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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CelticSword
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dale_M said:
Would this be the article?
ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/charities.htm

Because if God took the trouble of sending his Son, he would have taken the trouble to guarantee that the Word not get lost. The Church is that safeguard.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the article. I did not realize CWR had posted it at their site. You saved me postage money as now I won’t have to mail copies to those who so requested. Thanks.
 
gnjsdad said:
This Guardian headline is misleading, if one goes on to read the story. It makes it seem as if the Vatican is about to revise Church teaching. It’s not news that some in the Church want to legitimate the use of condoms. I believe the “reformers” are in for another letdown.
Click to expand...
And instead of “decades”, it should read “millennia” (at least 4 millennia counting from the Biblical condemnation of Onan’s contraception.) It seems the *Guardian * thinks that the Church didn’t start opposing contraceptives until the 1960s.
 
Hoppity, define “effective” at preventing transmission of AIDS. Is 93% effective? How about 99%?

Put a 99% effective condom on and have intercourse with your AIDS infected spouse 50 times and you’ve got a 40% chance of getting AIDS. Does that sound good to you?

Oh, it must be 99.5% then huh? Still a 40% of AIDS at 100 times. It only takes one failure you know!

I suspect that the CDC isn’t taking into account the effect that condom use will have on the FREQUENCY of sexual activity. Instead, they assume that is a constant before and after the introduction of the condom. Such an assumption ignores history.
 
I still say that handing out condoms is like handing out bullet-proof vests to gang members in the hope that it will reduce gang violence deaths. That WOULD be true if the vest didn’t change behaviors.

But it would. And so do condoms.
 
manualman said:
Hoppity, define “effective” at preventing transmission of AIDS. Is 93% effective? How about 99%?

Put a 99% effective condom on and have intercourse with your AIDS infected spouse 50 times and you’ve got a 40% chance of getting AIDS. Does that sound good to you?

Oh, it must be 99.5% then huh? Still a 40% of AIDS at 100 times. It only takes one failure you know!

I suspect that the CDC isn’t taking into account the effect that condom use will have on the FREQUENCY of sexual activity. Instead, they assume that is a constant before and after the introduction of the condom. Such an assumption ignores history.
Click to expand...
There are two measures of effectiveness of condoms. One is determined by testing the individual condom in laboratory conditions. This gives us the probability the condom will break in an individual use.

The CDC uses another measure in longitudinal studies.They determine the effectiveness of condom use by measuring the instances of AIDS transmissions in a sample population using condoms over a given period of time. Effective means that one will not contract the disease if they always follow the prescribed use of condoms.

When an epidemiological study says there is a 99% chance of catching a disease, it means that one person in a sample of 100 contracted the disease over the defined period of the study. It does not mean one has a 99% chance of infection with each use of the condom.
 
manualman said:
I still say that handing out condoms is like handing out bullet-proof vests to gang members in the hope that it will reduce gang violence deaths. That WOULD be true if the vest didn’t change behaviors.

But it would. And so do condoms.
Click to expand...
To conclude that we would have to know by how much behavior would change. If one additional person changed his behavior by firing one additional shot, then we might expect deaths to fall. If the number of people firing shots increased ten times, and the number of shots fired increased twenty times, then we might expect more deaths. Lacking such information, we don’t know.
 
So do you then support the idea? Should we pass out vests to all gang members? It would be a lot easier to do such behavioral testing there, than with sex. As the CDC notes, its rather difficult to get reliable data on sexual behaviors.

Paul VI noted that the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives was responsible for a major surge in sexual promiscuity. Sure enough, the ‘sexual revolution’ was a mere generation after contraceptives became widely available and accepted. Coincidence? I think not.

I wonder what would happen if you did a study on preteen catholics who believed in church teaching on premarital abstinance, but disbelieved doctrine on contraception versus preteens who held orthodox views on both. Follow both groups through age 21 and report on who became sexually active and who didn’t. What do you think? Betcha the first group is significantly more sexually active than the second. Anybody got a million bucks and a professional statistician I can have? (My B/C in ONE stats class hardly counts!)
 
manualman said:
So do you then support the idea? Should we pass out vests to all gang members? It would be a lot easier to do such behavioral testing there, than with sex. As the CDC notes, its rather difficult to get reliable data on sexual behaviors.

Paul VI noted that the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives was responsible for a major surge in sexual promiscuity. Sure enough, the ‘sexual revolution’ was a mere generation after contraceptives became widely available and accepted. Coincidence? I think not.

I wonder what would happen if you did a study on preteen catholics who believed in church teaching on premarital abstinance, but disbelieved doctrine on contraception versus preteens who held orthodox views on both. Follow both groups through age 21 and report on who became sexually active and who didn’t. What do you think? Betcha the first group is significantly more sexually active than the second. Anybody got a million bucks and a professional statistician I can have? (My B/C in ONE stats class hardly counts!)
Click to expand...
I would support the idea of handing out bullet proof vests in a controlled test.

I agree folks are more sexually active with contraceptive availability.

I have no resaon to think Catholics are any more or any less less sexually active at any age than any other group in the US. The US bishops survey shows the use of ABC is the same for both Catholics and the general population.
 
Pax vobiscum!

The last time people said that the Church was about to change her stance on contraception we got Humanae Vitae.

In Christ,
Rand
 
CelticSword said:
Found this in the UK’s Guardian Unlimited today. Read the full text of the article here.

If the Pope goes ahead with allowing the use of condoms in limited circumstances, I suspect the secular media will think that they have gotten their foot in the door to “reform” the Church. They will say,“Finally! Now that you’ve seen reason on AIDS, lets talk about birth control, women priests, and gay marriage. We’ll make a respectable, progressive 21st century institution out of you yet!”
Click to expand...
Consider the source of this article. The Guardian is a notoriously left-wing newspaper that loves to create controversy. They are probably just wishing and hoping on this one.
 
HoppityRedux said:
The CDC disagrees. Here is what it says at two different places in the same referenced document.

“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

“Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm
Click to expand...
Good Luck on this! I’ve brought up studies before as well, that show that condoms are effective in preventing AIDs and STDs, but it falls on deaf ears or blind eyes for that matter on this forum.
 
cathgal said:
The Church’s teaching on condom (contraception) will not change.
The day it changes is the day I cease to be a Catholic!

Really!

But I know it can’t and it wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
I would hope that your faith is not that weak where one doctrine change would cause you to leave the Church.
 
mikew262 said:
Good Luck on this! I’ve brought up studies before as well, that show that condoms are effective in preventing AIDs and STDs, but it falls on deaf ears or blind eyes for that matter on this forum.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Some probably pay attention. But, I suppose there is a subset of people who do not want condoms to work. And they are beyond reach.
 
I seriously doubt that the Vatican will change its position concerning condoms and praise God for that! 👍
 
How condescending.

Because I refuse to accept an approach to fighting AIDS that ENABLES destructive behavior, I and blind and have no ears to hear. Pot, meet kettle.

I wonder if you consider that possibility that others can hear AND comprehend you and still disagree. Nah, that might mean you aren’t infallible. Can’t have that…
 
mikew262 said:
I would hope that your faith is not that weak where one doctrine change would cause you to leave the Church.
Click to expand...
If the Church is wrong on one doctrine how can we trust any of the other doctirnes?

I am not sure that condom use by one with AIDS could not be justified under current doctrine-much in the same was that abortion is allowed in the case of a etoptic pregnancy. the intent is not contraception-it is preventing you spouse from contracting a fatal diseae.
 
manualman said:
How condescending.

Because I refuse to accept an approach to fighting AIDS that ENABLES destructive behavior, I and blind and have no ears to hear. Pot, meet kettle.

I wonder if you consider that possibility that others can hear AND comprehend you and still disagree. Nah, that might mean you aren’t infallible. Can’t have that…
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if you were insulted, that was not my intent. However, when there are studies out there that obviously show folks they are either wrong or at least misinformed and they still don’t get it, it gets a little frustrating.

In this instance, abstinence should always be the 1st course emphasized, no argument, that is the best way to prevent AIDS and STDs from spreading. However, reality dictates there are many who will not abstain, so for those people, another viable option (which condoms are) needs to be available to help stem the spread of these diseases. This is just common sense.

While the Catholic Church condemns contraception, the biblical reference for it is rather weak. Only one instance in Genesis, is the hint of contraception condemned and that is where Onan practiced coitus interruptus because he didn’t want to impregnant his dead brother’s wife according to ancient Jewish law. Hardly applicable now IMO. Since then condemnation only come from opinions from various church leaders throughout history until the Church came out in 1968 with it’s Human Vitae.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top