Vatican Condemns Contraception, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage

Breaking News.ie ^ | 6/6/06

[areafiftyone]

The Vatican today issued a sweeping condemnation of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilisation and same-sex marriage, declaring that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today’s world.

The document was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, whose head, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, is a strong opponent of the use of condoms under any circumstances.

However, the document did not mention an ongoing debate within the Vatican on whether the Roman Catholic Church could permit condoms to battle Aids when one partner in a marriage had the virus.

It reaffirmed the famous 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” that stated the Vatican’s opposition to contraception.

Since then, it said, couples “have been limiting themselves to one, or maximum two children”.

“Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today’s culture,” said the 57-page document.

[steve-b]

Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

When somebody spouts the Brady Bunch line (guns make it easier to kill; therefore guns are evil), I need no further evidence to conclude that the spouter is a source of foolishness and should be disregarded.

[little jeremiah]

You're right, I was simplifying the whole thing. A good friend of mine put it this way - every minute we come to a "Y" in the road - one choice leads us closer to God's will, one choice away. But the next minute, we can make another choice, one way or another. And no matter how many choices in one direction we've made, we can always choose to go in the other direction any time. But too many choices in the wrong direction make it harder to choose the right direction.

[little jeremiah]

So by your reasoning, let small kids and adolescents watch porn, have sex, give 'em condoms - since they're animals and will "do it" anyway?

What's your point?

(BTW, "guns" and "sex" have nothing to do with each other.)

[eastsider]

markomalley's point wasn't that condoms were evil, but that abetting a sinful act was evil:

... it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law

[markomalley]

Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

When somebody spouts the Brady Bunch line (guns make it easier to kill; therefore guns are evil), I need no further evidence to conclude that the spouter is a source of foolishness and should be disregarded.

Had the above line you quoted been written in 2006, I might agree that it was Pollyanish. However, considering this pre-dates the Brady Bunch by a number of years (it was written in 1968), I believe that passage of time shows us that the words were quite correct. But you can keep up with your fantasizing all you'd like. After all, you do have the right to be wrong in this country. And you have the right to rely upon logical fallacies in your arguments, as well.

[Carolina]

I'm a Roman Catholic and I will never understand some of their thinking!

Do you consider yourself a faithful Catholic? What does it mean to you to be a Roman Catholic?

With regards to your not understanding what the Church teaches, what are you doing to facilitate understanding? Or do you continue in willful unawareness of what she actually teaches because you don't want to fall under her discipline?

And if you would clarify for all of us, what or whom do you mean when you say "The Vatican"? What is your understanding of the concept of obedience? What place does it have in your practice of Roman Catholicism?

[gipper81]

At least they're no longer beheading astronomers. Maybe in another 500 years they will accept biology, too.

Oh, yeah, that's a well thought out and enlightened response, Blazin'. Biologgy and science = good. Catholics, bad.

[Salvation]

How many children do you have?

[Salvation]

                From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (click on the book for the link.)    

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"It reaffirmed the famous 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” that stated the Vatican’s opposition to contraception.

"Since then, it said, couples “have been limiting themselves to one, or maximum two children”.

"“Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today’s culture,” said the 57-page document."



Hope I'm not repeating anyone, but here goes.

I have huge respect for Catholicism. I was raised by an essentially Catholic mother, who became Catholic thanks to her high-school nuns. We do Stations of the Cross for Easter, and she does Rosaries.

I do not really understand the stance on contraception (and I shouldn't just single out Catholicism, but any Christian really).

By the logic that there should be no impediment to a woman getting pregnant, I suppose that means any man who throws himself at a woman should not be resisted and he should be allowed to penetrate her so she might carry his seed. Rape would be moot. After all, supposedly this is to avoid tampering with nature (and nature does not have marriage, BTW). Likewise anything in between lawful relations and rape - a wife should never resist her husband whenever he wants sex, etc. (Wouldn't that make the "rhythm method" bad, too?)

Where does it end?

[the OlLine Rebel]

I have a problem with it from this standpoint:

Just happened to hear a woman call in on a country-music station (they do this violins-playing/what's your problem/give us your opinion thing at night) yesterday. She said she did in vitro - and guess what? She has now 2 children and doesn't want any more. So she has to figure out what to do with the frozen embryos (4)! She doesn't want to just dump them (OK, no murder), but she's thinking she can give them up for adoption - isn't that a sin like "abandonment"?

She made these babies already and now she's tossing them aside simply because she and her husband are happy to just have 2 and don't want to be saddled with any more. How moral is this?

I think I'll avoid the in-vitro (if it ever came up), just to avoid these moral conundrums!

[the OlLine Rebel]

Abstinence stops EVERYTHING 100% of the time.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I need to also make the point that if Catholics are worried about re-population, they needn't. In the old days when people had many children, half of them died as youngsters. So it all evens out.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Homosexuality isn't a "beast" thing - beasts don't normally mess with their same sex, either.

About homos, I say, it may be natural (it occurs), but it AIN'T normal.

[HamiltonJay]

No, it is a "beast" thing.. They argue they have urges and can't control them, and that is capitulating that you are not human, but nothing more than a beast of the field, and are not endowed with higher thought and reasoning.

Everyone has urges, however most people control the urges to do things they know are wrong... Homosexuals simply capitulate to them as any low level animal would.

[netmilsmom]

>> In July 2001, a study for the National Institutes of Health found that while use of condoms was about 85 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, that’s a failure rate of 15 percent. Human papilloma virus, or HPV, is the cause of more than 90 percent of all cases of cervical cancer, which kills more American women each year than AIDS. The NIH analysis found no evidence that condoms prevent HPV transmissions.<<

Bears repeating.....

[stuartcr]

Doesn't God already know who and when someone is going to masturbate, even before they are born?

[netmilsmom]

Thanks for sharing but masterbation was not what I was talking about.

Sometimes the satisfaction of knowing that one is waiting for the right person is enough.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I would argue that most mammals are actually quite "reasonable", and most birds, etc. I've seen it in action. They're not all just rote robots. They make decisions.

As far as reproduction, yes, they respond to urges. Yet unlike humans, they're only interested (especially the females) when "in season". Hence could it be argued that humans, unlike beasties, are constantly under the urge and more "beastly" by nature!


I don't think most people have the urge to "do" their own sex. There's no need to control an urge that isn't there. I firmly believe most homos are genetically defective, as are retarded people, etc, and cannot help being attracted to their own side. That doesn't mean, as with us normal people, they can't make the choice NOT to engage in sex at all.

Also doesn't mean there aren't homos who somehow, insanely made the choice to bed their own, perhaps ruined by some natural homo predator. Which proves my point. Noone in their *right mind* would choose their own sex for sex.

[stuartcr]

How do you know that you could have made that different choice?

If God has a plan for all of us, isn't your choice, and all it's repercussions, included in this plan?