I just can't reconcile some things

[Philthy]

msgstephen:

You’re right Philthy, I should just say my piece and not put words into the Church’s proverbial mouth.

As it stands then, it is better that those engaged in homosexual activity to use “safer” methods including condoms.

**Of course Im right. :yup: **

• Your attempt to draw a parallel between condom use in homosexuals and the Church’s teaching on condom use during CONTRACEPTION simply reveals a lack of the most basic understanding of the issues involved. Honest.
• I would say your new conclusion is proper, and I believe condom use between homosexuals to lack any element of sexual morality per se. The only issue is that of infectious disease control.
• The BEST solution, of course, is that proposed by the Church - abstinence. That approach would practically stop the disease dead in its tracks.

Phil

 

[msgstephen]

Superstar905:

The Church, will never offer a “safer” way to sin, and to think so, is beyond…nevermind. Sorry, I don’t mean to be harsh, but this teaching to any Christian should be obvious.
{QUOTE]

Yes. It is obvious. And it is obvious that if someone’s son decides to sin and go on a gay romp then he’s be better to use condoms.

So I take it then, that in the situation where a human being decides to engage in evil and risky behaviour, no one would be against the use of condoms even if the behaviour is sinful.

I suppose the “Church” has no specific teaching on that because it is morally absolutist and can only recommend/offer absintance.

When abstinance is ignored in these situations, the Church, then, has nothing to say? Or at least should admit the situation is outside its ability to comment?

 

[Ryniev]

so anyway, LOL! I had have a meeting with the priest tommorrow at 10:30 after tossing and turning last night. Thank you to everyone who sent emails to me and I will respond later I just haven’t been home! I’m writing up a list of my concerns to the Priest and hopefully he will have some good suggestions for me. When I have time I will look into some of the links everyone gave me.

The reason I want to email some of you is that there is another issue here that I don’t really want debated or discussed in “public” that has nothing to do with reproductive issues. I hate to sound cryptic, it’s just personal.

 

[msgstephen]

puzzleannie:

even if your logic were correct, the sad fact is that condoms don’t do much to stop the spread of HIV, HPV, and other STDs. According to the dear family member (and his friends) close to me who lives as the son does in your parable, a big part of the thrill and attraction of this way of life and its approach to sexual pleasure is sponaneity, anonymous encounters, frequent encounters, and risk taking. none of them use condoms or want to use them, so for them at least it is a non-issue. for what it’s worth, none of them are interested in anything legally designated as a marriage, either, as they have no inclination to make a permanent commitment to one person.

I realize my stated position could very well be completely wrong. But I haven’t been able to reconcile it.

 

[msgstephen]

P.S.

Yes, the situation is unlikley but …

If someone came to me and said I’m going to have sex with multiple partners and nothing you say is going to stop me. I would probably suggest condoms.

Not because I approve, but because I figure that the person would be less likely to catch the HIV virus. My intention would be their good health even though they are ignoring their spiritual health. What else could I do or say? Don’t use a condom? I don’t think I could.

Yet, I admit, I do not know the answer here because the best thing would be for that person not to do what they are determined to do and repent of their lusts.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

msgstephen:

P.S.

Yes, the situation is unlikley but …

If someone came to me and said I’m going to have sex with multiple partners and nothing you say is going to stop me. I would probably suggest condoms.

Not because I approve, but because I figure that the person would be less likely to catch the HIV virus. My intention would be their good health even though they are ignoring their spiritual health. What else could I do or say? Don’t use a condom? I don’t think I could.

Yet, I admit, I do not know the answer here because the best thing would be for that person not to do what they are determined to do and repent of their lusts.

If someone came to you and said that they were going to commit a grave sin and didn’t care if they would go to Hell! Would you still suggest condoms?

 

[Kristina_P]

msgstephen:

And your point being?

The Church doesn’t care if he gets AIDS from his sinful romp. The Church would fluff it off as God’s punishment for his sins.

His parents, however, are left with the tradgedy. They would have prefered he used condoms and hoped that someday he would come to his senses and straightened up.

It’s all fine and DANDY to be ABSOLUTIST, but real life has a different schedule.

So I can really understand parents who would prefer that, should their children sin, at least sin ‘safer’ because they are much more likely to avoid disease, pregnancy etc. etc.

The Church can’t accept that because it is absolute in Faith and Morals and is worried only about “eternal souls” and not real lives.

Sure, if a son of mine got AIDS the Church would care. It would rush a priest over to give the Extreme Unction. Wow, we’re happy now! Thank you Church!

If , instead, I had a son who used condoms and was much more likely to avoid AIDS, at least I could hope that some day he might come to his senses.

Um… condom use in a homosexual encounter isn’t contraception, therefore isn’t a sin. The homosexual encounter itself is a sin, but the condom use isn’t.

 

[Kristina_P]

msgstephen:

Superstar905:

The Church, will never offer a “safer” way to sin, and to think so, is beyond…nevermind. Sorry, I don’t mean to be harsh, but this teaching to any Christian should be obvious.
{QUOTE]

Yes. It is obvious. And it is obvious that if someone’s son decides to sin and go on a gay romp then he’s be better to use condoms.

So I take it then, that in the situation where a human being decides to engage in evil and risky behaviour, no one would be against the use of condoms even if the behaviour is sinful.

I suppose the “Church” has no specific teaching on that because it is morally absolutist and can only recommend/offer absintance.

When abstinance is ignored in these situations, the Church, then, has nothing to say? Or at least should admit the situation is outside its ability to comment?

Honestly, does it really matter? If someone’s ignoring the Church’s call to abstinence, then are they going to suddenly have a pang of conscience over the use of contraception? It would be absolutely ridiculous for the Church to say, “It’s morally wrong for you to do A or B, but if you do A, please do B.” The Church is not a medical organization. Her function in this case is to point out what is the right thing to do, not offer tips on how to commit sin in a healthy manner. Of course the Church is morally absolutist. It’s the Catholic Church; we believe in moral absolutes.

 

[msgstephen]

Yes, if using condoms raised the likelihood of diseases not spreading.

In the case of someone deciding to go on a sex romp, especially a gay one with males, for sure. Because HIV is out there and condom use is a measure of protection against its spread.

The person in time may repent … I can’t say how the Lord would touch a person’s heart.

They might start sinning and their conscience convicts them and they repent. If it is a male who is having sex with men then if he had used condoms he probably will live to enjoy the Blessing of a Family from the Lord, a wonderful thing.

 

[msgstephen]

You’re mistaking contraception and disease control.

Here I’m talking about the use of plastic to counter the spread of disease, not about contraception.

People confuse the two. While the Church considers condom use an error in family planning [suggesting instead natural methods] I’m not sure that the Church would oppose the taking of measures to prevent the spread of disease whether it be wearing masks, washing hands, condoms, surgical gloves, etc. etc. regardless if the parties involved in “whatever” situation are sinners or no.

 

[msgstephen]

P.S. Are condoms ‘mystical’ to the Church authorities more than say surgical gloves? Are they accorded some special status?

As in you can wear latex surgical gloves and hospital masks to prevent the spread of a disease but not plastique condoms?

IMHO To accord them special status is wrong ‘magical’ thinking.

 

[puzzleannie]

msgstephen:

I realize my stated position could very well be completely wrong. But I haven’t been able to reconcile it.

sometimes, at least for me and those I teach, often the teaching we cannot reconcile are causing difficulty because a) we don’t even know exactly what is taught, we just keep repeating what we think it is without looking at the authoritative teaching, or b) the arguments we are using to bolster our own opinions are not born out by independent, secular, scientific research or empirical observation. We seem to get intellectually lazy sometimes, and base our opinions on vague snatches of what we have heard or read in the media, not on any valid evidence.

 

[Kristina_P]

msgstephen:

I suppose the “Church” has no specific teaching on that because it is morally absolutist and can only recommend/offer absintance.

When abstinance is ignored in these situations, the Church, then, has nothing to say? Or at least should admit the situation is outside its ability to comment?

In this case, the Church does not comment on “situations.” They comment on the inherent evil of certain acts, i.e., things that are always sins, regardless of the situation. Homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, etc. are always sins. Contraception is always a sin. Putting one in the context of the other doesn’t change the inherent sinfulness of either of the acts. Also, to state it again, condom use in a homosexual encounter is not contraception. The Church says nothing about condom use outside of its function as a contraceptive, so this whole homosexual condom use debate is pointless in regard to Church teaching.
In the context of an immoral heterosexual encounter, contraception is still wrong. In that case, two sins are being committed. But, if a couple is ignoring one teaching, why on earth are they going to pay attention to the other teaching? How is the Church harming anyone by not saying, “You should practice abstinence before marriage. But if you don’t, use condoms.” People who are not practicing abstinence are not listening to the Church and don’t need the Church to tell them whether or not to use condoms. The Church doesn’t go around telling people, “If you’re going to commit one sin, you may as well top it off with another. After all, we’re more concerned with your bodily health than with the integrity of our teaching and the effect it has on countless souls.”

 

[Kristina_P]

msgstephen:

P.S. Are condoms ‘mystical’ to the Church authorities more than say surgical gloves? Are they accorded some special status?

As in you can wear latex surgical gloves and hospital masks to prevent the spread of a disease but not plastique condoms?

IMHO To accord them special status is wrong ‘magical’ thinking.

No, condoms are not mystical to the Church. If they are not being used as contraception, they’re fine. Contraception is the sin, not condom use. Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that condom use itself is prohibited (especially in the context of homosexuality)?

 

[javelin]

Kristina P.

Way to Go! Your participation on this topic has been right on the money! Thank you!

Peace,
javelin

 

[Kristina_P]

Aww shucks, Javelin. Thanks!

 

[maryalene]

Ryniev, let us know how your meeting went today. Hope you are able to get the answers you need!

 

[msgstephen]

I think I got the idea from the NDP.

People complain about the Church’s position on condoms *. Sometimes not knowing fully what it is. I probably am off but …

… Here’s another try:

The problem, say, in the sub-Saharah, is that people, whether the Church likes it or not, are going to have sex. They did then, do now and will tomorrow, both inside and outside marriage and even with members of the same sex.

This leads to a situation where disease can spread. If people at least used condoms more, then diseases would spread more slowly. I realize from the stats condoms are not 100% even when used conscienciously.

But the Church is absolutist. In marriage, a person would use condoms only to prevent pregnmancy, which the Church disapproves of, or outside marriage to sin, which the Church disapproves of. So either way, the Church cannot condone handing them out.

Nevertheless, they probably should be handed out to sinners, at least as something that will slow the spread of a deadly disease.

Comments?*

 

[Breton]

msgstephen:

I think I got the idea from the NDP.

People complain about the Church’s position on condoms *. Sometimes not knowing fully what it is. I probably am off but …

… Here’s another try:

The problem, say, in the sub-Saharah, is that people, whether the Church likes it or not, are going to have sex. They did then, do now and will tomorrow, both inside and outside marriage and even with members of the same sex.

This leads to a situation where disease can spread. If people at least used condoms more, then diseases would spread more slowly. I realize from the stats condoms are not 100% even when used conscienciously.

But the Church is absolutist. In marriage, a person would use condoms only to prevent pregnmancy, which the Church disapproves of, or outside marriage to sin, which the Church disapproves of. So either way, the Church cannot condone handing them out.

Nevertheless, they probably should be handed out to sinners, at least as something that will slow the spread of a deadly disease.

Comments?*

Since when did the Catholic Church corner the market on condoms?

If the people you describe want to use condoms, there is nothing stopping them. To say that the CC is the cause for the proliferation of AIDS in Africa because they teach that people should not use condoms is preposterous. I don’t see the CC destroying condom supplies nor do I see the CC preventing the myriad other relief organizations from passing out condoms. I don’t see anyone praising the CC for all the money and resources pooring into these AIDS-ravaged areas from Catholic charities.

What is stopping these people from getting condoms AND using them properly and why is it the CC’s fault?

 

[Kristina_P]

msgstephen:

I think I got the idea from the NDP.

People complain about the Church’s position on condoms *. Sometimes not knowing fully what it is. I probably am off but …

… Here’s another try:

The problem, say, in the sub-Saharah, is that people, whether the Church likes it or not, are going to have sex. They did then, do now and will tomorrow, both inside and outside marriage and even with members of the same sex.

This leads to a situation where disease can spread. If people at least used condoms more, then diseases would spread more slowly. I realize from the stats condoms are not 100% even when used conscienciously.

But the Church is absolutist. In marriage, a person would use condoms only to prevent pregnmancy, which the Church disapproves of, or outside marriage to sin, which the Church disapproves of. So either way, the Church cannot condone handing them out.

Nevertheless, they probably should be handed out to sinners, at least as something that will slow the spread of a deadly disease.

Comments?*

This has been discussed elsewhere. While I appreciate this argument and used to use it, please enlighten me as to how encouraging someone to compound their sin rather than encouraging someone to cease sinning altogether, is in any way good for their soul? Also, how can encouraging contraception, which is a practice that only devalues human life and sexuality, lead to physical and spiritual health in the long run? The tough truth is that sometimes people need unpleasant consequences in order to turn them away from sin. The Church would not be showing love if She encouraged compounding sin in order to avoid those consequences.

If you do not believe contraception to be a sin, then you’re free to believe that. But presenting arguments as to why you think it * shouldn’t * be a sin doesn’t change whether or not it is. And, if it is a sin, then the Church should not promote it, regardless of the situation.