Vatican reconsiders condom ban

[August1991]

But I agree with him that the church does voice concerns of morality that aren't heard elsewhere, as there are precious few institutions that care about spiritual matters anymore. The liberal institutions that are left are concerned with inequity, poverty, disease and so forth. These are indeed moral concerns but more material than spiritual.

I think I disagree, but then this thread confuses me.

Many people and institutions are concerned about ethics and spiritual issues. It's just that many Catholics don't approach these questions solely through the Catholic church anymore. I don't agree that we live in a less ethical or less moral age now than in the past.

----

This debate about the Roman Catholic Chuch's position on the use of condoms strikes me as nonsensical. In all seriousness, how many people in the world are going to start wearing a condom simply because the Pope said that it was OK? If this was 1924, or even 1957, I might pay attention - but not now. The use, or non-use, of condoms, particularly in poor countries, has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

If I understand properly, the traditional argument of the Catholic Church against any active form of contraception is that it leads to "deliberately wasted seed" and this is tantamount to murder. IOW, we're back into the "when does life begin" debate. If the Pope allows condom use, then he's just moving the moment "when life begins" forwards a bit. In effect, the Pope will be saying that a man can deliberately waste seed and this is not sin.

I have always felt that the debate about "when life begins" pointless and entirely misses the ethics of abortion and so much else. The ethical measure of all actions, and their possible consequences, must be viewed in light of the risk of such and such happening.

And if the church is, as you say, concerned with people's souls and not their bodies, then why do they feel compelled to tell believers what they can and cannnot do with their bodies?

Call me naive BD, but I think these church people are genuinely moral in their own minds and are not acting in a cynical manner.

Any religion that posits that what we do in our scant time on this mortal coil seals our fate for the remainder of eternity is clearly positing a supreme being with absolutely no sense of justice or proportion.

When the same organization offers redemption, it's tantamount to blackmail.

[uOttawaMan]

You're comparing condom usage to the unraveling of the family unit and abortion?

Please.

Agreeing that condoms are an relatively ineffective way to help combat the massive problem of AIDS would be a very impressive move by the Church. This in no way affects the abortion issue, nor will it lead to the decline of society and the collapse of the family unit.

The churches goal is also to help those in need is it not? Well , there are a great many people in Africa who need this kind of help.

The problem is with Africans, not the Church. Church policy is to not have sex with multiple partners, that is a very effective deterent to AIDS. More than condoms. But they don't listen. What gives you the belief that Africans will listen when the Church tells them to put on condoms?

What makes you think they give a damn what the Church thinks at all?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

If I understand properly, the traditional argument of the Catholic Church against any active form of contraception is that it leads to "deliberately wasted seed" and this is tantamount to murder.

I don't believe you understand. The traditional argument is that sex (which should only take place between married couples) is for the purpose of procreation (of more little catholics), not for enjoyment. Pope 'Whats his Face" wrote his first treatise on the subject (well, on Love, actually) and shocked many traditionalists, by saying married couples should enjoy being intimate with each other (while pro-creating). Otherwise, it is sinful to take (or get) only pleasure from sex.

Condoms, therefore, mean that the sex isn't for procreation, but solely for pleasure, which is 'sinful'.

I don't agree that we live in a less ethical or less moral age now than in the past.

That is hard to say, but the 'selling of indulgences' by the church in the past was certainly a 'moral black eye' in retrospect.

On a different level, a friend of mine travelled extensively through Africa (and I have a brother who worked for a few years in both the Ivory Coast and Botswana) who related to me a story. 'Missionaries', and some aid workers, were trying to introduce condoms in some African villages, but were having trouble getting the message across. They would show people how to put a condom on (pinch the end and roll it down) using a broom handle as a visual aid. Weeks later, returning to the village, they found the condoms had indeed been used as shown...they were on all the broom handles in the village.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Pope 'Whats his Face" wrote his first treatise on the subject (well, on Love, actually).

If you read his treatise on love ... you'd remember what "what's his faces" name is. There's only one Pope every couple of decades, surely you can commit the name to memory. Benedict XVI to you, or as we popiacs call him ... Benny.

It's not really up to the Pope to get everyone in Africa to act more sexually responsible. Lots of NGO's are trying & it just isn't working. The same continent that thinks that sleeping with a virgin (maybe even a baby) will protect you from the slimming disease isn't really going to care what some guy in red Guccis & a little beanie says, is it?

But let's throw the big one on the table for discussion ... you should only have sex for reasons of procreation ... or god'll get you.

He's getting them, no?

[August1991]

The traditional argument is that sex (which should only take place between married couples) is for the purpose of procreation (of more little catholics), not for enjoyment. Pope 'Whats his Face" wrote his first treatise on the subject (well, on Love, actually) and shocked many traditionalists, by saying married couples should enjoy being intimate with each other (while pro-creating). Otherwise, it is sinful to take (or get) only pleasure from sex.

Since we are in the Moral & Religion category, and we are discussing sex, I think have a right to disagree with you, Thelonious.

It would be Protestants, and in particular Lutherans, who might object to having sex for pleasure for the simple reason that Lutheran Protestant believe that any ostentation or expression of joy is too close to the Devil.

Catholics, on the other hand, have no objection to pleasure - but they do hold to the sanctity of life.

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

catholic.com

There's also Pius XI:

... the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Papal Encyclical

[The Freudian slips in that quote are rather humourous... ]

But let's throw the big one on the table for discussion ... you should only have sex for reasons of procreation ... or god'll get you.

He's getting them, no?

Uh, can you get AIDS from masturbation? From using the pill?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Uh, can you get AIDS from masturbation? From using the pill?

No but masturbation is not "having sex". I think the correct theological term for it is "diddling around".

And yes you can get AIDS on the pill. As a matter of fact I think if the Catholic Church had it their way, AIDS would be mandatory for pill users.

[uOttawaMan]

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

Being a movie buff you of course remember the scene in "Crocodile Dundee" where some toughs approach Hogan, brandishing a knife. Hogan, in response, says "Is that a knife?" He then shows them his huge blade, remarking, "Now that's a knife." The hoods flee.

Well ... I'm still waiting for Benedict XVI to do the same thing. Muslims are continuously pushing the Koran in peoples' faces to gain sympathy .... and ONE day, one day soon I expect Benny to respond to them in a similar way, like saying "Is that the book?" He then shows them his huge Bible, remarking, "Now that's the Book!"

What a nice ending to today's terrorism that will be. I LIKE good endings.

Wow you really hold that man in high esteem, hope he doesn't let you down, sounds like you have alot invested in him doing crazy huge things.

If a book of ecclectic texts ends terrorism rather than starts it, I'll eat my hat.

[geoffrey]

The problem is with Africans, not the Church. Church policy is to not have sex with multiple partners, that is a very effective deterent to AIDS. More than condoms. But they don't listen. What gives you the belief that Africans will listen when the Church tells them to put on condoms?

What makes you think they give a damn what the Church thinks at all?

Obviously they don't give a damn. If they did, they wouldn't be spreading AIDS around with multitudes of partners.

The condom policy change won't make a difference at all.

[Michael Hardner]

It would be Protestants, and in particular Lutherans, who might object to having sex for pleasure for the simple reason that Lutheran Protestant believe that any ostentation or expression of joy is too close to the Devil.

Catholics, on the other hand, have no objection to pleasure - but they do hold to the sanctity of life.

The Catholic church subtly changed their position on marital sex for pleasure only in the last 10 (20?) years or so, but sex was supposed to only be for procreation. I think the change was evident in some text that used a phrase like 'an important part of intimacy between husband and wife' or somesuch.

[Black Dog]

Clearly, self-denial isn't for you... or for anybody anymore.

So the notion that wearing a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or disease is sufficient to damn one's soul to an eternity of torment is perfectly reasonable to you, then? Yeesh.

As for you snide remark, no I don't believe in self-denial is, in and of itself, a virtue: mor eoften, it is a means of control.

August1991

When the same organization offers redemption, it's tantamount to blackmail.

Exactly: "Nice soul you got here, sure would be a shame is something happened to it, if you get my drift..."

BB:

But let's throw the big one on the table for discussion ... you should only have sex for reasons of procreation ... or god'll get you.

He's getting them, no?

Uh...no. "He's" not. (Anyway, isn't one's punishment suppossed to kick in after death? The Catholic God doesn't go around smiting people anymore.)

Obviously they don't give a damn. If they did, they wouldn't be spreading AIDS around with multitudes of partners.

The condom policy change won't make a difference at all.

It can't hurt, that's for sure.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

The RC Church didn't create AIDS but their sexual doctrines (monogamy, no extra-marital sex) are a good way to avoid it. And this is what it is pushing in Africa. And as a strategy it would be effective if anybody cared about what the Church was saying - which they do not. As such they should just allow the health authories to deal with the issue and not put political pressure to prevent the distribution of condoms. If the alternative to sex without a condom was celibacy the Church might have the point. But the alternative to no condom is sex anyway and the Church inadverdently then becomes part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Michael Hardner]

So the notion that wearing a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or disease is sufficient to damn one's soul to an eternity of torment is perfectly reasonable to you, then? Yeesh.

As for you snide remark, no I don't believe in self-denial is, in and of itself, a virtue: mor eoften, it is a means of control.

BD:

Of course it's not reasonable. Reason has nothing to do with faith, by definition.

I didn't mean to be snide to you. I meant to point out that self-denial is highly unfashionable to society. The church still occaisonally laments our empty, vapid and materialistic society but no one else does.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

The church still occaisonally laments our empty, vapid and materialistic society but no one else does.

Not exactly true, modern 'leftists' like Black Dog and I do also, but for different purposes and reasons.

[Michael Hardner]

Not exactly true, modern 'leftists' like Black Dog and I do also, but for different purposes and reasons.

Well, I appreciate that. I hesitate to call you two institutions.... yet.

[August1991]

Weird thread. Weird post.

August1991

When the same organization offers redemption, it's tantamount to blackmail.

Exactly: "Nice soul you got here, sure would be a shame is something happened to it, if you get my drift..."

BD, your response is better than mine. And it also made me realize that the Church doesn't use blackmail. It uses extortion.

Uh, can you get AIDS from masturbation? From using the pill?

No but masturbation is not "having sex". I think the correct theological term for it is "diddling around".

And yes you can get AIDS on the pill. As a matter of fact I think if the Catholic Church had it their way, AIDS would be mandatory for pill users.

I wrote by the pill, not on the pill.

There is a world of difference, concerning incentives, in the two prepositions.

No one gets AIDS from taking, being on, contraceptive pills.

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

The RC Church didn't create AIDS but their sexual doctrines (monogamy, no extra-marital sex) are a good way to avoid it. And this is what it is pushing in Africa. And as a strategy it would be effective if anybody cared about what the Church was saying - which they do not.

There is a perception among the "religiously moral" that AIDS is proof of everything the Church has said. Promiscuous sex, homosexual relations, lead to death. The Church has the right message about life.

This idea is ludicrous. 20th Century Christians using AIDS to argue their case about sexuality is comparable to 16th century Catholics using planetary apposition to argue their case about the Earth being at the centre of the Universe.

The Pantheon of Rome still exists but no one worships Roman Gods. In 2000 years, no one will worship the God of the Roman Catholic Church either.

Going several thousand years into the future however, if you are lucky, your genes will be copied identically into chromosomes of people alive then. Those future people will likely worship and have faith, but I doubt their religion will have any connection to Christianity - any more than Christianity is connected to the superstitions of people several thousand years ago.

Going back in time, two people alive at the time of Moses made you possible. What did those two persons do to be able to pass on their genes to you?

And then more broadly, how do we pass on existence? Is it merely a question of passing genes? Isaac Newton discovered something to pass to the future. What of those who pass on Newton's discoveries to others?

[uOttawaMan]

Not exactly true, modern 'leftists' like Black Dog and I do also, but for different purposes and reasons.

Well, I appreciate that. I hesitate to call you two institutions.... yet.

Ahh so only institutions can validly comment on moralism. Interesting.

[Michael Hardner]

Ahh so only institutions can validly comment on moralism. Interesting.

Look back on the thread... I specifically mentioned institutions.

Black Dog and Thelonius are great but institutions ? No...

[Biblio Bibuli]

The same continent that thinks that sleeping with a virgin (maybe even a baby) will protect you from the slimming disease isn't really going to care what some guy in red Guccis & a little beanie says, is it?

CORRECTION - I said Guccis, the editorial below says Prada.

I STILL think it's Guccis!

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...f5-0d448954309e

Here's an excerpt:

"A lot of adjectives have been used to describe Pope Benedict XVI, but here's a new one: Fabulous.

In contrast to his media savvy, but dowdy, predecessor, the new Pontiff is cutting quite the figure in the Vatican and around the world. Benedict has been seen sporting Bushenell Serengeti sunglasses and stylish red shoes that look conspicuously like Prada.

So impressive is Benedict's fashion sense that many companies are now hankering for a piece of the Pontiff, so to speak. Indeed, having your products associated with His Holiness is considered far better than hiring an A-list Hollywood celebrity to do your shilling for you. Which makes Benedict something like the Oprah of the fashion set.

Among companies that have sought, and received, the Pope's blessing, so to speak, are the Italian shoe company Geox SpA, whose founder is a friend of papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Walls, Apple Computers, which provided Benedict with an engraved iPod, and DaimlerChrysler, which builds the popemobile.

Companies have to be careful, of course, that they're not viewed as using His Holiness to improve their bottom line, as using heavenly means to sell their earthly goods. But while maintaining a certain level of discretion, many companies are now donating their products to the Pope and praying, so to speak, that he'll deign to use them in public.

All of which means we need a new term to describe the Benedict's impact on the fashion world. Call it Pope couture.

>>>SNIP<<<

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Black Dog and Thelonius are great but institutions ? No...

Thank you sir, very flattering, especially the previous

"...yet."

'uOttawaMan' raises an interesting point, though...

Ahh so only institutions can validly comment on moralism. Interesting.

Are 'institutional dogmas' the only ones accepted as 'influences', morally?

I suppose the power of the 'institution' in question relies on everyone that is generally like-minded to throw their lot in with everyone else, and give amiss to those minor points where there may be disagreement. Then, it would take some new figure to come along, to shift and to schism, creating a new batch of 'like-minders'.

If both Black Dog and I claim to be the Messiah, you'll know one of us must be wrong. (actually, both, because a 'messiah' means chosen, not self-appointed)