Explanation the Church's position in condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter seeker63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seeker63

Guest
How could I explain to an atheist/agnostic the Church’s position on condoms without, say, enrolling him in a Theology of the Body course? The argument always comes up that condoms, while not 100% safe, would have prevented many deaths in Third World countires and that the Church is therefore responsible for deaths that could’ve been prevented had it encouraged condom use.

This person is obsessed with sex, and since he has no religious grounding, doesn’t see casual sex as wrong so long as no one is physically harmed. To him it’s all just harmless pleasure.
 
40.png
seeker63:
How could I explain to an atheist/agnostic the Church’s position on condoms without, say, enrolling him in a Theology of the Body course? The argument always comes up that condoms, while not 100% safe, would have prevented many deaths in Third World countires and that the Church is therefore responsible for deaths that could’ve been prevented had it encouraged condom use.

This person is obsessed with sex, and since he has no religious grounding, doesn’t see casual sex as wrong so long as no one is physically harmed. To him it’s all just harmless pleasure.
Click to expand...
Abstaining from sex is the best way of preventing disease. It’s the only way of ensuring a healthy life.

The use of condoms to prevent disease, pregnancy, what-have-you, is not a sure thing. The Church is not responsible for the deaths of those who practice sex without a condom. The use of these condoms also would not have prevented death, it may have prolonged it, but it would have come nonetheless. The danger with condoms is that they promote casual sex, so even if they prevent disease the person is still just as likely, if not more, of catching an STD.

I don’t have all the information, but look for information on abstaination and Uganda. I’m sure you’ll be surprised at the results.
 
But how do you argue with someone who believes casual sex is morally blameless, especially if they don’t believe in the existence of a soul and think birth control is 100% safe?
 
I know that and you know that, but this is an irreligious person I’m talking about. I’m not saying the Church owes him an explanation—certainly not!—butI would like to be able to hold up my end of the argument.
 
OK - you could take the argument to him as to how many deaths the use of condoms has caused.
 
That’s quite a huge leap to assume that if the Church “encouraged” condom use, those who were encouraged would have used them in the first place. Ask HIM for proof…

If he wants answers from you, turn it around and ask him for the statistics and documentary from the Church reps or police who followed those “encouraged” people home and documented the proper condom use and subsequent lack of pregnancy…

You probably cannot get to the bottom of his argument for sex being just about pleasure and not hurting anyone if he doesn’t have any religious belief… that one might not be worth arguing. Even people of some religious belief can debate that (non-orthodox Catholics, and others not necessarily seeing sex in the light of its true intent, etc.). When he has NO religion or faith to start from, it will be difficult to enlighten him…
 
And how many is that? The Culture of Death promotes condoms as just about foolproof and a cure-all. Use one and no worries is what it promotes. I honestly don’t know the facts and figures.

But I still have no idea how to convince a person who doesn’t believe in the soul that casual sex is damaging to the soul and dehumanizing.

This guy considers sex a game and a sport, with women as something you have to con and fool, then capture, bag, and bed like a hunting trophy. I’ve told him I’d admit to being undersexed if he’d admit to being oversexed, but no, he says he’s normal, acting “naturally” the way a human being should.
 
Of course in my previous post I was being somewhat funny about him providing stats because that would be ridiculous and I was trying to prove how baseless his argument is… I should have put in a smilie of some sort…

Anyway, I’m looking for it now, but somewhere in his Naked w/o Shame talks, I believe Christopher West addresses the difference between humans and animals, with regard to sexuality. And I think if I can find what he (or JPII) said, it can be applied even to a non-religious person. It was a common sense thing…

Too bad there are guys out there like this… good heavens.

I’ll see if I can find and post what I’m referring to…
 
40.png
seeker63:
But how do you argue with someone who believes casual sex is morally blameless, especially if they don’t believe in the existence of a soul and think birth control is 100% safe?
Click to expand...
Casual sex treats another human being as an object, something to be used and tossed aside for one’s own pleasure. Is a person the equivalent of a remote control car?

Seeing as he errantly believes that birth control is 100% safe I think he’ll be shocked when someone comes back and says “I’m pregnant.” However you shouldn’t wait for that to occur. If you do a small amount of searching, especially on these forums, I’m sure you’ll come up with hundreds of places to begin your search for evidence that birth control isn’t 100% safe. I’m sorry that I don’t have the actual links myself, but I’m sure someone will point you in the right direction.

God bless.
 
40.png
seeker63:
How could I explain to an atheist/agnostic the Church’s position on condoms without, say, enrolling him in a Theology of the Body course? The argument always comes up that condoms, while not 100% safe, would have prevented many deaths in Third World countires and that the Church is therefore responsible for deaths that could’ve been prevented had it encouraged condom use.

This person is obsessed with sex, and since he has no religious grounding, doesn’t see casual sex as wrong so long as no one is physically harmed. To him it’s all just harmless pleasure.
Click to expand...
Um… abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage would have prevented 100% of the deaths.

If one is Catholic and following Church teaching one has nothing to worry about.
 
Secular types unfortunately believe abstinence is unnatural. It really bothers me that most people seem to believe that sexual activity is a given, that it is a force that cannot and should not be controlled, that once a person reaches a certain age, he or she will almost certainly have sex.
 
Does anyone think that people having unprotected extramarital sex are deciding not to use condoms because of church doctrine? To me the idea is just silly. If someone doesn’t care what the church says about chastity and reserving sex for marriage, why would they pay attention to the teaching on birth control?

And for that matter, is it even remotely a church teaching that extramarital sex is a bigger sin when birth control is involved? It seems to me that the church’s position on birth control is entirely concerned with promoting the sanctity of sex between husband and wife.

Has any priest anywhere said “Well, I’ll forgive you for having that affair, but I’m glad that you were at least open to the possibility of life.”

–Bill
 
What do people on this site think about Cardinal Daneels views on condoms. He strongly professes that in situations such as some African countries that are plagued by Aids, the churches ban on condoms is actually going against the 6th commandment
 
40.png
seeker63:
Secular types unfortunately believe abstinence is unnatural. It really bothers me that most people seem to believe that sexual activity is a given, that it is a force that cannot and should not be controlled, that once a person reaches a certain age, he or she will almost certainly have sex.
Click to expand...
I am not sure atheists believe in self mastery.
 
40.png
Libero:
What do people on this site think about Cardinal Daneels views on condoms. He strongly professes that in situations such as some African countries that are plagued by Aids, the churches ban on condoms is actually going against the 6th commandment
Click to expand...
Huh? The individual might be going against this commandment, but I fail to see how the Church itself is.
 
40.png
seeker63:
How could I explain to an atheist/agnostic the Church’s position on condoms without, say, enrolling him in a Theology of the Body course?
Click to expand...
It helps to know the position yourself, inside and outside.

The churches current postion is that sex exists as a conduit for reproduction and that new life always has preference over old life. Contraception is said to be wrong because it stops the potential for new life. The only contraceptive method allowed, the rythm method, is very, very unreliable, so its ability to interfere with ‘Gods plan’ is considered minor.

Condoms, if properly used are near 100% effective (98%!) and at that rate is deemed contrary to Gods plan.

Regarding lives saved, the churchs’ current position is that sex outside marriage is sinful, and the wages of sin are death. Those who have sex outside of marriage are morally culpable for any disease they catch, and their demise. Thus, the church is being moral when it demands followers abstain from sex and do not use condoms.

When high-ups claims condoms have tiny holes in them, are pre-infected with HIV, or provide no protection at all they are telling lies, and unfortunately change the ancient slander against the catholics into truth.

That slander is in Romans 3:8 as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”?

It is the judgement of the church that preganacy must have a greater than 2% chance during sex.

it is the judgement of the church that all abortions are worthwhile over the use of family planning because the blame and the sin falls to the individuals.

It is the judgement of the church that prevention of death, the orphaning of children, and the destruction of villages and societies is a worthy cost for its opposition to condom use.

For those of you who say “condoms are not 100% effective” and use this as an argument, you must admit that 98% is a pretty close second.

Finally, we all fall back into sin. No one is free. You and I will fail.

The church knows this as well. But the wages of sin are death…
 
40.png
seeker63:
And how many is that? The Culture of Death promotes condoms as just about foolproof and a cure-all. Use one and no worries is what it promotes. I honestly don’t know the facts and figures.

But I still have no idea how to convince a person who doesn’t believe in the soul that casual sex is damaging to the soul and dehumanizing.

This guy considers sex a game and a sport, with women as something you have to con and fool, then capture, bag, and bed like a hunting trophy. I’ve told him I’d admit to being undersexed if he’d admit to being oversexed, but no, he says he’s normal, acting “naturally” the way a human being should.
Click to expand...
OK. You may very well not be able to convince him of anything. Likely, in fact.

Explain to him that the Catholic view is that we are called not merely to natural life but to supernatural life. (He won’t buy it, but that’s the starting point.)

Then explain to him that from this viewpoint, the dignity of the human person must include respect for the supernatural aspect of human life.

Then move to the natural law that men and women, made for one another to complete the image of God (another quantum leap for him), engage in the marriage act both for procreation and mutual union.

See where that goes before moving along to how condoms violate the dignity of the human person.
 
Laugh out loud when he says that the Catholic Church’s prohibition of condom use has anything to do with AIDS deaths in Africa. If CATHOLICS don’t pay attention to the Pope, why does he think pagans would?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top