HIV/Aids: Catholic Church in Condom Palaver

AllAfrica ^ | Chioma Obinna

[Antoninus]

Basically, AmChurch (short for "American Church") is used to differentiate the Rembert Weakland-types (those who are more likely to get their theology from the communist manifesto than the Catechism), from those who are still faithful to Rome and the teaching authority of the Pope.

[Antoninus]

I don't insist that anybody conform to my beliefs. I do believe that Christ instituted the Church here on earth for all mankind, and that He does not want anybody to become Jew or Protestant.

Fair enough. And yet you reject the teaching authority of the Church that was guaranteed by Christ himself. That doesn't follow.

After reading thousands of posts on Free Republic on gold chalice vs. wooden chalice, English mass vs. Latin mass, altar girls vs. no altar girls, communion in the hand vs. communion in the mouth, facing the congregation vs. facing away from the congregation, creationism vs. evolution, on and on and on, my belief is that all Catholics disagree about fundamentals.

These are not fundamentals. They are incidentals about which Catholics may disagree and not be directly challenging the teaching authority of the Pope. Birth control, abortion, and homosexuality, on the other hand are matters of faith and morals. There is a difference.

If I am wrong, then God will deal with me as He chooses. I put my faith in God.

That's true. But remember, the punishment could be worse if one is aware of the truth, as taught by the Church, and attempts to rationalize it away.

No doubt, you are in a difficult situation. I will pray for you that you are given the wisdom to deal with it and the strength to follow through.

[CobaltBlue]

Actually, using the legalistic logic-chopping reasoning process of the Church, I am no longer in a difficult situation.

I don't use any birth control whatsoever, and haven't since my husband got his vasectomy.

Which I did not ask him to get, and did not want, therefore didn't procure (well, I did drive him home from the hospital).

He's the sinner, not me -- or would be, if he were Catholic, but he's not, he's a Lutheran. So, nobody's committing a sin.

[Long Cut]

The Church's position on contraception, even in a marriage, is but one of the many reasons I am no longer a Catholic. I simply cannot override reason and logic to that extent, especially when such doctrine is wholly the creation of some heirarchy that ostensibly has never been married or had sex itself.

It intrigues me that no religion of which I am aware has been able to avoid tying itself in knots over this most basic of human activities. The "sex is DIRTY!" mantra has been the harbinger of far too much guilt and bad results over the years.

When my wife and I decided we wanted a child, we had one. When we decide we want another, we will do so again. In the meantime, "abstinence" is NOT going to happen, and we will use contraception as needed. Somehow, I do not think God will send us both to Hell for that.

[CobaltBlue]

Might I suggest that you take some time to study the Orthodox position on sex and contraception? How long ago did the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Cathlics split apart? Well, during the time period before the split-up, it was essentially one church. Also, the Jewish position on sex and contraception. Again, when the Church was founded, it was based on Judaism. Neither the Orthodox nor the Jews teach that sex is dirty unless it's to make babies. If God didn't want us to have sex for fun, he wouldn't have made it possible.

Christ founded the Church in Peter and the other apostles, and told them what He wanted them to do. It's His Church. He established it for us. You and me. All of us.

The more I studied the history of the early Church, the more I realized that a lot of the dogma and schism is based on power struggles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything Christ taught.

The nature of the Trinity, that's a big one. And yet, when you read the Gospels, is that something Christ said was important? No.

The people we've been arguing with. The ones who want to push us away from the Church. Do they remind you of Christ? I hope not.

It's our Church, too. Maybe it will take hundreds of years or even thousands of years to change it, but we shouldn't leave it.

[BlackElk]

You worry about your church. We Catholics will worry about ours. You do seem to have the Planned Barrenhood mentality down pat. One hundred years ago, there was not a pro-birth control Christian church. You seem to believe that it is a primary right not to become pregnant even within marriage and that regardless of other considerations it is a right to have sex within marriage.

Mere manners and personal consideration not arising to marital love would seem to suggest that the health interests of a spouse should suffice to trigger abstinence when necessary. One spouse has a back injury of significance. Should the other express "love" by saying: "Your back injory is no concern of mine, I want to have sex and have it now"?

The crack about Harvard tuitions is obviously meant for the mindset of American materialism which regards that next Mercedes Benz as more important than that next child. We Christians have been told to be fruitful and multiply (not until some arbitrarily chosen ideal population is achieved, but just be fruitful and multiply.) We are not told to carefully calculate an ideal number of children to be balanced against the affordability of that castle in Spain or other material excess. If children are starving, it is the Christian's obligation to feed them and not just his own kids although charity always ought to begin at home with the entitlements of one's children. We are not tripping over starving folks in rural Illinois. I cannot speak for Georgia.

I think it would have been right and sensible (though not PC) to quarantine those with AIDS. It worked with TB and it would work with AIDS. Why should the general population be exposed?

My Church via JPII says that there is room at the banquet table of life for all of God's children.

I also think that NFP is not wise but it at least does not harm the unitive aspect of the marriage. The huge risk that you reference is that a child will be born. That is a rather traditional risk and easily undertaken. I think it is wrong to "stop pregnancy" without GRAVE reason. I think that purposely getting pregnant within marriage is NOT immoral. You will not find me to be a general defender of NFP.

Those who believe in birth control should practice it so that they may be sure to be governed by those who neither believe in it nor practice it.

[CobaltBlue]

I really never paid close attention to what was going on behind the scenes in the Catholic Church when I went to mass. I mean, I knew people who were unhappy about Vatican II, and went to Latin mass, and I had a friend who would gripe about "machine-gun toting Maryknoll nuns," but I didn't know about the power politics and the struggles over doctrine until I started reading about them on Free Republic.

The message of Vatican II, in a nutshell, is "come home."

When you study the history of the early Protestant church, a lot of what the schismatics were complaining about was accurate. If you read, for example, Luthers 95 Theses, you'll wonder what the fight was about.

So much of what they were fighting about was temporal power. That's what it boils down to. Luther was right, the Church was wrong. And the Church changed (not 100%).

There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Accept no substitutes.

[BlackElk]

When you pray, do you ever say to God: Thy will be done? If so, do you mean it? Do you trust Jesus Christ when He said that the same Father in heaven who takes care of the needs of the birds and the animals of the fields will also take care of yours and your husband's and your children's? Why not?

[BlackElk]

Acting as Catholic theologian is quite obviously beyond your pay grade. The Catholic Church is not McDonald's and, no, you cannot have it your way. Since you have such contempt for the Truth and teachings of the Church, whyever do you stay?

Do you also have a problem intellectually with the prohibition of homosexual behavior? What makes you imagine yourself a Catholic? What you find flabbergasting is that your opinion does not count in the formulation of Church policy. You are obviously a chronic malcontent. You ought to find one of the many spinoff churches that will cater to your idiosyncracies but stop sullying the good name of Catholicism by calling yourself Catholic.

[Havisham]

I will tell you one more time, just to be nice. :) I am no longer debating with you. I find your arguments to rediculous to bother with. And I am not reading that book because anyone who says AIDS is only passed via anal sex is full of it. Andjust so you know, I had a distant cousin that contracted AIDS when he was 10. He was in a car accident and required a blood transfusion. He got AIDS from the blood. He died at the age of 14.

Read more carefully. I wrote that the only way that HIV is known to spread SEXUALLY is through anal transmission. Of course, HIV is spread through non-sexual means, contaminated blood and intravenous drug use. You're off topic when you bring in non-sexual transmission. And please don't call what you do here debate. You haven't presented a single argument or responded to any of mine.

[Havisham]

When you pray, do you ever say to God: Thy will be done? If so, do you mean it? Do you trust Jesus Christ when He said that the same Father in heaven who takes care of the needs of the birds and the animals of the fields will also take care of yours and your husband's and your children's? Why not?

My meaning exactly, BlackElk. I hope your post is read with more care than mine have.

[BlackElk]

No one should be allowed to dissent as you do AND be regarded as Catholic which you obviously are not whatever it may please you to imagine. The Church makes NO mistakes on dogma.

Have you considered Congregationalism? They call ministers according to the tastes of the congregation. Unitarianism-Universalism? They believe everyone is going to heaven, providing it exists, quite egalitarian, don't you know?

Objective reality is objective reality. You dissent from Catholic doctrine and you are NOT Catholic. No one says you have to be Catholic and you are not. For someone who adopts an essentially Protestant view of YOPIOS, you are also somewhat hard on Protestants in saying that God wants no one to be Protestant and on Jews in saying that God wants no one to be Jewish.

Further, stop kidding yourself that this has something to do with Vatican II. I bet you like humble apologizing more than other papal qualities. Are you imagining that a pope will someday apologize for whatever it is that actually irks you?

Antoninus has already made the most important point in response to this post of yours and I second everything he said.

I do wish that no one claming Catholicism be allowed to dissent but unfortunately we live in a fallen world. Don't be surprised, however, when Catholics defend the Church in the face of the entrenched impertinence of her allegedly "Catholic" critics and other chronic malcontents.

[BlackElk]

Have you read Humanae Vitae? Where do you get the notion that Catholicism teaches that sex in marriage is "dirty?" A specific Catholic source, please.

No one drafts you to remain in the Roman Catholic Church. You are free to belong to any Church whose precepts you share. Integrity does require that you not ascribe to the Church positions that it does not advocate.

Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that if the Church's critics were accurate, he would not be a Catholic either. He died a Catholic, however, and an enthusiastic one at that.

[CobaltBlue]

No one should be allowed to dissent as you do AND be regarded as Catholic.

Obviously, you haven't studied the history of the Counter-Reformation.

Further, to those who say that the Church cannot make mistakes, the Pope, and others in the Church, have apologized numerous times, e.g., for failing to help more Jews during the Holocaust. See also Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past, which apologized primarily for the use of force in the service of the truth.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but regardless, I am a Catholic. I pray for Christ to show me the way.

Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions. I do disagree with you, but respect your service in what you see as the truth.

[Antoninus]

It intrigues me that no religion of which I am aware has been able to avoid tying itself in knots over this most basic of human activities. The "sex is DIRTY!" mantra has been the harbinger of far too much guilt and bad results over the years.

That's the Hollywood version of Catholicism. You're spouting a parody of Catholic teaching which tells me you were very poorly catechized. I have never been taught that "sex is dirty." Quite the contrary, I was taught (and not in "sex ed" either) that intercourse is the highest expression of love between a man and wife; that it has intimate and procreative aspects; and that to remove one of these aspects was sinful. I fully believe this. Personally, I feel that to use "birth control" is to treat one's wife like a harlot in that it attempts to negate the procreative aspect of intercourse. It becomes merely an act of mutual gratification which is, of course, very little different than similar acts performed in brothels and by homosexuals.

In the meantime, "abstinence" is NOT going to happen, and we will use contraception as needed. Somehow, I do not think God will send us both to Hell for that.

"One cannot serve God and mammon."

[Antoninus]

If God didn't want us to have sex for fun, he wouldn't have made it possible.

So anything "fun" and "possible" is de facto "not sinful"? Now there's some logic for you! Following that line, I guess drunkenness, drugs, gluttony, gossip, vanity, strip-clubs, gambling, one-night-stands, and hookers are all off the list now. Wow.

[Antoninus]

The people we've been arguing with. The ones who want to push us away from the Church. Do they remind you of Christ? I hope not.

Might I remind you that Christ was celibate himself. And furthermore, he said that for a man to even look at a woman lustfully was the equivalent of adultery. Rationalizing away sinful behavior was not part of Christ's MO.

[Timesink]

Can the HIV virus pass through condoms or not?

Absolutely, unless the condoms are made of latex or polyurethane. And then, of course, the condoms must be 100% free of any defects, which is a quality level that can never be assured.

And on top of that, you'd be surprised at how many people manage to screw up using a condom (no pun intended); they can put it on wrong, allow "seepage" to drip in the wrong place as they take it off afterwards, etc.

[CobaltBlue]

he said that for a man to even look at a woman lustfully was the equivalent of adultery

Christ did not say that lusting after your own wife is the equivalent of adultery. He said, adultery is a sin, but the sin includes not just acts, but desires. It is normal, healthy and good to feel lust for your spouse. Christ didn't say that, because He didn't have to. His audience was His fellow Jews.

Christ said that He did not come to change the Mosaic law. According to that law, it is the duty of a man to sexually satisfy his wife. See Exodus 21:10 (conjugal rights) and the commentary on it.

[CobaltBlue]

So anything "fun" and "possible" is de facto "not sinful"?

What a childish thing to say!

The things you decry are all perversions of God's gifts.

drunkenness God gave us alcohol (see the Wedding in Cana). Abuse of alcohol is our choice, not His.

drugs God gave us drugs - for surgery, acute and chronic pain, these are blessed indeed. Abuse of drugs is our choice, not His.

gluttony God gave us appetites, and food. Gluttony is our choice, not His.

gossip God gave us healthy interest in others. Abuse of this is our choice, not His.

vanity God gave us healthy self interest. Abuse of this is our choice, not His.

strip-clubs, one-night-stands, and hookers God gave us a healthy interest in sex. Abuse of this is our choice, not His.

gambling I could say something snarky about Bill Bennett here, or maybe church Bingo, but won't. Being willing to take a risk in order to have a reward can be a very healthy thing, but again, this is something that can be abused, by our choice, not God's.

Now, back to sexual desire and joy in marriage. Yes, this is a gift from God. Long and healthy marriages are the backbone of our society. Happy and loving married couples are the glue that holds the world together.

Go back to the wedding at Cana, where Christ changed water into wine for the wedding feast. This was Christ's first miracle. He would not have done it if He did not approve of marriage.

Christ loved women, and of course I mean that in a non-sexual way. He kept the adulteress from being stoned to death. He was compassionate to Mary Magdalene. Remember the story of Mary and Martha - He approved of Mary joining in the religious discussion, rather than sending her into the kitchen with Martha. Women were an important part of His life.

I have no doubt that He was able to look at women without lust, but also I have no doubt that He felt joy in the company of women.