N
Nohome
Guest
Frankly, yes. That is what nature has been telling living oranisms since day one. Well, that and “if it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it”.
Nohome
- Status
Nohome
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And the Catholic Church should adopt that as the ultimate moral rule?
“If it feels good, do it – even if it puts your wife, lover, or some casual stranger you met in a bar at risk of acquiring a fatal disease.”
N
Nohome
Guest
That, of course, is just your opinion. Plenty out there says the contrary:
abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866400.htm
aidsmap.com/en/news/34FE2167-2DE0-4B2A-B2D0-319230755C1E.asp
observer.case.edu/Archives/Volume_39/Issue_16/Story_1407/
csa.za.org/forum/message/89
Nohome
N
Nohome
Guest
No, never, the Church can teach whatever it wants about morality.
This is a public health issue, it has nothing to do with the Church. The sooner the RCC bows out of the debate the better.
Nohome
P
pnewton
Guest
I don’t thinkd that was “nature” (not a real person) as much as it is Satan (a real person). I find your suggestion that the Church should bow out telling. The evil in Man has always wanted God to butt out and let him do as he pleased.
Not going to happen.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What is “the RCC?”
And should the Church “bow out” of the debate on abortion, gay marriage, human cloning, and so on? Do you consider that the Church has no mission to teach mral values?
If so, just what is the Church’s mission?
N
Nohome
Guest
Roman Catholic Church
The Church may teach as it wishes, that is the Church’s business. Keep in mind that only 17% of the world’s population is catholic. Well, 17% of the world’s population was baptized Catholic, but the number that is truly Catholic is significantly smaller (my opinion, I have no data, nor does the Church).
Didn’t say that.
I’m quite sure it isn’t public health.
Nohome
N
Nohome
Guest
Santan gives humans a sex drive? Does Satan give it to animals too? I suppose the sexually transmitted diseases found in plants are Satans work too?
Case in point that the RCC should get out of public health!
Nohome
B
Brendan
Guest
Hmmm,
And if a group of politicians decided that the best way of dealing with the AIDS crisis was by killing every infected person, the Church would not be able to object on moral grounds on that one either?
I’m sure we can all agree that it would certainly halt the epidemic.
If the proposed solution is evil, the Church should object. As it does now with condoms.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, and you either know better and are twisting my words, or can not understand English very well. What I was referring to was, “if it feels good, do it,” as a maxim for living, not sex drive. Man is more than his animal instincts. If you do not understand this, then perhaps you should get out of the public health debate and study first the wisdom of Catholic moral philosophy. Then perhaps you can understand rising above immediate animalistic gratification to the fullest of human potential.
D
Dale_M
Guest
After thumbing through PubMed abstracts for an hour, I am tired of trying to find studies which encourage condoms but don’t encourage reducing the number of partners. The ABC model (Abstinence, Be faithful to your partner, Condoms if you can’t do A or B) for reducing HIV is fairly universal.
One small study that only looked at condoms showed that encouraging condom use resulted in an increase of number of partners.
But many of the studies I saw indicated something interesting. Persons most likely to use condoms were also the most likely to limit their number of partners. Persons with multiple casual partners tended not to use condoms regularly. The difference between the two groups seemed to be related to self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy. This is probably an important factor to consider when looking at studies and when planning interventions.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Do you think the Church wouldn’t object to murdering persons with HIV? Or is there some other evil that you had in mind that you think the Church would not object to?
J
jack_hawkins
Guest
The fact that someone has a moral obligation to do something, does not grant someone else the right to force them to do it.
When you say those “with an obligation to protect the public” who are you referring to? Don’t you think it’s Orwellian to intervene in what is done to their person? No one in law has the right to force someone (who is a competent adult) to have treatment for a physical condition, in the UK anyway. In some circumstances eg open TB their freedom can be restricted, but they still cannot be forced to accept treatment IIRC (having treated someone in those circumstances several years ago).
N
Nohome
Guest
Well then, perhaps you should read the context of the thread before you decide to snipe a debate.
Yes, but the instincts remain a dynamic part of his being.
yawn
Nohome
P
pnewton
Guest
I did read the context. If you feel my post was inappropriate, then you should report it. If not, then do not post if you find it difficult to be corrected.
The idea that people must always cave to the most base instincts is pessimistic. Either that or an individual is looking to excuse his own sin. To assume that abstinence is impossible is easily countered by the myriad of priest we have living in the world today. Even in a marriage, we have the role model of St. Joseph.
Let us say that a couple where the husband has aids does have sex and uses a condom. We still have confession and absolution. Obviously a priest could deal with the situation pastorally and with compassion, as he should with all sinners. The only problem comes in when a priest (or cardinal) breaks with the Church on his own and proactively declares sin to not be sin.
F
fix
Guest
Read Humanae Vitae then. The teaching in this area comes from the proper interpretation of natural law. That is not begging the question. It does require reasoning skills which include accepting the authentic interpreter of the issue is the Pope.
Where can I read that the magisterium has ever said contraceptive intercourse is licit?
F
fix
Guest
The Church does not authorize intercourse, but She does relate the truth to us that is binding on our conscience. When has She said contracepted intercourse is licit?
It is a central issue. Not everything that can be done ought to be done. No preventive measure that contradicts the moral law is licit. That includes direct sterilization, direct abortion, contraception and many other things.
J
jack_hawkins
Guest
You haven’t understood what I’m saying at all fix.
Preventing HIV is not an issue of contraception.
Preventing HIV is not an issue of contraception.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I understand this point of view, but because condoms (which can prevent HIV transmission) prevent conception the Church sees the two issues overlapping each other.
- Status