/statistics/evidence is completely inaccurate.
To each their own.
Or to say in the Scott Adams way:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View?_Cover.jpg
M
manualman
Guest
That’s because there is no way that abortion can be a means of attempting to reduce the harm. Murder is murder, after all. But HERE is an extreme example of what the pope is talking about.
A certain man is a wife beater. It’s a problem that has been getting worse over time as his drinking gets worse. Once night in a drunken rage, he hits her so hard she is knocked out and he can’t revive her for a time. After he starts to sober up, he fears he has killed her and starts to recognize how close he came to being a killer. He sees her, perhaps for the first time as a human being. She recovers and stays with him (I have no comprehension why battered women do this, but they sometimes do). He decides he need to go to AA for the drinking. He is unrepentant about the “need” to ‘keep his wife in line with his fist’ once in a while. He seeks no treatment or help on that front. But he has recognized that his drinking makes him uncontrolled.
His is not repentant, his abusiveness is still apalling. But in recognizing that his drinking is going to turn him into a murderer, he has taken the first step towards a more moral approach to his wife. he has recognized that she is a human being that he does not want to kill. He’s not arrived yet, but perhaps this is the initial stirring of his conscience. THAT’s what the pope was talking about. I did NOT just approve ‘sober and controlled wife beating.’ And the pope didn’t approve of condom use. What both of us are talking about is that conscience is a subtle thing and can begin to work on us in unusual ways. In both cases, there is the beginning of hope that that stirring of conscience has been heeded and may begin to grow and affect MORE of the person’s life. In the pope’s example, the prostitute may recognize that simply reducing the chance of disease spread isn’t enough and that his own human dignity isn’t compatible with what he’s been doing with his body. But it starts somewhere smaller.
C
Corki
Guest
I realize that you posted it and that you know it’s the Pope’s own words. The poster who bolded it did not say what you are accusing him of saying. You stated it was a strawman. It wasn’t. You don’t understand what a strawman fallacy is. There are lots of strawman fallacies used in these forums but this is not one.
D
Debora123
Guest
ok
D
Debora123
Guest
Ok, well I posted this thread in accordance with the evidence presented to me. If the evidence is false, then there is nothing to argue about, and the answer would of course be abstinence only.
D
Debora123
Guest
It was speculation that I and others here on CAF made based on the pope’s own words themselves, not on what someone else said about them.
We can agree to disagree.
Well you say tomato I say “tomato.”
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Sigh…what a Cardinal comments on the Pope’s statement would have more value than my own personal interpretation. The Pope said something, the Cardinal would probably be one of the best authorities to explain what the Pope means.It was speculation that I and others here on CAF made based on the pope’s own words themselves, not on what someone else said about them.
We can agree to disagree.
Well you say tomato I say “tomato.”
D
Debora123
Guest
I think the Pope would be the best at explaining what the Pope means, and I think he did just fine at that. Just my opinion I suppose.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
The Pope did a wonderful job. It didn’t stop most of the media to misunderstand what his meaning was.
The Cardinal explained the meaning after the confusion.
The Cardinal’s explanation is in line with exactly what the Pope said.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ditto to that.
A
anp1215
Guest
Yes, I feel exactly the same way. I was torn between the 3rd and 5th, and ultimately chose the 3rd.
D
Debora123
Guest
After much speculation I decided to go with the 3rd also…
- Status