T
Timothy_Garber
Guest
Very obscure reason, but valid. I don’t see why the Pope had to say this though…
- Status
S
someperson555
Guest
from the pope! for crying out loud are you people so set in your ways that you dont even believe the pope when he says something? this just goes to show that you guys are not free thinkers. im a free thinker and i always knew that using condoms to protect against STDs was never immoral. and lo and behold i turned out to be right! i was still in grade school when i came to this conclusion.
but whats interesting and baffling at the same time, is that there are people on this forum who ( even when i present them with the very quote from the pope from his book,), they still deny the fact. people are unable to think philosophically.
look at prodglArchitect, he is so arrogant yet the jokes on him because hes wrong. hes just attacking my source, but he never looked into it any further. it is a fact that the church did tolerate prostitution at one point, wikipedia quoted from a book, so its a legit source in this case. the article even presents a quote from augustine of Hippo for crying out loud. yet he still denies it! this truly confounds me, i present some people with a mountain of evidence but they just ignore it. or at most they just argue with fallacies.
let me give you all some tips on how to debate.
- read the entire post first before you formulate your response.
- make sure you understand the argument youre attempting to rebut, dont straw man!
- dont attack the source, (ex. “oh theyre wrong/lying because theyre a liberal newspaper”)
- dont be arrogant, condescending if you dont have wisdom and knowledge.
D
dshix
Guest
Someperson,
Your post and your claims are laughable until you can get us a reliable source, that is NOT wikipedia to support your claims. You seem to think you are making a point by saying that we are “arrogant” to challenge your source, but rather, you are the person making the straw man argument until you prove that “the pope” made such a claim.
Condoms are sinful to use and propagate because they encourage illicit sex by passing the fallacy that they protect from conception.
You said you provided a quote from a pope from his book. I’m sorry if I missed it, could you please quote yourself as to the link or source?
Your “tips on how to debate” are just a further level of arrogance to make you sound more credible. Please, please give us a single legitimate source (from an approved Catholic website would be most effective) and prove us wrong.
S
someperson555
Guest
youre attacking the source again! in this case wikipedia is a legit source. are you unable to look further into the sources listed on the wikipedia page? and the quote from the wikipedia article even includes the book it is derived from! how could you miss that? this proves to me that you never even bothered to read the entrire quote. your prejudiced reasoning (or lack thereof) caused you to simply glance at the article and when you saw the title “wikipedia”, you just probably thought “oh theyre automatically wrong no matter what they might say”.
lol i think if i were to post a quote from a wiki article on spain being located in europe you would still deny it simply because the information is from wikipedia.
regarding the wiki article on prostiution. that quote from the wiki article was a quote from a book: “the medieval underworld” by andrew mccal. wikipedia cited this source in that very quote.
here read it again:
“During the Middle Ages, prostitution was commonly found in urban contexts. Although all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage were regarded as sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation (McCall, 1979). Augustine of Hippo held that: “If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts”. The general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform.”
notice “McCall, 1979”? notice the quote from augustine of Hippo? it is a LEGIT source. are you going to say st agustine is an illegitimate source now?
do you even know what a straw man is by the way?
about the pope on condoms:
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
now wait, before you dismiss it because of the source. READ it. you will find the pope said in an interview and in his book that it is permissible for people to use condoms to protect against STDs.
but i didnt need the pope to tell me that, i knew long before since i have something called common sense.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
You are correct in that Wiki may or may not be a legitimate source depending on the source material it is drawn from.
In this case, Andrew McCall is cited as the author of the book that this line is taken from. In researching Mr. McCall, all I can find out about him is that he has authored three books (this one from 1979) and is a “writer on history and television”. I cannot find that he is degreed historian or that he teaches history anywhere or that he has peer reveiwed articles. In fact, the tone of the book cited appears to make it seem it was written more as a sensational piece rather than a scholarly work. The fact that it has only been cited in a wiki article seems to bear that out.
I did not do an exhaustive study so if anyone has any more info on Mr. McCall please post, but unitl then I will not take one line from one book on one wiki article as the basis for any conclusions.
S
someperson555
Guest
i dont understand why people are having such knee jerk reactions to that quote. if you examine that quote youll find that it is not trying to attack the church, in fact that quote actually paints the church in a more positive light. it makes the church seem wise and discerning. wether or not that book was “sensational” or “scholarly” makes no difference since the intended effect of that quote was not to harm the image of the church. i do not know how you can possibly see that quote as an “attack”. seriously drop the persecution complex
furthermore i find that quote to be 100% believable. we KNOW there was prostitution during the middle ages. that is a FACT. even thomas aquinas’ family locked him in a room with a prostitute at one time. so that is not even up for debate. this quote provides a logical explanation for why the church decided to tolerate it. note that in the quote it stresses the church’s RELUCTANCE to do so. but the church still allowed it for logical reasons. coupled with that quote from st augustine, its quite evident that the source is credible.
you should be more objective in a debate.
M
marty1818
Guest
A
april32010
Guest
i did and he didn’t.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
It is not a knee jerk reaction or a persecution complex my dear friend to question the authority and objectiveness of a primary source work.
For example, I am a published author whose work has been in peer reviewed journals, but that is in the field of chemistry. If I were to write a book about Jews in the 1100’s, you would be right and prudent, to question my credentials and sources before you cite my work as definitive source matter. And while the quote may provide a “logical explanation”, a single unreferenced or cross-indexed source does not provide the only explanation or the correct explanation or the full explanation.
The point that may be missed is that when we are trying to discuss facts we must first agree that the source of the facts is correct and, if possible, unbiased. If we don’t then anyone can find anything publised by anyone anywhere to justify any action or lack of action. If you pick up a Jack Chick tract (don’t) then you can use the exact same logic you have stated above to prove the Chick tracts tell the truth about the Church, which they do not.
And while I am at it, I blame most of this on our culutre. There is very little real journalsim left. People quote “un-named sources” and “classified articles” as fact without ever producing other sources to back it up. Our kids routinely cut and paste information from the internet as primary source material without a second thought or even the idea that they need to research where they are getting their “research”. Sorry for the rant - end of a long day.
(hey, it can’t be a lie, it’s on the internet - who told you that? - the internet)
W
waanju
Guest
Guys, the pope saying condoms could be a step in the right direction was in reference to male prostitution. I think we’re forgetting here that condoms used in male prostitution aren’t serving any contraceptive purpose whatsoever, which is the whole issue with condoms in the first place. Basically, the Pope was saying that the use of condoms by these men indicates that they have an understanding of at least some of the harm that is done by their actions and want to reduce that harm (STI’s). This is a step in the “right direction” because the only way for all of the harm to go away is for the action of prostitution to stop. So it’s not the same situation at all. They are not replacing STI’s with contraception (again, contraception is not an issue with male prostitutes,as most of their “clients” are also male) , they are just getting rid of ONE of the consequences of an immoral action. In fact, the Vatican emphasized that they did NOT want to use the term “lesser evil” as it gave the wrong impression.
politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/vatican-clarifies-popes-statements-on-condoms/
politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/vatican-clarifies-popes-statements-on-condoms/
With regard to this, the Pope was speaking in a very specific way about a particular type or moral awareness that may come with time.
Below is my understanding of this:
For example, if a prostitute was using condoms to prevent clients from becoming infected this could become a particular morality for that person - i.e. caring for the wellbeing of the client. Over time, this may lead to a more broad idea of actual morality.
This doesn’t change the fact that contraception is still an intrinsic moral evil.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Yeesh, not the whole thing with the Pope and the condoms again.
What Pope Benedict XVI said was that if you’re a prostitute that has no concern with whether or not others get a sexual disease you’re worse than a prostitute that realizes that he can spread sexual diseases and has put some forethought into preventing the spread of the disease by wearing a condom.
That’s it. It has nothing to do with the morality or otherwise of wearing a condom, it is about pointing out that this may be a sign that the prostitute is finally starting to realize that his actions have consequences that affect people besides himself. And that’s a step in the right direction.
What Pope Benedict XVI said was that if you’re a prostitute that has no concern with whether or not others get a sexual disease you’re worse than a prostitute that realizes that he can spread sexual diseases and has put some forethought into preventing the spread of the disease by wearing a condom.
That’s it. It has nothing to do with the morality or otherwise of wearing a condom, it is about pointing out that this may be a sign that the prostitute is finally starting to realize that his actions have consequences that affect people besides himself. And that’s a step in the right direction.
T
Timothy_Garber
Guest
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms
This article CLEARLY describes what you heard and why you heard it. It also describes what was really said, and how you shouldn’t come to the conclusion you came to.
But, back to friends with benefits, you are oversimplifying it. You are saying that, and I believe that I have said this before, you have to either have nonmarital sex or some other mortal sin. But you are not considering the other options (ie. not committing a mortal sin).
Could you please provide a situation where mortally sinning is your only option? Thanks.
This article CLEARLY describes what you heard and why you heard it. It also describes what was really said, and how you shouldn’t come to the conclusion you came to.
But, back to friends with benefits, you are oversimplifying it. You are saying that, and I believe that I have said this before, you have to either have nonmarital sex or some other mortal sin. But you are not considering the other options (ie. not committing a mortal sin).
Could you please provide a situation where mortally sinning is your only option? Thanks.
H
hieroglyph
Guest
The OP’s not concerned with not sinning. He has already made the choice to, so pray for him. It is his choice, he is not claiming that there is only one option.
He wants to discuss the medieval comparisons of sins. Yes, medieval philosophers put some sexual sins as worse than others. This is basic Socratic logic and the fact that so many people can comment without being familiar with it is surprising.
To the OP: Does Aquinas make such comparisons? Yes, though I seem to remember that he put contraception near to the worst of sins, as it made a wife into a harlot.
Is fornication closer to the Divine institution of marriage than other sexual sins? If the g/f was a person with which one desires to become married, then it is could be considered far less disordered, but still a sin. In the end, though, one still has to face up to the responsibilities of sex and relationships. Confess your lusts, do your penance, and start building a healthy relationship with your g/f towards marriage. Talk about marriage, self-control, and your future with her and your priest. And pray often.
H
hieroglyph
Guest
A good point.
S
someperson555
Guest
you are the only person who gets my thread. finally.
S
someperson555
Guest
i dont want this thread to derail to this topic. i will say this last thing about the whole condoms debate.
the pope said condoms are permissible to protect against disease, NOT to prevent conception. cant you guys make that distinction?? also try to think logically, this could easily be applied to married couples. if a married couple uses condoms during the woman’s infertile periods, that would be an example of moral condom use. since the intent in this scenario is not to prevent conception but to prevent disease. its ludicrous to assume the pope only allowed it for homosexuals since its impossible for homosexual couples to even commit the sin of contraception! since only a man and woman can concieve. the pope cited homosexual prostitutes as an EXAMPLE, but in an interview he said that his comments applied to hetero sexual couples too.
S
someperson555
Guest
of all the arguments against fornication, that one is the worst. because then it could be argued if a billionare fornicates then he would not be sinning against justice since he could easily care for his offspring.
but im not even defending fornication! i dont know where you got that idea from. what i am saying though is that fornication is much healthier than masturbation and not as immoral. all im saying is that its more normal for young people to go out looking for a mate than to sit at home in the dark abusing themselves while making pornographers rich.
yes fornication is a mortal sin, but its ultimately more normal and can even lead to beautiful loving marriage.
B
Burdensome1
Guest
I’m just passing by to note that the same person lobbying for sexual license is asking in another thread why the Church doesn’t crack down on tobacco.
No insult on the OP, I understand that this is how pagan society has shaped his brain and he is helpless against it.
No insult on the OP, I understand that this is how pagan society has shaped his brain and he is helpless against it.
S
someperson555
Guest
you are kidding me, right? cigarettes are worse than fornication. its your way of thinking which is completely abnormal. how is selling a product which kills many people daily not a mortal sin, but simple fornication is? thats absurd. its absurd that people smoke which is unnatural and harmful to both themselves and others, yet a natural act like sex is looked upon with disgust.
you have a disordered way of thinking if you justify drug use while at the same time condemn sex.
how can you judge people for having sex yet at the same time see no problem with using drugs??
- Status