After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift

[estesbob]

I’m not sure what offends you. I think women should not be kept in the dark, and should have information on ABC available. I don’t think women have to be sheltered from knowledge, and I don’t think they should be kept in ignorance. Is this offensive?

Where did anyone suggest women be kept in the dark?

 

[HoppityRedux]

Where did anyone suggest women be kept in the dark?

I don’t know. Where?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not sure what offends you. I think women should not be kept in the dark, and should have information on ABC available. I don’t think women have to be sheltered from knowledge, and I don’t think they should be kept in ignorance. Is this offensive?

Well, Hoppity, this is what you said. Perhaps you could explain to us what you meant. You said you think women should not be kept in the dark–well, most people reading that would think that you are saying that someone, or something, is keeping women in the dark. Aren’t you saying that? If you are, just who is keeping women in the dark? Or in ignorance?

 

[HoppityRedux]

Well, Hoppity, this is what you said. Perhaps you could explain to us what you meant. You said you think women should not be kept in the dark–well, most people reading that would think that you are saying that someone, or something, is keeping women in the dark. Aren’t you saying that? If you are, just who is keeping women in the dark? Or in ignorance?

Thanks for refreshing my memory. I am alluding to Molly’s objection to learning about banana condoms in school rather than being taught self respect. She sid, “It was disgusting to think that the school thought we were animals and instead of teaching us how to respect ourselves and wait for marriage”

Perhaps Molly will tell us what offended her?

But, while we are waiting, should women be kept in the dark about ABC, or should they have knowledge of ABC? Ignorance or information? I vote we let them know all there is to know. How about you? Bob?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why are you only asking about women, may I ask? Don’t men use ABC too? (or are you only worried about women?)

 

[HoppityRedux]

Why are you only asking about women, may I ask? Don’t men use ABC too? (or are you only worried about women?)

I presume Molly is a woman and she was speaking about her experience.

However, you have a point. Perhaps I am being sexist. So… Should men be kept in the dark about ABC, or should they have knowledge of ABC? Ignorance or information? I vote we let them know all there is to know.

What do you say, Tantum?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t know. Where?

You are the one that bought it up. So having disposed of that strawman perhaps now we can move back to the topic at hand. Can you point out where there has ever been a change in the Church Teaching on ABC?

 

[estesbob]

I presume Molly is a woman and she was speaking about her experience.

However, you have a point. Perhaps I am being sexist. So… Should men be kept in the dark about ABC, or should they have knowledge of ABC? Ignorance or information? I vote we let them know all there is to know.

What do you say, Tantum?

Who suggested that men be kept ignorant of ABC?

Can you enlighten us as to when the Church has ever changed its teachings on ABC?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s an interesting question. Sort of like the old “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The apple hasn’t fallen far.

My concern is not about keeping people from knowing things. I would wish that more people knew the truth about ABC, so that they would not, out of ignorance and being in the dark, think that it was a good, moral, or noble choice which saved lives. . .instead of being evil, immoral, selfish, and actually endangering lives. The Church has always taught the evil of ABC, abortion, and all the other sexual sins.

But how many are told the truth about ABC and about abortion (and yes, the two are related), the truth about sex itself? And how many are fed glossy, well publicized, ‘scientific’, media driven lies?

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Throughout Christian history, on a regular basis, a new ‘force’, or person, or behavior, or ‘knowledge’, comes along to challenge Christianity, to make God into its image and likeness. ABC, abortion, euthanasia, and all the other sexual sins and crimes of humanity against humanity have existed before the 20-21st centuries, and will exist again until the Second Coming, no doubt about it. In so far as these lies and evils injure humanity, I and other Christians will strive to fight against them. Because even if it looks as though we’re losing the battle some times, we are, we have, already won the war.

The Church is the target of attack because the Church has, and always will, present truth instead of conforming to what ‘the world says’, or “science says”, or “the media says”.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Who suggested that men be kept ignorant of ABC?

Can you enlighten us as to when the Church has ever changed its teachings on ABC?

Yes. When it applied it to the pill and gave a more through explanation of it. Take a look at Paul’s writings on it. They provided insight that didn’t exist before he penned his thoughts in the privacy of his chambers.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you mean Pope Paul VI (and I think you do), how did whatever he may have penned ‘in the privacy of his chambers’ change the Church’s teachings one iota? Proof and link, please.

 

[HoppityRedux]

It’s an interesting question. Sort of like the old “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The apple hasn’t fallen far.

My concern is not about keeping people from knowing things. I would wish that more people knew the truth about ABC, so that they would not, out of ignorance and being in the dark, think that it was a good, moral, or noble choice which saved lives. . .instead of being evil, immoral, selfish, and actually endangering lives. The Church has always taught the evil of ABC, abortion, and all the other sexual sins.

But how many are told the truth about ABC and about abortion (and yes, the two are related), the truth about sex itself? And how many are fed glossy, well publicized, ‘scientific’, media driven lies?

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Throughout Christian history, on a regular basis, a new ‘force’, or person, or behavior, or ‘knowledge’, comes along to challenge Christianity, to make God into its image and likeness. ABC, abortion, euthanasia, and all the other sexual sins and crimes of humanity against humanity have existed before the 20-21st centuries, and will exist again until the Second Coming, no doubt about it. In so far as these lies and evils injure humanity, I and other Christians will strive to fight against them. Because even if it looks as though we’re losing the battle some times, we are, we have, already won the war.

The Church is the target of attack because the Church has, and always will, present truth instead of conforming to what ‘the world says’, or “science says”, or “the media says”.

Good. I take it we agree that people should not be kept in ignorance.

I’d say knowledge of ABC has two components. One is the practical use, medical facts, state of the art scientific data, and statistics on use of various methods. I would expect that to be the same for everyone.

The other component is the values one applies to ABC. These can vary widely depending religion, philosophy, ethics, and culture.

Too may people try to influence the first component to support their views on the second component.

 

[HoppityRedux]

If you mean Pope Paul VI (and I think you do), how did whatever he may have penned ‘in the privacy of his chambers’ change the Church’s teachings one iota? Proof and link, please.

To bring you up to speed, here’s what started all this.

Hoppity:
I think condom use would probably be considered an application of doctrine. I doubt there is one doctrine addressing condoms, another addressing IUDs, another addressing pills, and another addressing Norplant. Each of these would be a derivative application of a core doctrine which would be applied as changing conditions warranted.

Bob:
The doctrine is clear- ABC is wrong. There are no changing conditions that can change that doctrine. That is the great strength of the church-it doesn’t bow to the cultural mores of the day. The only way that condom use for AIDS sufferers could be approved would be under the double effect principal. I doubt if that’s going to happen.

…
I will leave Bob to his own devices, but if you would like to discuss my initial post, I am happy to engage. However, I won’t be doing proof and link on an informal internet dialog. I’m afraid that would set off a poseur alarm.

 

[manualman]

Hoppity,

The church reads scripture as well as its own writings in context always. Economic systems change and the absolute statements in a historic papal writings are only aboslutely applicable to the systems known of at that time. Thus whatever Benedict wrote is applicable to the economic systems known at that time. The PRINCIPLES behind the specific ban on interest still apply. They just manifest differently in a different sort of economic system.

The nature and meaning of human sexuality is a fixed reality that is part of creation. Natural Law as it relates to human sexuality does not change over time, even if human technology and cultural mores do. Paul VI didn’t change doctrine. He applied unchanging moral principles to a new technology not conceived of (no pun intended) before. That’s not a change in doctrine, that is the definition of the development of doctrine. Catholics have always believed that doctrine develops, but it never regresses or repudiates what came before. Disciplines get discarded sometimes, doctrines don’t.

I think we’ve beat up the CDC discussion as much as we can. You think their data disproves catholic assertions about the effectiveness of condom promotion. I say the assumptions underlying their analysis doom the study to irrelevence. We can keep saying it forever if you want, but I’ve said enough on that.