Posted on 04/01/2010 11:14:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has said he understands the attraction of arguments for the use of contraception in the developing world, in an apparent softening of the Church's line.
But Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols went on to say it was not the Church's role to support such a short-term fix, adding it would continue to fight poverty, which often contributed to high birth rates.
"I think when it comes to Third World poverty, and the great pressure into which many women are put by men, I can see the arguments why, in the short-term, means that give women protection are attractive," Nichols said in extracts of an interview released by BBC Radio WM before broadcast on Friday.
"The use of condoms doesn't lack for champions; there are plenty of champions around giving and distributing condoms. I don't think it's the Church's role simply to add its voice to that but rather, in contrast, to keep saying, "If we solve the poverty then consistently we know the birth rate comes down'."
The Catholic Church opposes contraception saying it denies the divine gift of life.
Aid agencies and some within the Church have called for a change of policy, saying it endangers women's lives and contributes to the spread of HIV. But the Vatican has rejected such a move, supporting only "natural" birth control.
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...
These must be the same CINOs who support abortion and socialist health care too.
don’t believe anything you read about the Catholic church these days. The media is in full slander mode and there are lots of cinos out there drooling over the prospect of getting their 15 minutes of notoriety.
You’ve fallen for a misleading headline. Nichols (who is very firm) is simply saying that he can see why, from the point of view of expediency, it would seem like an attractive proposition - however, he then points out that it is the Church’s job not to go along with that reasoning and to hold out a different standard.
Don’t let yourself be manipulated by media headlines! They do this all the time, because they have obviously found that most people never read the article and all they know is the impression they got from the headline.
Catholic bishop “understands arguments for condoms” (apparent softening of his argument which was hard before?)
Condoms have at least a 10% failure rate. (against HIV probably higher). That’s not much better odds than playing Russian Roulette.
I understand the arguments for adultery, too. It’s still wrong.
I have read the article and think you’re too charitable toward Nichols. He is trying to straddle the fence.
Notice that it doesn't say that he understands the arguments or even the need. It says that he understands the attraction of the arguments.
Many bad things have their attractions. Their temptations.
But lead us not into temptation.
Is there any doubt this will resurface at Christmas time?
Disclaimer, I am not a Catholic
but. . .
there is a problem here with the Padre’s thinking. Condoms do not equal less kids, necessarily. When I worked in pro-life pregnancy centers, the efficacy rate for PROPERLY used condoms was 88%.
Which meant, out of 100 couples who have regular sex, and use a condom, properly, every time, 12 couples would conceive a child within a year.
These factoids from Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute.
If you have sex more often because you use condoms, you may have a greater risk of pregnancy than if you don’t use them!
Also, many are under the mistaken notion that all STDs are stopped by condoms. They aren’t. There is LESS risk of STDs, not NO risk.
If I had a dollar for every distraught girl/woman who sat across from me and tearfully said: “But we used CONDOMS!”
Well, I may be able to afford the new health uncare tax.
"Understanding the attraction" doesn't mean either conceding the argument or succumbing to the temptation.
Reuters assumes that people who don't promote condoms as the solution to e.g. AIDS transmission, simply don't "understand". This is tendentious: it assumes the conclusion in advance of the argument.
No sweat, just use Saran Wrap sweetie.
Lefty Bishops have been the source of much scandal.
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.