Condoms

[ClearWater]

That’s like telling your kid not to use heroin, but here’s some needles just in case.

 

[Estevao]

Well, obviously I am not a scientist so I rely on others who have studies biology to confirm this for me but sexual transmitted diseases like syphilis are far less common today than they were many years ago (these results are apparently obtained from the survey of accounts from the historical past or from the examination of corpses).

The only reason it seems like the world has gone sexy crazy is purely because they don’t have to hide it anymore.

I’m yet to read the the full Theology of the body, but I think I have a fairly good grasp of the logic behind Humae Vitae and I just cannot agree with it, it seems to fly in the face of reality and basic rationality. I know his works aren’t very popular with Catholics since his Catholic Theology license was withdrawn but the (still validly ordained) Fr. Hans Kung makes a fairly compelling argument against the formulation of Humae Vitae in his book “Infallible”.

Wow amazing argument there. So in exchange for lower syphillis we get tens of millions of aborted babies every year.

And it’s funny too, not only does the Catholic Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception come from the witness of sacred scripture and 2,000 years of sacred tradition, it’s also based upon reason. I suspect you didn’t understand anything of Humanae Vitae because you probably can’t differentiate between metaphysics and metamucil. Time to acquaint yourself with some basic philosophy, friend.

You can call something “compelling” and emotionally assert that the opposition “flies in the face of reality and basic rationality” all you want, but pointing to some heretical priest isn’t going to make much of a case for you. Most of the heresies throughout history have come from the clergy, from Arius to Luther up until today.

 

[NekoNecro]

Wow amazing argument there. So in exchange for lower syphillis we get tens of millions of aborted babies every year.

Ok, why does abortion keep coming into this? I agree, I don’t like abortion either but preventative contraception (condoms) and abortifecents are entirely different to one another.

Unless you want to try and convince me sperm are people, this isn’t going to work as an argument against condoms. Because every time a man fertilized his wife he’d have murdered however many millions of sperm didn’t do it.

And it’s funny too, not only does the Catholic Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception come from the witness of sacred scripture and 2,000 years of sacred tradition, it’s also based upon reason. I suspect you didn’t understand anything of Humanae Vitae because you probably can’t differentiate between metaphysics and metamucil.

Artifical contraception, no matter how much Catholic endorsed agencies might say otherwise is no different from “natural” methods like NFP. It’s the same deal, you’re trying to delay a conception. We can discuss a lack of “love” in the physical act but I don’t really find this argument that convincing, seeing as many Catholics use condoms and enjoy very successful marriages. I should mention however that any method of contraceptive, natural or otherwise is clearly condemned by the earlier infalliable encyclical Casti Connubii of Pius IX which makes it clear under no circumstances is it permissible to avoid a pregnancy.

I don’t think 50ish years since the last u-turn on doctrine regarding sexual practice really counts as a tradition.

Time to acquaint yourself with some basic philosophy, friend.

Ok, easy, I can understand what you’re saying without you needing to be so angsty. Perhaps it’s just my lacking english (I’m French) but you sound pretty het up and defensive here.

You can call something “compelling” and emotionally assert that the opposition “flies in the face of reality and basic rationality” all you want, but pointing to some heretical priest isn’t going to make much of a case for you. Most of the heresies throughout history have come from the clergy, from Arius to Luther up until today.

I don’t think Fr. Kung can really be counted as a heretic, after all he’s still allowed to give mass and has actually dined with the Pope Emeritus on several occasions (including during his pontificate) to discuss theological matters.

If he was a heretic he would have been excommunicated, and as of writing he has not neither has he recanted his views.

 

[Boswell]

Condoning sin, participating in sin, and failing to correct are all sins in themselves.

From the Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized.

Jesus had this to say, Mt 18:6-7:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"

 

[maryjk]

I’m yet to read the the full Theology of the body, but I think I have a fairly good grasp of the logic behind Humae Vitae and I just cannot agree with it, it seems to fly in the face of reality and basic rationality. I know his works aren’t very popular with Catholics since his Catholic Theology license was withdrawn but the (still validly ordained) Fr. Hans Kung makes a fairly compelling argument against the formulation of Humae Vitae in his book “Infallible”.

So you haven’t read it, don’t know what is in it, but you do know that you don’t agree with it.

 

[EasterBeagle]

Ok, why does abortion keep coming into this? I agree, I don’t like abortion either but preventative contraception (condoms) and abortifecents are entirely different to one another.

As contraception was introduced abortion skyrocketed, 57 million since 1973 in the US alone. As per questionnaires by the AGI (Guttmacher Institute) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control) 94% of all recorded abortions are reported to be from failed contraception.

 

[NekoNecro]

So you haven’t read it, don’t know what is in it, but you do know that you don’t agree with it.

I’ve been reading it quite recently (as in today, since I’d forgotten most of the finer parts but have needed to review it for some research), but I can’t say I’ve read the whole thing until I actually finish it.

I’m sorry, but a document that tells people that condoms are intrinsically morally evil? (again, my english might be off). I’ve seen enough threads on here about parents suffering and unable to cope with the seven or eight children they have never mind in my parish while I attended.

Some parts such as that on Abortion I can sympathize with near entirely, others such as contraception I find to be actually quite harmful. I understand the world needs more Catholic babies to be born, but we don’t live in the 16th century anymore where 60% of them die and a family might end up with three of twelve making it to adulthood.

As contraception was introduced abortion skyrocketed, 57 million since 1973 in the US alone. As per questionnaires by the AGI (Guttmacher Institute) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control) 94% of all recorded abortions are reported to be from failed contraception.

Right, I’m not very familiar with US statistics, but didn’t abortion only become legal as a result of a high profile lawsuit in 1973? I don’t really think this can really reflect attitudes on abortion, rather it reflects the fact people go to abortion clinics to get them now rather than getting their grandmother or the brothel madame to do it with rusty knitting needles.

 

[EasterBeagle]

…rather it reflects the fact people go to abortion clinics to get them now rather than getting their grandmother or the brothel madame to do it with rusty knitting needles.

That’s the problem, the creation of this systematic assembly-line murdering mechanism (Planned Parenthood) for executing defenseless innocent babies is why 57 million have been killed. The old way was a handful per year. Exactly how the gas chambers increased efficiency for Hitler. One could use the same argument, it was uglier when the Nazis had to kill them one at a time. These gas chambers make it so much cleaner and easier, better for everybody.

 

[NekoNecro]

That’s the problem, the creation of this systematic assembly-line murdering mechanism (Planned Parenthood) for executing defenseless innocent babies is why 57 million have been killed. The old way was a handful per year. Exactly how the gas chambers increased efficiency for Hitler. One could use the same argument, it was uglier when the Nazis had to kill them one at a time. These gas chambers make it so much cleaner and easier, better for everybody.

I’m not “pro-choice” or “pro-death” as I think you americans say, but I find the comparison to Nazi war camps to be rather extreme and a bit of a stretch.

I believe the distinction lies in that the fetus/baby is feeding directly off of the womans body and is not being forced into a gas chamber arbitrarily. Rightly or wrongly the state gives precedence where I live to a womans right to decide what happens to her own body.

Rightly or wrongly? It’s not my business since I don’t have a womb and cannot empathize with rape victims or those who for other reasons might seek one out. I cannot believe there are monsters who just get an abortion for the fun of it, they must have been driven to it by some awful circumstances.

And in any scenario, those who seek an abortion will still go out and get one legally or not. I’d rather the woman procure one safely if she must rather than risk a slow and painful death from a “back alley abortion” with a coathanger.

 

[1ke]

Right, I’m not very familiar with US statistics, but didn’t abortion only become legal as a result of a high profile lawsuit in 1973?

No, it was already legal at the state level in several states prior to 1973.

I don’t really think this can really reflect attitudes on abortion, rather it reflects the fact people go to abortion clinics to get them now rather than getting their grandmother or the brothel madame to do it with rusty knitting needles.

This is pervasive myth-- the “back alley” abortion-- which was perpetrated on the US by Bernard Nathanson and his associates (an abortion doctor who has since repented). He openly admits they made up “back alley abortion” statistics.

The same people performed the majority of abortions before 1973 as after-- doctors. Albeit quietly.

The primary cause of maternal mortality in abortions was the same then as today-- infection/sepsis. What has changed in the equation is the advent of penicillin and other antibiotics that treat infection. By the late 60s abortion deaths were down near what they are today.

Women still die from legal abortions today. From the same causes as before. They die less frequently because the infections are more easily treatable. But, they still die.

 

[1ke]

I’d rather the woman procure one safely if she must rather than risk a slow and painful death from a “back alley abortion” with a coathanger.

Myth.

 

[NekoNecro]

Myth.

19,000 dead women worldwide who die from a backalley abortion every year is not a myth, if anything it’s one of the most conservative figures I’ve ever seen offered on the subject. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion . Not only that, but in this “morally degenerate time” as I’ve read a few times today already the abortion rate has actually declined worldwide over the past fifteen years despite increasing access to it becoming available.

It has long been thought that the figure of women who died of an unsafe abortion was as high as 1.2 million during the 1950’s in the US alone. ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?compID=100&id=20 .

I understand absolute adherence to official church teaching doesn’t really make it easy for unbiased critical observation but the facts are there. Reality isn’t perfect, but it’s not going away anytime soon.

I know Planned Parenthood is a much loathed agency but they’re the only source of statistics for the US regarding abortion I know of that are peer reviewed by academics to ensure accuracy and article quality. You can read more of one of their reports here plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/benefits_2009-11.pdf .

No, it was already legal at the state level in several states prior to 1973.

I didn’t know that, thank you. If anything though it does strengthen my point, the abortion rate isn’t really any lower or higher, but the fatalities from the abortion procedure itself certainly are lower.

 

[EasterBeagle]

I’m not “pro-choice” or “pro-death” as I think you americans say, but I find the comparison to Nazi war camps to be rather extreme and a bit of a stretch.

I do also, as the Nazi’s only killed 6 million in their war camps, that’s 9.5 times less than Planned Parenthood.

I believe the distinction lies in that the fetus…

Fetus is latin for young one or baby.

It’s not my business since I don’t have a womb and cannot empathize with rape victims or those who for other reasons might seek one out.

Questionnaires by the AGI (Guttmacher Institute) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control) also found that only .03% of women having abortions were rape victims.

 

[NekoNecro]

I do also, as the Nazi’s only killed 6 million in their war camps, that’s 9.5 times less than Planned Parenthood.

Not everyone considers an embryo to be a human life. Indeed, it’s a hotly contested point by many leading scientists and philosophers even today.

I personally abstain on the matter, if we say at the moment of conception (which I’m more inclined to agree with) we can just as easily argue that sperm and egg cells are half of people and that not using sperm/egg cells is an act of murder.

Fetus is latin for young one or baby.

Yep, but not in the medical context.

Questionnaires by the AGI (Guttmacher Institute) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control) also found that only .03% of women having abortions were rape victims.

I’d like to know what country this is, because in some places like Turkey rape is rife. Something like 1 in 5 women will be the victim of an attempted rape so this figure could be far, far higher.

 

[EasterBeagle]

Not everyone considers an embryo to be a human life

The Bible does: "“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

The Old Testament holds that the everlasting soul is infused at the moment of conception. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

The New Testament holds that the everlasting soul is infused at the moment of conception. “For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15).

I’d like to know what country this is

I’m in the USA

 

[NekoNecro]

The Bible does: "“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

The Old Testament holds that the everlasting soul is infused at the moment of conception. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

The New Testament holds that the everlasting soul is infused at the moment of conception. “For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15).

Of course, and this is where Catholics draw their definition from but you do need to consider Catholics only make up 22% of American Christianity (I think? Sure I read that recently) whereas many of denominations driving the pro life movement themselves cannot agree on a solid definition. I’ll take a liberal Methodist parish who’s meeting I sat in on to take notes for my research, they used Jeremiah 1:5 to stress Gods hand in the creation of human souls, yet do not extend it to say that souls are received immediately at conception so in the wider christian community opinion is fiercely divided. The Magisteriums interpretation while authoritative for Catholics is not the one most of Christian America (never mind the secular world) turns to.

I don’t think even the great Doctors of the Church Augustine or Aquinas even subscribed to the current Catholic outlook on this matter but in all fairness to them, they didn’t have our knowledge of natal development.

Thou shalt not kill is irrelevant if the fetus does not poses a soul, why else does the Church allow for the euthanization of animals or the consumption of flesh? Because the organisms are not deemed to have an immortal soul (an odd jump of logic if you ask me, one would think animal life would be more prized if there was no hope for eternity for them).

That Deuteronomy passage…I’m not familiar with the context, I’ll have to read about that one.

I’m in the USA

Ah, well I guess I have some reading on statistics to do!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I tried to explain to a friend that it is morally wrong (I 100% believe that it is gravely wrong), but she kept saying that if the kid is going to do it anyway, be proactive about it. I fail to understand why so many people do not understand how wrong this is. It bothers me. He is 16, and they have been dating for 4 months. I do not condone premarital sex whatsoever, but I just have so much pity on him. Why would he do such a thing.

Assuming the friend is not Catholic chances are that the doctrine she follows (if any) does not already teach that interfering with conception to be a sin. Though even among those that I know that are Catholic they are aware of the teaching but it is not a position that they have adopted.

Often times empathy plays a role in convincing some one of a moral position. But empathy does seem to be invoked by the thought of semen not reaching an egg or an egg never developing into anything more than an egg.

I think declarations of it being a sin are likely to be compartmentalized and classified as an at tribe of Catholicism. Much like how prohibitions taught from people of other religions may be seen as cultural or attributes of those religions, but not adopted.

It seems the friend is doing this because she sees this pathway as being less damaging to her son. If you want to convince her to stop giving him condoms you may only be able to do that if you can also convince her the son is enter off having see without condoms. And STD and pregnancy concerns are unlikely to allow that to happen.

Pardon my misyakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[EasterBeagle]

Catholics only make up 22%

That’s actually 38%.

images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8p.PGmBTAwYANJOJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzbzhtdmdxBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMzZmY2ZGMyOGQ3Y2E1Mjg5ZjgxYTA5ZGM5MmQ4OGViMARncG9zAzMzBGl0A2Jpbmc-?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dchristian%2Bdenominations%26fr%3Dyfp-t-320-s%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D33&w=800&h=668&imgurl=www.edenjournal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2FUSDenominationsNumberOfAdherents.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edenjournal.com%2F698%2Fwhich-religion-is-right-a-look-at-relgion-by-the-numbers%2F&size=31.5KB&name=…+in+the+United+States+by+Denomination+%28click+chart+to+enlarge&p=christian+denominations&oid=3ff6dc28d7ca5289f81a09dc92d88eb0&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t-320-s&tt=…+in+the+United+States+by+Denomination+%28click+chart+to+enlarge&b=0&ni=336&no=33&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12o6gnleo&sigb=13jibgk25&sigi=12jkahq56&sigt=120q7djef&sign=120q7djef&.crumb=C78mssVpIa9&fr=yfp-t-320-s&fr2=piv-web

Thou shalt not kill is irrelevant if the fetus does not poses a soul

All these denominations use Bibles that these quotes appear in. And according to the Bible, an unborn child does have a soul.

 

[NekoNecro]

That’s actually 38%.

Good grief, it’s shot up that fast? I knew my jouranls were a few years old but…Wow.

All these denominations use Bibles that these quotes appear in. And according to the Bible, an unborn child does have a soul.

According to Catholic teaching it does. But by the same token, the Orthodox church read the bible as allowing divorce, the Mormons read it as describing a multitude of Gods as opposed to the one and the Sea of Faith read it that Jesus wasn’t divine at all and there is no God.

The Bible’s one of the most vaugley worded compilations of scripture on earth and it’s all so easy to read a passage in a multitude of ways. In some ways that’s part of the beauty of it, but utterly confusing when Biblical authorities draw wildly different interpretations (And it is only Catholics who look to the Magisterium as the sole interpreter).

 

[Jerurussia]

HPV/Human Papilloma Virus spreads with condom use. Some HPV strains cause cancer of the anything-below-the-belt and oral cancers.