Defending the church AND being charitable?

[sw85]

Wow, you’re good. Will you be on my debate team if I ever put one together?

Sure!

And of course, from my atheist standpoint, the suggestion that if they are going to have sex, which they are because that’s a natural and completely ok given, they might as well use a condom, is irrelevant.

If it’s natural and completely OK, doesn’t it follow that they’re going to do it in the natural way, i.e., without artificial contraception?

I notice you didn’t try to evade my pointing out that you’re ignorant of the Church’s basis for asserting the wrongness of contraception, which is best evidenced by the fact that you think it’s something the Church has the authority to change.

I forgot that all sex in Africa is conducted in rape sprees…

Either the Catholic Church has extraordinary power in Africa or it doesn’t. If it does, you need to explain why Africans ignore it with respect to its sexual morality problems. If it doesn’t, then you need to explain why it’s the Catholic Church’s fault no one rubbers up before having illicit sex, whether of the rape-ish or polygamous or adulterous or fornication or incest variety.

Either way, you have explaining to do, not snark.

And I’m not “demanding” that the Church abandon their teaching on contraception, I’m simply suggesting that the teachings are an evil in this world. I don’t expect the church to change because of my opinions.

That’s good, given that you obviously have a radically deficient understanding of what constitutes “evil” no doubt informed by your aforementioned ignorance re: the basis for its moral teachings, and your utterly unexamined utilitarianism.

No need to feel bad about this. I was ignorant when I was a utilitarian atheist, too, and the rectification of the former error entailed rectification of the latter one. It’s not as if the Church does a great job explaining its rationale, anyway.

And could you also please enlighten me to what I do not understand about the Church’s basis for its teachings on contraception?

No, I’m not going to drop everything I’m doing so I can type up a cogent defense of over two millennia of natural theology and ethics just because you can’t be bothered to do your homework before speaking on the topic.

I will be happy to recommend a good place for you to start, though. Check out Edward Feser’s “Aquinas.” It’s very dry and academic prose, but you only to read, I think, the first and fifth chapters to get the general drift, and between them that’s maybe 60 pages.

I am not playing comparison. The Crusades saw the murder of many unbelievers. I am examining that on its own. I do not deny your comparison, and I admire that at least you are calling it the result of communist regimes instead of atheism.

You were changing the subject, in other words.

I don’t see a need to make that distinction. “Communism” is one facet of the same intellectual errors which produced atheism and materialism and every other grisly and gore-spattered -ism which reached their climax and logical conclusion in the 20th century.

Christians fighting Muslims, Muslims fighting Christians, I am failing to see the difference. Please illustrate it for me, since you clearly have the case.

Perhaps that failure to see the difference is produced by ignorance of the relevant issues on your part?

But let’s have a brief history lesson, and you can verify this in any history book. Beginning in late antiquity, much of what is now the heart of the Muslim world was Christian. A millennium later, those areas were Muslim. That includes the Arabian peninsula, modern Turkey, northern Africa, and, at various times, parts of the Balkans, Mediterranean islands such as Sicily, and the majority of Spain. Now, why was that? Did these areas spontaneously and peacefully convert to Islam on their own? We know this is false. They were conquered and their Christian populations subject to gruesome persecution.

Now, if Muslims conquered Christian areas and slaughtered many of its inhabitants (and they did), it logically follows Christians have a right to reassert their proper ownership of that land and insist on the defense of their believers. That’s the nature of a “just war” after all – a war waged by legitimate authority in response to unprovoked aggression.

If you think self-defense is not a legitimate basis for a just war, or if you think there is no such thing as a “just war,” you owe us an argument as to why anyone should believe you. “I don’t like violence” doesn’t count.

Its always easy to round down given a bias. But even if your claims were accurate, how is that still not relevant?

How is the fact that Christianity isn’t in fact the bloodiest institution in history relevant to the claim that Christianity is the bloodiest institution in history? Is that a serious question?

Look, if something is worth believing in, people are probably going to be willing to kill and/or die for it. So if people believe in something so strongly that they are willing to kill and/or die for it, we need to ask ourselves why. Perhaps what they believe in is objectively true, and they’re fighting to defend it from peddlers of falsehood. Perhaps what they believe is false but nevertheless appealing. Perhaps they are simply lying about what they say to believe in order to acquire power, riches, etc. In any event, we need to evaluate these arguments on their merits.

Gravity kills lots of people, after all; that’s not evidence that it’s false!

 

[sw85]

I see what you mean. But that never was my intention, honest. I’ve learned so much here, and everytime I ask for help, I get it! You’re all so kind I can already see how this is getting off topic though…so if the mods feel that its going nowhere, please lock this thread. I appreciate every one of you responding, thank you

Please feel free to message me by PM for further assistance if you don’t wish to start new threads. I have never heard of the sort of thing described there happening (people coming here from FB), but CA is a big place and there’s much that happens here that I don’t see.

And this was proclaimed in 2010, which is 42 years after Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae… Although I do applaud the updated position.

It’s hardly updated. The Holy Father simply pointed out that the love exhibited by contracepting prostitutes in Africa may eventually lead them to adopt a fuller and deeper understanding of man’s sexual nature – an understanding that would logically lead them to shun both contraception and prostitution.

This sort of horse **** peddling common by the media is simply obscene. Benedict is orders of magnitude more theologically conservative than Paul VI, and even he reaffirmed in strong terms the Church’s traditional teachings on this issue… They aren’t going anywhere.

 

[pepipop]

I have attached two documents, in regards to the CC’s position regarding contraception, i.e PPV1’s prophecies 60 yrs ago, and also secular articles from Harvard and another stating that the Pope or CC was correct - condoms do NOT stop aids, they actually advance the disease through immorality.

businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz1lzBzUSMl

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?
Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,
By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Read more: businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz1m07cHwXO

Here are two quickly searched articles, regarding the ‘failure’ of condoms in Africa quoted by non-catholics and stating that moral attittudes need to be changed.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/07/catholic-church-condoms-africa

Those countries that have chosen to popularise use of the condom – like many nations in southern Africa – are now fast changing policies. Those countries that have given emphasis to late start of sexual activity, abstention and faithfulness in relationships have seen a dramatic fall in the rate of new cases.

“Condoms can protect Africans from Aids,” Tanya claims. Perhaps, but what I do know is that the only way to stop HIV/Aids is to ask people to lead responsible sex lives. Offering the condom as a panacea does the opposite. Perhaps this simple fact is lost on people who have never set foot in Africa, but parading the miracles of the condom simply invites people, especially the young, to be careless with their sexuality and so become prime targets of the HIV virus. The exact same as is happened to the western world since the 1960’s - anything goes.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’d drop anyone who made such baseless generalizations about my faith if I still wasted any time with FB.

 

[Leegal]

And this was proclaimed in 2010, which is 42 years after Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae… Although I do applaud the updated position.

Pope Benedict XVI still holds with the belief that condom use promotes immorality while also realizing that proclaiming abstinence is not going to stop a deadly disease from spreading. Thus, his purpose is to address the greater of two evils and that would be to infect others with a deadly disease.

 

[pepipop]

Pope Benedict XVI still holds with the belief that condom use promotes immorality while also realizing that proclaiming abstinence is not going to stop a deadly disease from spreading. Thus, his purpose is to address the greater of two evils and that would be to infect others with a deadly disease.

I am not actually sure what the understanding is regarding PBV1’s stance on condoms use, however I do recall it was taken out of context at the time. He has never changed his stance against condom use and never will. His argument was a theological one (from memory) and was along the lines of:_ if a male prostitute (say realising he had HIV), recognised in his conscience that he would infect a ‘client’, and then used a condom solely with this moral reason in mind (i.e. to care for the other person and not infect him), then his action would be seen to be less instrinically evil and more moral than not using a condom, as he had taken the action solely to save another’s life. However, the example he used was obviously betwen two males, hence there could be no contraceptive action. But condom use in PBVI’s eyes is still a sin and his example was hypothetical in an attempt to highlight moral theology, as opposed to actual acceptance of condoms and their use in real life.

“In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality,” the spokesman explained. Rather, the use of the condom to lessen the danger of contagion may be “a first act of responsibility” and “a first step on the path toward a more human sexuality” rather than acting to put another’s life at risk.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-spokesman-pope-not-changing-church-teaching-on-condom-use/