And terribly wrong about in-vitro.
Yes, that's why there's no AIDS in condom saturated Africa.
I guess this means that porn is okay. They covered just about everything else thus if they did not want to approve porn they would have said so.
At least they're no longer beheading astronomers. Maybe in another 500 years they will accept biology, too.
Have you ever read Humanae Vitae for yourself?
The rest of their views on abortion, same-sex marriage I am very happy about.
That's nice.
Condoms are necessary evils in a not so perfect world full of people who do not believe in abstinence.
You said it yourself. Condoms are evils. Should the Church consent to using an evil for evil purposes (pre- and extra-marital sexual relations, homosexual perversions, etc.)
It stops the spread of AIDS/HIV
Keeping the pants zipped and the legs closed would be far more effective, wouldn't you think?
and also prevents unwanted pregnancies without having to resort to evil abortions and/or using dangerous morning after pills, etc.
See my above comment.
I'm sorry but here they are terribly wrong.
I'm sorry, but maybe you haven't thought about it as much as you should.
Let me provide you an extract from Humanae Vitae to consider (hopefully, you'll read the whole thing). Keep in mind that this was written in 1968. It's almost 40 years later.
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. 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. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Is there any doubt that the above has come to pass? Virtually every country in the world has disregarded the moral teachings of the Church in this regard. What has happened to morality in the past 40 years? What has happened to the treatment of women? What has happened to the out-of-wedlock birth rate (even considering how many millions of children have been slaughtered while in the womb)?
You correctly point out that some do not value chastity. But isn't that actually a symptom of the grave evil that has permeated our society, more deeply entrenched now than at any time in recent history?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document Persona Humana, written eight years after Humanae Vitae, has some tremendous truths in it. This document, although not nearly as famous as Humanae Vitae, also has a distinctly prophetic tone to it:
Since sexual ethics concern fundamental values of human and Christian life, this general teaching equally applies to sexual ethics. In this domain there exist principles and norms which the Church has always unhesitatingly transmitted as part of her teaching, however much the opinions and morals of the world may have been opposed to them. These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the Divine Law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen.
Very true statement, as far as I can see. Divine law doesn't change. The Church shouldn't lower her standards so that she complies with the lowered standards of society. She should stand firm.
As has been said above, the purpose of this Declaration is to draw the attention of the faithful in present-day circumstances to certain errors and modes of behavior which they must guard against. The virtue of chastity, however, is in no way confined solely to avoiding the faults already listed. It is aimed at attaining higher and more positive goals. It is a virtue which concerns the whole personality, as regards both interior and outward behavior. ...The more the faithful appreciate the value of chastity and its necessary role in their lives as men and women, the better they will understand, by a kind of spiritual instinct, its moral requirements and counsels. In the same way they will know better how to accept and carry out, in a spirit of docility to the Church's teaching, what an upright conscience dictates in concrete cases.
The Church sets standards in an effort to help people elevate themselves. The Church should be the positive change agent, not lowering her standards to be "in step with society."
Something interesting to consider here for you. Up until the 1930 (Anglican) Lambeth Conference, essentially ALL Christian ecclesiastical groups proscribed artificial birth control, including condoms. Since the 1930 Lambeth Conference, (almost) all Protestant denominations have fallen in line with the Anglicans. Now if it was morally wrong to use a condom in 1929, what happened in 1930 to all-of-a-sudden make it alright?
I appreciate that you are in agreement with Holy Mother Church in regards to abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. But perhaps you should check out the links to the two documents I referenced here before condemning her position on artificial contraception.
I don't see why you consider a condom/contraception as evil?
The Catholic view is that sex is not a recreational endeavor, but needs to be confined to married couples, with the purpose of procreation. Therefore their stance makes sense. I do not want to see the Church adapting to fit "modern" sensibilities.
Would you bet your life on that? Would you bet the life of someone else?
Even if the condom doesn't break, the AIDS virus is several orders of magnatude smaller than the sperm cells the condom is designed to stop.
I agree 100% with the Pope.
If people don't want to get diseases or get pregnant, there is one method that works each and every time it's tried. And as human beings (not animals in rut), we have enough free will to make decisions about our actions - hmm, should I take my clothes off and get in bed with this person, or should I not?
That's a choice. We can all choose to say "yes" or "no". Depending on a condom is a good way to get a disease that may kill you or create a baby no one is prepared to raise.
It's actually good for people to have some strength of character and not be ruled by their lower passions. And funny thing - the more the lower passions rule, the more miserable a person is; the more the inner man* rules the lower passions, the happier and more peaceful. Funny, that.
*For the feminists reading this, "inner man" is a gender neutral term.
Shouldn't be a problem at all. Nobody's forced to join. But if you believe in artificial contraception, then sex is merely about orgasms, so hello legitimacy of homosexuality.
So you would have sex with someone you knew had aids if you had a condom?
How many children do you have?
| 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:
|
"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?
Urban legend. To the AIDS virus a condom is nothing but a colander.
I'm sorry but here they are terribly wrong.
You're the one who is terribly wrong and I'm not sorry for pointing it out.