Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The palliative care specialists I know would disagree with that statement that opiates don’t hasten death - and it would mean that many years of debate over dual effect had been pointless.
 
jack_hawkins said:
The palliative care specialists I know would disagree with that statement that opiates don’t hasten death - and it would mean that many years of debate over dual effect had been pointless.
Click to expand...
It would mean we have to apply the terms correctly. It may also mean many act incorrectly. None of that means the moral reasoning employed by the Church is wrong.
 
jack_hawkins said:
I think the answer to that question is readily apparent - the purpose for asking not so
Click to expand...
I’ll give you a 3 on that rather clumsily-executed lateral arabesque.😃

Using morphine for pleasure is morally wrong. Using condoms for pleasure is morally wrong – especially among people who have or are at risk for AIDS.

And promoting the use of comdoms to further and enable that risky and immoral behavior is wrong.
 
I really can’t see how using morphine for pleasure came into this at all??? And I certainly don’t know what I said that could remotely equate to endorsing the use of recreational drugs???
As for using a condom for pleasure - is there any other use for a condom? A water carrier in a survival kit I guess. Is a condom ever used for punishment? Again I guess you could fill it with leadshot to make an improvised sap…
Yours most mystified…
 
jack_hawkins said:
I really can’t see how using morphine for pleasure came into this at all??? And I certainly don’t know what I said that could remotely equate to endorsing the use of recreational drugs???
As for using a condom for pleasure - is there any other use for a condom? A water carrier in a survival kit I guess. Is a condom ever used for punishment? Again I guess you could fill it with leadshot to make an improvised sap…
Yours most mystified…
Click to expand...
Using morphine for pleasure came into the debate because someone tried to use pallative care for the dying (such as morphine drips) to somehow “prove” that endorsing condoms is morally acceptable.

But condoms are not used to ease the suffering of those already dying. They are used in illicit sexual relations, which is to say, for pleasure only.

If one does not engage in illicit sexual relations, one does not “need” a condom.
 
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t need others to intervene and I don’t see you “correcting” me, merely disagreeing.
pnewton said:
The idea that people must always cave to the most base instincts is pessimistic.
Click to expand...
All, always and never are sweeping generalizations, there will be exceptions. What you see as pessimistic I see as realistic.
pnewton said:
To assume that abstinence is impossible is easily countered by the myriad of priest we have living in the world today.
Click to expand...
I’ll bite my tounge.
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
What about when a Cardinal pretends to be an expert in public health?

Nohome
 
vern_humphrey said:
Using morphine for pleasure came into the debate because someone tried to use pallative care for the dying (such as morphine drips) to somehow “prove” that endorsing condoms is morally acceptable.

But condoms are not used to ease the suffering of those already dying. They are used in illicit sexual relations, which is to say, for pleasure only.

If one does not engage in illicit sexual relations, one does not “need” a condom.
Click to expand...
No, still no comprendez, your post sounds like a succession of non sequiturs to be honest:confused:
 
Nohome said:
All, always and never are sweeping generalizations, there will be exceptions. What you see as pessimistic I see as realistic.
Click to expand...
So, if somene said that “Genocide is never appropriate”, you would consider there to be 'realistic" exceptions to that moral rule??
 
jack_hawkins said:
No, still no comprendez, your post sounds like a succession of non sequiturs to be honest:confused:
Click to expand...
I am well aware that you do not comprehend, and are confused. But you must attribute that to a determination not to comprehend on your part.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I am well aware that you do not comprehend, and are confused. But you must attribute that to a determination not to comprehend on your part.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I see we’ve run out of constructive things to say. I proounce life extinct in this thread.

R.I.P.
 
jack_hawkins said:
Oh dear, I see we’ve run out of constructive things to say. I proounce life extinct in this thread.

R.I.P.
Click to expand...
Life became extinct on this thread and constructive debate died when sophistry came to the aid of concuspience in supporting the use of comdoms for illicit sex under the pretext of “public health.”
 
jack_hawkins said:
I really can’t see how using morphine for pleasure came into this at all??? And I certainly don’t know what I said that could remotely equate to endorsing the use of recreational drugs???
As for using a condom for pleasure - is there any other use for a condom? A water carrier in a survival kit I guess. Is a condom ever used for punishment? Again I guess you could fill it with leadshot to make an improvised sap…
Yours most mystified…
Click to expand...
Yes, it is for illicit pleasure. It renders the act sterile. Why can you not accept God ordained the act to be as it should be and not as some desire it to be?
 
I’m sorry you feel that public health can only ever be an excuse for illicit sex. I often find those with a fixation with illicit sex are the ones with the problem…
I resent your assumptions about my motives - a desire for contraception doesn’t apply to me , I can assure - we cannot have children.
 
A condom is wrong even if subjectively infertile. That is part of the point. The act is to be as God ordained.
 
fix said:
A condom is wrong even if subjectively infertile. That is part of the point. The act is to be as God ordained.
Click to expand...
I’m getting a sense of jamais vu here, I don’t know about you?
Since we have come back in a circle this confirms my diagnosis of death.

R.I.P.
 
jack_hawkins said:
I’m sorry you feel that public health can only ever be an excuse for illicit sex. I often find those with a fixation with illicit sex are the ones with the problem…
I resent your assumptions about my motives - a desire for contraception doesn’t apply to me , I can assure - we cannot have children.
Click to expand...
You have come on a Catholic debate forum to attack Catholic morality and are surprised that people reject the “if it feels good, it must be okay” brand of morality?

You expect us to accept at face value the proposition that furthering illicit sex is “public health?” You want us to bless self-indulgent, dangerous and life-threatening behavior on the grounds that using a condom makes it slightly less dangerous?
 
You have come on a Catholic debate forum to attack Catholic morality and are surprised that people reject the “if it feels good, it must be okay” brand of morality?
Click to expand...
I suggest you get your facts right. And address your own Christian failings, as well as your reading ability.
I have never stated “if it feels good, it must be okay”. I would sort out that beam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top