Posted on 05/11/2005 6:03:11 AM PDT by murphE
Sure enough, the original headline doesn't have the quotation marks.
Nice touch.
These helpers are doing Christ's work. God bless them.
I remain befuddled at the Church's stance on condoms.
ping
Among gay men and sex workers,
^^^^^^^^^^^
whats a "sex worker"? Is that the new politically correct term for whore? Are we now glamorizing that?
That term also struck me. I don't know if they are glamorizing it so much as trying to equate it with "farm worker", "factory worker", "computer industry worker", etc.
Why not make every attempt to educate a lesson in chastity? Forget about the condoms. The sick, sinful culture (every married man has many lovers) of these people has brought this scourge upon them. The liberals say let's not treat the source of the illness, let's encourage one of the symptoms.
Now take poor Carlos, for instance. How are condoms going to help him? He is, first of all, unmarried. He should not be having relations with anyone. Second of all, he is sick. He should not be having relations with anyone, whether he is married or not.
I meant to direct my reply #12 to you. Sorry.
Keep up the good work spreading truth. There's so much error, and so little time.
"In Honduras, where a married man without lovers is an oddity...."
The wages of sin is DEATH - for themselves and their spouses.
Condoms are no solution for a society which lacks the basic virtue of marital fidelity, they will only make it worse. Condoms will simply prolong the epidemic which will only be over when all the adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals are dead.
I thoroughly reject the Catholics' extra-biblical doctrines on contraception, but putting the quotes in the title makes sense to me. Those who are promoting things condemned by the Catholic church are no more Catholic than I am.
Condoms will spread the disease as it will lower the inhibition to have sex. Then, as sexual activity outside of marriage increases, the incidents where people skip the condom will increase. Condoms did not stop AIDS among homosexuals in America..it is still raging. Condoms will not stop genital warts which is raging like wild fire through America's youth.
Abstinence...abstinence...abstinence that is the only way to beat Satan.
Be careful there, Tantumergo. We're all sinners. This kind of talk comes perilously close to saying people with this dreadful disease deserve it. While true the plague of HIV is spread through sin, it does not mean the folks who have it deserve it, nor that every person who contracts it has themselves sinned in acquiring it.
Come now. This is Reuters, not EWTN.
Do you also reject the Catholic church's very biblical stance on extra-marital sex? You have swallowed the article's spin, you've been suckered by the article, which is a propaganda piece for contraception. The spin occurs when it claims Carlos is just a nice, decent guy, innocent victim because he had sex only with a steady girlfriend. The article presupposes that sex with a steady girlfirend is equivalent to marital fidelity, hence only those who are sleeping around with a dozen partners are really wrong and culpable for getting AIDS. Can't you see what you've swallowed? This article is premised on the acceptability of "moderate" extra-marital sex as compared to "immoderate" or "extreme" extra-marital sex. And what makes "moderate" extra-marital sex moral, in this author's view (which reflects the mainstream today)? One should be able to get away with extra-marital sex with a single, steady partner if one uses contraception.
Why did you fall for this article's spin when, ten-to-one, you do not in fact endorse extra-marital sex at all? (Correct me if you do indeed think that extra-marital sex is okay as long as one is faithful to one's boyfriend or girlfriend, more or less.)
Why did you fall for the spin? Because you were already prejudiced against the Catholic position on contraception. You know that Catholics alone reject contraception whereas Evangelicals and Catholics oppose abortion. In your view, I would bet, abortion is obviously "biblical" and to be opposed (even though the Bible is no more explicit about abortion than it is about contraception--the unanimous tradition of the Church from the very beginning is opposed to abortion and contraception, based on interpretation of what the Bible does say about sex, procreation, and killing of innocents). Correct me if you belief that abortion is permissible.
The Catholic Church on contraception is not unbliblical. It differs from your intepretation of the Bible. When will you finally get it that there is no such thing as the simple, obvious, self-evident "Biblical" view on anything. If there were, Christians would not be divided into thousands of denominations.
But, unless I'm mistaken, you've probably decided that the Bible is clear about abortion but not clear about contraception. You are entitled to your interpretation. But please recognize that it is an interpretation and that the Catholic teaching is also an interpretation and the debate is over which interpretation the truest, not over which is self-evidently "biblical" and which is "extra-biblical".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.