Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ambelamba

Catholic Church's anti-contraceptive stance

26 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Frank

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

"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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Well, the thing is that "consistent" as used in the study did not only cover wearing a condom each and every time there was sexual intercourse, but also included proper use of the condom and even insuring only skin-to-condom contact, so, unless one is going to use a condom every time, and insure the only contact that occurs is between skin and condom (and given that at the moment your attention will most assuredly be on other things than on strict adherence) condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Even the CDC website states "The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, the thing is that "consistent" as used in the study did not only cover wearing a condom each and every time there was sexual intercourse, but also included proper use of the condom and even insuring only skin-to-condom contact, so, unless one is going to use a condom every time, and insure the only contact that occurs is between skin and condom (and given that at the moment your attention will most assuredly be on other things than on strict adherence) condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Even the CDC website states "The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. "

We are talking about real life though and in real life it includes many approaches/variants to human sexual expression.

For instance: do you have any idea how many people cheat on their spouse or how many young people do not abstain, lets encourage condom use and lets be thankful they are available.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the thing is that "consistent" as used in the study did not only cover wearing a condom each and every time there was sexual intercourse, but also included proper use of the condom and even insuring only skin-to-condom contact, so, unless one is going to use a condom every time, and insure the only contact that occurs is between skin and condom (and given that at the moment your attention will most assuredly be on other things than on strict adherence) condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

I guess I don't get your logic here, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying or taking you too literally. It's clear that the article you linked to is says that the promotion of condom use in Africa has not been effective, not just 'condoms are not effective'. It also says, "Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere.". So why are 'condoms' effective there if all the things you are concerned about above concerning the mechanics of condom use is the reason they are 'not effective'?

I think you'd agree it's ultimately about education, both the people who promote condom use/education and the Pope promoting monogamy are trying to get their message across and educate. It is very interesting, fascinating actually, that in Africa there's the possibility that condom use is increasing the infection rate, but that tells me that more education is needed. There are many places also I'd argue that the strategy of 'promoting monogamy' has been at least equally ineffective at preventing the spread of STDs. But I don't know anyone who promotes condom use that is against the promotion of monogamy, and I wish I could say vice versa.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't get your logic here, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying or taking you too literally. It's clear that the article you linked to is says that the promotion of condom use in Africa has not been effective, not just 'condoms are not effective'. It also says, "Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere.". So why are 'condoms' effective there if all the things you are concerned about above concerning the mechanics of condom use is the reason they are 'not effective'?

I think you'd agree it's ultimately about education, both the people who promote condom use/education and the Pope promoting monogamy are trying to get their message across and educate. It is very interesting, fascinating actually, that in Africa there's the possibility that condom use is increasing the infection rate, but that tells me that more education is needed. There are many places also I'd argue that the strategy of 'promoting monogamy' has been at least equally ineffective at preventing the spread of STDs. But I don't know anyone who promotes condom use that is against the promotion of monogamy, and I wish I could say vice versa.

I'm not sure it's exactly that you're taking what I say too literally, but that maybe we're looking at the same issue and coming to the same conclusion, but from slightly different perspectives. Yes, it is apparent that proper condom use does help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, but even the CDC admits exclusive monogamous relationships or abstention are the best practices for preventing the spread of the disease. Given that the use of condoms for prevention require consistent and proper use, and that, like was seen in Uganda, condom use (when not used consistently and/or properly) can actually lead to an increase in spread as a result of an "encouragement" to promiscuity, it is valid to question the wisdom of encouraging the use of condoms. Additionally, Catholic doctrine discourages the use of birth control, so it should come as absolutely no surprise that the Pope would oppose the encouragement of condom use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, Catholic doctrine discourages the use of birth control, so it should come as absolutely no surprise that the Pope would oppose the encouragement of condom use.

Twice in the same thread, we've agreed.

There is no question that the OP, by selecting out of the whole world, Africa for the one and only place Catholic policies are discussed, has suggested that there might be racism in opposing condoms there. In fact the policy opposes condoms everywhere, and opposes condoms only as one among many non-aviodance methods of contraception. Catholics oppose all of them.

I don't see the modeling, but Muslims practice plural marriage in places around the world. The CDC's main area of responsibility offers only one kind of marriage, monogamous, and so their remarks would not distnguish between monogamy and matrimony. Do you have any data that show that Muslims who are faithful in a plural marriage have any increased risk of HIV?

Finally, if monogamy is the key to HIV control among the sexually active in places where it is the norm, is it not imperative that every state of the United States immediately implement same sex marriages?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting men to wear condoms ain't easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hate to tell you this but condoms offer little protection against herpes. Even if you wear one you touch them and then rub your eye and you now have herpes of the eye. But you still should wear one.

If you have a spouse that cheats I would say a condom should still be used if you are going to stay with them because they will do it again and again.

Edited by Hilander
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, my original intention was to see if Catholic Church is really evil enough to intentionally spread the HIV for whatever agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's easy. Of course not.

What's laughing out loud funny is that you make thread after thread about how the Fundie "church" you grew up in lied to you and ruined your life, but then you turn around and spew trailer-park anti-Catholic bigotry as if the Fundies had opened your eyes to some capital-T Truth.

The way it really works, Pete, is that when you catch somebody in one lie, then you need to look at other fantastic and grandiose things they've told you as very probably lies, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to tell you this but condoms offer little protection against herpes. Even if you wear one you touch them and then rub your eye and you now have herpes of the eye. But you still should wear one.

If you have a spouse that cheats I would say a condom should still be used if you are going to stay with them because they will do it again and again.

I thin a man who is not ready to be faithful should stay single. The wife has to feel safe both for herself and her babies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.