Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Catholic Church's anti-contraceptive stance


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:47 AM

Do the Church actually want to wipe out the native population in Africa? However improbable, that's the only explanation for their anti-condom stance in Africa.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#2    markprice

markprice

    BANNED

  • Member
  • 3,718 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BANNED

  • BANNED

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:44 AM

View PostRon Jeremy, on 22 March 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Do the Church actually wants to wipe out the native population in Africa? However improbable, that's the only explanation for their anti-condom stance in Africa.


They have a lot of converts over there so they probably don't want to kill them all.

BANNED UNDERSTAND.

#3    Resh

Resh

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 156 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:I dont even know anymore

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:34 AM

View PostRon Jeremy, on 22 March 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Do the Church actually wants to wipe out the native population in Africa? However improbable, that's the only explanation for their anti-condom stance in Africa.

Says Ron Jeremy! lol
I really doubt it, it only helps to make contrast on how archaic our society (edit: The Catholic Church  Management) is still in this age

.                                                                   Posted Image

#4    Everdred

Everdred

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:44 AM

Would it matter if they were pro-condom?  Pretty sure the Church is anti-rape, but that hasn't stopped the practice of raping virgins under the belief it cures AIDS.


#5    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,764 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:46 AM

This is a case of people doing horrible evil thinking they are doing what is right.


#6    dannyboy52

dannyboy52

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male

  • You Can Fool Some People All Of The Time,And All Of The People Some Of The Time, But You Cant Fool All Of The People All Of The Time

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:40 AM

Do you people really believe that in this day and age that catholics blindly follow the church's teachings? I was married for the first time in the 70's and even back then we were using the pill and condoms,called Johnnys in Scotland.The joke at the time was.... did you hear about the Irishman that thought Johnny Cash was change from a condom machine.Anyway, dont believe everything you hear about any church, fot the normal people with a brain follow what they believe , not just do what the church tells them. Incidentally I dont go to church any more because of the"living in the dark ages" style of the catholic church.It definitely needs modernisation.


#7    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,764 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:52 AM

If you don't believe it, don't do it.

I know someone here in Vietnam who says thay are a devout Roman Catholic, and preaches strongly against the readily availble abortions one can have in Vietnam (about all that a woman has to do is go through a little lecture on contraception).  The same guy has no problem visting brothels regularly, even though he's married and it causes his wife hurt.  He says the church has no understanding of a man's needs.

This is pick-and-choose religion.  The parts that are convenient to you, you use to judge others; the parts that are inconvenient to you, you rationallize.


#8    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,672 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:14 AM

Frank

Quote

This is pick-and-choose religion.  The parts that are convenient to you, you use to judge others; the parts that are inconvenient to you, you rationallize.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

The church has a very restricted teaching vocabulary, which is suprising because they really have been at it for almost 2,000 years. As a result, they make strong commitments to fact claims that are both remote from the core of their mission, and doubtful not only as to their truth, but as to how anybody could possibly know they were true, even if they happened to be so.

For example, one of the things that comes up in the ordination of women deacons is that the church teaches that priests cannot be women. That is based on fact claims, such as

Quote

"In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."

In other words, the quoted matter, written by a Pope, claims to tell us, with certainty, that Jesus wasn't paying attention to the customs of his time to get his church launched back then, but he chose to conform to those customs anyway, not because it was expedient, but because coincidentally that's the way he wanted things done forever. And, of course, Jesus didn't tell anybody that this was his thought process, he just went ahead and did it that way, probably because he knew that the Pope centuries later would guess right what Jesus was thinking.

Clearly, this is a disputable claim. Moreover, it is a self-serving. The writer-Pope has done well in the status quo situation; surprise, surprise, he thinks the system is fine just the way it is.

Can a Catholic question this and related statements then? The writer-Pope continues

Quote

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

That would be no, insofar as the church has any say in what its members do and think. And yet the claim remains disputable, speculative, self-serving - and peripheral. Now what?

Does a Catholic leave the church, maybe the church of his or her cradle, over this? Or, does the Catholic pick-and-choose? Hard to say. The Anglican church has women priests, and you could live a long and happy life in the Anglican church and not otherwise notice that you weren't a Catholic. (No offense to both churches, but you both know that it's true.) Or, do you just stay put, thinking the Catholic Church will eventually wise up?

Not my problem, but if somebody went for stay-put, which is to say, pick-and-choose, they won't get any guff from me.

The writer is John Paul II,

http://www.vatican.v...dotalis_en.html


So, condoms? It is possible to believe that the Church is right, that keeping it in your pants is a crackerjack way to fight HIV and that every sex-act should offer God the chance of blessing you with new life. It is equally possible to consider that as a package deal, so, when you aren't going to keep it in your pants, then it would be best not to kill or be killed because of it.

Oh, wait. You want to call that rationalization. Call it whatever you like, then.

By the way, condoms break as much as 3% of the time... how much chance does God need, exactly? Yeah, I know, you'd call that rationalization, too.

Edited by eight bits, 22 March 2013 - 11:18 AM.

Posted Image

#9    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,680 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:47 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 22 March 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

If you don't believe it, don't do it.

I know someone here in Vietnam who says thay are a devout Roman Catholic, and preaches strongly against the readily availble abortions one can have in Vietnam (about all that a woman has to do is go through a little lecture on contraception).  The same guy has no problem visting brothels regularly, even though he's married and it causes his wife hurt.  He says the church has no understanding of a man's needs.

This is pick-and-choose religion.  The parts that are convenient to you, you use to judge others; the parts that are inconvenient to you, you rationallize.
Sounds like this guy has no understanding of his wifes needs either so maybe she needs to find someone that does before he brings her home a present from the brothel she can't get rid of.


#10    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,764 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:13 PM

I think women make better priests than men, but Buddhism has the same issues and only recently (even though it was done by the Buddha himself) have the Buddhist organizations in Vietnam begun to recognize female nuns.

I don't see what the breakage rate of condoms has to do with the price of tea in China, but if you research it I think you will find that the breakages come from re-use and similar abuses, and that used properly they are extremely effective.  

The issue I have, and this is mainly with Roman Catholics although if there were many fundamentalist Protestants here I would probably have the same issue with them, is that they judge others by the standards of their church and ignore the fact that they themselves rationalize all the time.  The opposition to abortion and contraception, in one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, is an example.  The massive infidelity in Vietnam is cultural, and Catholic men are part of it, and routinely rationalize it.  (It's called a double standard and is common in Asia).


#11    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,672 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:36 PM

Quote

I think women make better priests than men

OK, suppose a person were a Roman Catholic, except that they agreed with you about that one issue. The church teaches that Jesus himself required that only men ever be priests. The person thinks the church is mistaken about that, and thinks that Jesus would agree with both of you.

Now what? If that person decides to stay with their church despite the disagreement, must they "rationalize?" Why can't they just say, "I am a Catholic, but I think my church is wrong about this issue," and if they can explain why they think that, are they necessarily rationalizing? If they, who think that Jesus didn't personally require only male priests, should happen to criticize a rapist, murderer or mugger, based on Catholic moral teachings, are they being hypocritical? Are they, in some bad way, "picking and choosing" among Jesus' teachings, as conveyed to them by the Church?

Quote

I don't see what the breakage rate of condoms has to do with the price of tea in China

Nor do I, but the thread topic is about Roman Catholic doctrine as it pertains to condoms. The Catholic objection to condoms is that they physically prevent sperm from reaching an egg, if an egg is available. Obviously, a condom does not do so if it breaks while in service.

So, again, suppose a Roman Catholic man agrees with his church that every sex act should include the possibility of fertilization. On the other hand, he looks up the stats, and sees up to 3% breakage (yes, of course it varies, Frank, but they break without being misused), and decides that the church errs in how it applies the principle.

Now what? His disagreement isn't with any religious teaching of the church nor with any religious discipline of the church, but rather how much risk of fertilization suffices for God's will to be done. He may even go so far as to harbor a lingering suspicion that a celibate man wouldn't be his first choice of advisor - about the principle, fine, but about the practical application, not so much.

So, if the man reasons that he might have a better idea of how to apply the principle than a theorist (so to speak) does, is that necessarily "rationalization?" I hope not, because it makes sense to me.

Quote

The issue I have, and this is mainly with Roman Catholics although if there were many fundamentalist Protestants here I would probably have the same issue with them, is that they judge others by the standards of their church and ignore the fact that they themselves rationalize all the time.

Was there some member here in particular whom you had in mind? There aren't a lot of Catholic members that post as Catholics on the two religion boards. I can't recall anything from those few that I would describe as "rationalization." Perhaps you could refresh my recollection with an example.

Quote

The massive infidelity in Vietnam is cultural, and Catholic men are part of it, and routinely rationalize it.  (It's called a double standard and is common in Asia

So, cheating on their spouses doesn't require any "rationalization" from non-Christians? I sense I am not taking your point. My experience of Christians in general, and Chrisitans on the board, is that they acknowledge that they are sinners, that they "miss the mark." That doesn't sound like rationalization to me.

"Massive infidelty" by men cannot occur except in a culture where many women go along with their spouses' cheating, and many other women go along with being intimate with a man who's married to somebody else. That spells opportunity for men to cheat. A lot of men don't resist such opportunities well. I don't think religion has a lot to do with that, and given that the situation is dishonest by its very nature, I think making a religious sincerity beef out of it is piling on.

The opposition to abortion is based on a different theory than the opposition to contraception. The two may be of similar effect in some places, but they have little to do with one another. Also, the opposition to abortion is found in conservative religions generally, including Islam. I appreciate that the Catholic stance is most immediately relevant to you, but it is not a "Catholic thing" as particularly as the contraception issue is.

Edited by eight bits, 22 March 2013 - 05:48 PM.

Posted Image

#12    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,873 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:45 PM

Given that condom use has not been found to be effective protection against HIV/AIDS, but do increase the incidence of sexual intercourse outside of a life-long, monogamous relationship, which in effect increases the possibilty of exposure to HIV/AIDS, even the Washington Posts agreed that the Pope was right.

Article

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#13    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 22,450 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix.

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 22 March 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Given that condom use has not been found to be effective protection against HIV/AIDS, but do increase the incidence of sexual intercourse outside of a life-long, monogamous relationship, which in effect increases the possibilty of exposure to HIV/AIDS, even the Washington Posts agreed that the Pope was right.

Article



Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel



http://www.cdc.gov/c...eness/latex.htm
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Including HIV Infection
  • Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.


Edited by Sherapy, 22 March 2013 - 06:59 PM.


#14    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 22 March 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Given that condom use has not been found to be effective protection against HIV/AIDS, but do increase the incidence of sexual intercourse outside of a life-long, monogamous relationship, which in effect increases the possibilty of exposure to HIV/AIDS, even the Washington Posts agreed that the Pope was right.


Your analysis of that article does seem a little skewed in my opinion.  From your link, emphasis mine:

"In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Thus it does not seem to be accurate to say "condom use has not found to been to be effective protection against HIV/AIDS" since part of the issue seems to be that not enough people in Africa are using condoms.  It's like saying 'antibiotics have not been found to be effective against infections' in a situation where few people are actually being given antibiotics.  

The article does support a two-pronged approach:  promote the use of condoms and promote 'sexual responsibility' for lack of a better word.  The Pope only supports one of those and specifically, and irresponsibly, campaigns against the other, and thus, is not 'right'.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#15    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,672 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

Well, although I rarely agree with IamsSon, the thread ia about Catholic policies about condoms in Africa. He might have been more forthcoming about how narrow the geographic scope was, but ...

In parts of Africa, the cited material shows that the problem was driven in some places by overlapping networks of sex partners, and that "breaking up" those networks was, in fact, more effective than promoting condoms, which all parties agee weren't being used in these networks.

The fact remains, however, that condoms are effective when used, and that the Catholic Church does not have a "special condom policy" for Africa, nor are condoms treated differently by the Church than other birth control methods that do not involve some abstinence.

I also suspect that even Pope Benedict would agree that his expertise in publuc health management is limited, and that the reason he opposed condom use was because he had moral objections. That doesn't mean he wouldn't brag when something he recommended for one reason happened to work out, in some places, for a different reason.

Edited by eight bits, 22 March 2013 - 08:04 PM.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users