posted
Grimace, I think the problem that some of us have (and I say this with a ton of respect for the Catholic *philosophy* of sex) is that the way it is presented can do tremendous damage. I agree with your example... morality is supposed to be there to keep us safe when experiencing wonderful things... but kmb and others are maintaining that church teachings on condoms are actually *causing* more damage than they prevent. I don't necessarily agree on the issue of condoms, but I can understand their point, having experienced some very negative reprecussions from church teaching on another issue.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've personally not seen any teachings that have bothered me enough to think them damaging, though the more I think about the issue of AIDS in Africa, the more I see the point about condoms being potentially damaging.
I guess part of why it generally doesn't jump out at me is that in this society most people seem to be fairly comfortable with bending/breaking the rules as they personally see fit (see earlier statistics on catholics using contraceptives anyway). however, there is the point that generally in developing countries, the folk-culture is often more rigid in promoting these kinds of rules. So perhaps African Catholics, who are more prone to be hurt by this teaching, are more likely to follow it anyway because of their culture's stricter adherance to the teachings.
I guess in my life so far I've not fully disagreed with any of the church's teachings so much as I've accepted either my own personal weaknesses or am making a gamble that we don't necessarily have to be as strict as the "church" says, even though the strictures are probably the best idea of how to be safe.
Really it all comes down in my mind to understanding what you believe and practice. if you follow the rules blindly you're going to be worse off than if you look at everything carefully and make decisions based on as full an understanding as any of us can reach.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh and kmb, I agree, and in the end that's definately what I'd like to see. However, I am unfortunately doubtful that that kind of utopian solution is going to happen in any concievable future. Unfortunately most people in the world seem to lack some combination of the time/energy/intelligence to spend fully understanding this kind of situation. that's even assuming that any of us are really capable of understanding the full situation. It's unfortunate that the world has jaded me so, but thems the breaks.
As for those hurt by these teachings, it's my hope that there are less of them, and/or less collective damage than the amount of pain and suffering saved by these teachings... is that the case? who knows
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen a lot of hurt. Adolescents convinced they were going to hell because of "impure thoughts", or worse yet, that they were sick or evil because they had these thoughts; people repressing their sexuality and never learning how to deal with it until it erupts in horrifying ways; people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely. I could go on.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb, (I hope I'm not offending by being lazy and leaving off the "boots") I honestly dont think our ideas on the nature of sexuality really differ very much. it's basically just our views on the nature of of the church's teachings and their effects that aren't as in-line.
some of it I think is how I look/when I look to the dogmatic teachings: When I think of an issue, take sexuality for example, I try to see its potential (both good and bad). I work out how it can make life better for me and others, as well as those things about it that can be problematic and are to be avoided. Then, just as a basic checklist/guide I may refer to the official "this is right and that is wrong" teachings just as some kind of baseline.
Sure if you just read the catechism and base your entire view of sexuality on that you are going to have a skewed and probably disfunctional understanding of things, just as if you refer only/primarily straight to any kind of legal rulings for your concept of morality, it will also be skewed.
The basic statements along the lines of sexuality being a sacrament whose purpose is to bring one closer to the divine can be taken as a good baseline that I think people would benefit from. Now, my interpretation of what that baseline means in the stark terms of "is x act right or wrong" may not mesch exactly with the "church"'s extension of the same basic premise, we do share that premise. And I can still use their logic to bolster/modify my personal beliefs...
Now that I've gotten this far into the argument I've unfortunately forgotten where I was heading, but hopefully it wasn't completely useless.
One other quick throwback to the Grand Canyon analogy: An important aspect of catholicism, versus other christian denomenations, is that we take a combination of the scripture as well as historical teachings as the foundation of the faith (accepting that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others, and that Jesus didn't address every topic in detail in his time here). That being said, while teaching everyone that the key idea is not to fall in the canyon, and teaching them to mountain climb etc... doesn't still mean that certain areas shouldn't still be fenced off because someone discovered that despite appearances they are geologically unsound. So you might approach that fence and say " I'm a mountain climber, I can go past it, no prob" only to have the rocks give way and crush you despite your good survival skills...
basically, a lot of very intelligent, thoughtful and caring people took great time and faith to develop the teachings on birth control, and while I may not completely agree with their conclusions I'm going to be wary when I'm exceeding their bounds.
Perhaps a mutually agreeable change would be to back off a little and not make as many "you're going to hell if you do X" statements, but make more "based on our experience and thoughts, X is generally something to be avoided". i.e. warning signs rather than fences. But that's basically how I interpret those "rules" anyway...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely.
Look, we all know my reputation for trolling. But I'm asking this quite seriously : How can you consider this a bad thing, even in the context of theism? If a church is imposing rules that make no sense, is it not better that its members leave for another? (Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely, Grimace. I think that we are very much on the same page. You, fortunatly, were smart, strong, or lucky enough to come to a pretty reasonable understanding with official teaching. So was I. I know an awful lot of people who weren't so lucky. Most of them grew up getting the "sex is evil" thing as children, from parents who were likewise taught.
With all official teaching. I pay attention to people that, I agree, have a great deal of knowledge that I don't. Differing is like working without a net in a lot of ways. In the case of the teachings on sex, I have given the matter a great deal of study and prayer myself in order to understand why the official policy is what it is. I have also consulted Catholic theologians whom I trust and who have spent their lives stuying and working with these issues. So I feel pretty certain that my personal philosophy is in line with God's will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: An important aspect of catholicism, versus other christian denomenations, is that we take a combination of the scripture as well as historical teachings as the foundation of the faith (accepting that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others, and that Jesus didn't address every topic in detail in his time here).
(Italics mine.)
TheGrimace, what other Christian demoninations are you referring to that don't take a combination of scripture and historical teaching and accept that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely.
Look, we all know my reputation for trolling. But I'm asking this quite seriously : How can you consider this a bad thing, even in the context of theism? If a church is imposing rules that make no sense, is it not better that its members leave for another? (Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.)
KoM, because, the Church is not about either a set of rules or about avoiding hell.
There are varying degrees of teaching. Some things (more than people usually think) are negotiable. Others are foundational - things that if you don't believe them, it doesn't make sense for you to be a Catholic. These foundational things are not "rules", they are core understandings of doctrine.
And, for the record, I work on the assumption that when you are discussing things with me I can safely take you seriously. I have not yet been disappointed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that their's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not clear to me how your post answers the question - in fact, you seem to be reinforcing it. What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell? You seem to be saying that people are leaving over things that are actually negotiable; sure, but so what? Why shouldn't they leave?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that there's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
It is a central tenet, I agree. But oddly enough, few of the theists on this board seem to really, really believe this when you confront them about it. And I can't say I blame them, considering the extremely unpleasant implications. Anyway, I believe I remember from previous discussions (I could be wrong) that kmbboots definitely does not believe this.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most theist I know don't believe this, either. This has always been one of my main sticking points with religion (not to set off a time bomb or anything).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell?
Contrary to some popular opinion, for most Christians religion is not primarily about what happens after you die.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
KoM, the Church is about worshipping GOd, connecting to the Divine, connecting to the Divine in our fellow human beings, being nourished, participating in the Sacraments, learning with and from each other...
Jack Shea says it pretty well:
quote: Schillebeeckx opens Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord with, “It began with an encounter.” Our insistence is that what began as an encounter continues as an encounter. The original event of Jesus Christ was an interpersonal meeting of Jesus of Nazareth with other people. This encounter penetrated to their core person, their relationship to ultimate reality, and reconstructed it salvifically. Through his human love, divine love entered and transformed the lives of people. In this experience people recognized the presence of God; and the named the experience Spirit. Although this Jesus of Nazareth now lives in the far reaches of God as the Risen Lord, the salvific experience that he made possible continues. When this experience happens, we acknowledge that its ultimate author is his Spirit and that we are functioning as his Body. We are in relationship to one another like the revelatory relationship he had with some of his contemporaries. Through our human love for one another, inspired and supported by the Spirit of Jesus, we initiate each other into a relationship with that Ultimate Love which Jesus revealed. When this happens, the event of Jesus Christ occurs, not in the original way, but in a way dependent upon yet different from those long ago encounters. Therefore, access to the event of Jesus Christ is through our Spirit-suffused love for another which transforms us into the Body of Christ.
When that happens, it is "Church".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, and if a given person is not getting that from your church, why is it bad for them to leave?
Edit : Incidentally, those theists who insist on arguing over evolution would give you a totally different impression. Pascal's Wager is very often their second or third line of attack, or defense, however you want to look at it. In fact, I seem to recall Boris, on these boards, and Jay when he was around, using it too. It is possible they would disagree with your assessment of what their churches are for.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, Sorry, my initial wording there is somewhat faulty. I believe the official stance of Catholicism is that Tradition is approximately equal to Scripture in importance in our belief structure. Whereas most other Christian denomenations concentrate MUCH more heavily on Scripture as the only source of authoritative doctrine.
this is of course not to say that other Christians do not value and build on previous teachings etc... but it is generally viewed as entirely subservient to Scripture, instead of more equally supportive.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they get it better somewhere else, it isn't bad. Too often they end up not getting it anywhere or deciding it doesn't exist. Often that is very damaging; I believe that it leaves them poorer.
Yes. There are a lot of theists who give a different impression. And they can be very loud about it. One of the reasons I spend time on these discussions so adamantly is to counter that impression.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm trying to provoke an open discussion about the Catholic Church's desire to control the sexuality of their followers, and the damage they can cause in doing so. However, I open it up to any organization that tries to manipulate the sexual nature (ooh--that sounds wrong...) of their followers.
Your "number of people have been injured on the Catholic 'fence' of sexual teaching" is very much in the direction I was hoping this thread would head. Not to bash the Church, per se, but to discuss and critique its approach to human sexuality.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
boothby, in that case a longer discussion is in order. There are reasons for the Church's stance. SOme of them theological, some historical. I am happy to go into some of them tomorrow.
posted
I think the key (as I see it) of the argument between KoM and kmb is this:
There are multiple reasons to belong to any religion or philosophy, chief among them in terms of Christianity (and most other major religions) are:
1) Securing a positive place in the afterlife 2) Living a good (blessed) life close to God and/or others (the precise focus here can vary a bit)
If you are going solely for #1 (for example, an extreme Pascal's Wager case) you are likely going to be missing out on living a truly good life (just as if you follow the letter of the law exactly, but don't allow yourself to stray to have fun or see why the law is the way it is)
If you are going solely for #2 then you're probably better off, as most of #1 will probably be covered, but there may be issues that can fall through the cracks and get you into trouble.
But in principle, assuming a sound religion of some sort the two goals are going to be intricately tied, so that by aiming for one you accomplish both, and are thus fulfilled.
As mentioned, most of the Theists on the board here are very open-minded and may have some beliefs in relative agreement with the following (my belief on the matter): if you live your life as best you can by whatever creed you've found to be truest then at the end you will have the chance to see through all the misunderstandings and misleadings and still make the right choice.
i.e. I believe Catholicism is the truest path (at least for me) despite the fact that I'm certain it isn't perfect. however I do think other religions have the potential to at least steer you in the right direction. and in my belief in a infinitely compassionate deity I have to believe that they will give me a chance at the end to repent (or whatever you want to call it) and see the truly right choice. i.e. maybe hinduism is closer to right and Ganesh will be meeting me when I die, explain things to me and I'll have the chance to accept him. I don't think this will happen, as I believe it will be closer to the Catholic teachings, but none of us can know for sure.
Given that thought process, it's not a good thing when people leave the church as I think it the best route to both salvation and the best life God has layed out for us, but it's not necessarily the end-all of things.
it's like if someone wanders off the road, sure that's a bad thing, but they still might make it to their destination, we just don't think it's the best route.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell?
Contrary to some popular opinion, for most Christians religion is not primarily about what happens after you die.
Sadly, it doesn't seem this way, probably because the most visible Christians are those who are the most adament about fire and brimstone. Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames, anyone?
I think that if you're following a religion to avoid hell, you don't really have faith.
posted
booth, are you asking for the reasoning behind these teachings or are you asking for our opinions on why that reasoning is sound/incomplete/wrong?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If this answers the question that I think it does, have I misread or misinterpreted the 1st commandment? Kind of another topic, if you'd rather cover it through email.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that their's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
I'm afraid I didn't give your query the attention it deserved. dkw did in stating that it really wasn't about what happens after we die.
Also, Catholicism specifically states that:
quote: It follows that the separated Churches[23] and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
From DECREE ON ECUMENISM - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
edit to add: Regarding the First Commandment, I don't recall it saying anything about the afterlife.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
If there is any reasoning behind why certain totally enjoyable (by both poarticipants) but also totally non-procreational sexual axcts are considered immoral by the Church, I'd love to hear them.
Whether followers of that Church support that particular doctrine is irrelevant, it appears that Church Doctrine restricts the sexual acts of its followers to certain positions, and (at the same time) pretty much mandates "intent."
So, yeah--what is the "reasoning" behind those teachings.
And, while we're at it, does anyone here think that those teachings are correct? I mean, (and this will be the trick) people who are not by their own unique natures "prudish."
Please note that I do not mean to use the term "prudish" as derogatory. The term "reserved," I guess, would work as well, though it doesn't have the inherent sexual connotations.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I know that you are asking Grimace, but perhaps it would help to understand a bit of the history. Remember, the Church goes back a long way and (rightfully) is slow to change in general. This is an area where I believe we started off on the wrong track early on and our reluctance to change - although necessary in many areas of doctrine - has kept us from correcting course.
The early Church "fathers", especially Paul, were very infulenced by Greek Stoicism, particularly that of Seneca. The concept of Stoicism that "stuck" was the division between reason and "the passions" (fear, pleasure, etc.). The passions were held - not just by Christians - to be an impediment to the life of reason or, for Christians, a life of "spirit". The idea that these parts of human nature could and should be divided was not a Christian idea, but rather one that was quite common in ancient philosophy during that time and earlier. Asceticism was considered to be a valuable disciplne and a path to a life of the spirit.
Several early theologians, ones who had a powerful infulence on the early Church in many really woonderful ways, carried this even further. St. Jerome and St. Ambrose for example. But mostly we are influenced by St. Augustine. I love St. Augustine, but he did have some issues. Sex for him was something that kept him away from God. It was a distraction, an addiction even. So the formula for living in relationship with God, for him, meant abstinence.
This was, in my opinion, a lot like having someone who drowned everytime he went near a bathtub teach water safety.
Hope that is helpful to the discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
to see how things are changing (lightning speed for us) - as well as the article on condoms posted above. That is assumning that you are really interesting in understanding instead of just criticising.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Whereas most other Christian denomenations concentrate MUCH more heavily on Scripture as the only source of authoritative doctrine.
. . . but it is generally viewed as entirely subservient to Scripture, instead of more equally supportive.
Again, you're saying "most other" Christian denominations, and I'd like to know specifically what denominations you are referring to.
I have been a member of more than one mainstream protestant denomination, and niether of them considered Scripture the only source of authoritative doctrine. I think you are falling into the common trap of making broad statements about organizations of which you are not a member based on limited experience. I do not doubt that you have encountered a church or some people who act as you say. But most Christian denominations outside of Catholic? Unless you can provide me with the names of the denominations you are referring to, so I can check their doctrinal statements, I do not believe it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh! Religion... dicey territory. kmbboots - posted May 03, 2006 12:58 PM
I am confused as to why someone who would disregard prohibitions (such as they are) against adultery, promiscuity or pre-marital sex would be likely to obey a prohibition against prophylactics.
No offense to the Catholics, but I knew a Catholic in college who refused to use condoms even though he was having sex regularly, or as regularly as he possibly could.
I asked him why he didn't use condoms, and he said because he was Catholic. I pointed out that that didn't actually answer the question. What did being Catholic have to do with it? He pointed out that the Pope said he shouldn't do it. I saw I was in a losing battle, so I though it better to get to my own point.
I pointed out to him that having sex was a sin. He had already chosen to disregard the church and the Pope by engaging in pre-marital sex. It would seem reasonable that if he was going to sin, that he would sin in a responsible manner and attempt to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
That made perfect sense to me but he wasn't buying it. I tried to point out that if he was going to sin, he should at least sin to his own benefit and for his own safety.
The Pope says no SEX. Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin.
The Pope says no Condoms. Well, they are inconvenient, and an added expense, so he had no problem conforming to this rule.
I tried to get him to justify his position, but he refused to do it. He had chosen his path and that was that. I will add that he mostly had sex with Catholic girls, so maybe there is some saving grace in that, though I don't personally see it.
The moral of this story is 'wise up, if you are going to chose to sin, at least chose to sin responsibly'.
pH - posted May 03, 2006 12:40 PM There are sexual positions that might not result in pregnancy?
This is a sign of the sorry state of sexual education in our modern world. Of course, it may hinge on how you define 'sexual positions', but there is a wide range of non-vaginal sexual activity that greatly lowers, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
frottage - rubbing your bodies together to achieve sexual gradification.
Usually the man will trap his penis between his body and his parner's body and make thrusting motions. As a riskier alternative, he may rub his penis vertically against the outside of the Vagina to reach orgasm.
The risk? Sperm are great swimmers and in the right environment can live for several days. The sperm may come in contact with extrenal viginal fluid and swim, eventually, into the uterus.
Anal sex - no explanation needed. But, again, there is the risk that sperm can swim into the vagina. Also, it's probably a pain in the ... ah better move on.
Oral Sex - no explanation needed. Safe from pregnancy, but not from disease, though for certain diseases, the risk is low.
Mutual Mastrubation- either simultaneously or separately, the partners pleasure each other. Still some risk, but a high degree of safety.
Mastrubation while watching each other - self-pleasure in the company of a friend. Probably very safe.
I am a strong advocate for comperhensive thorough morals-based sex education (not that not an oxymoron), and from my examples above, a believer that sexual relationships should progress in stages. You don't jump right to intercourse until you are absolutely confident that a real relationship is possible.
By the way, I can explain in THREE SIMPLE WORDS, three simple BELIEVABLE words, why kids should not have sex, or at least why they should be extremely cautious about it. Further, those three word ARE NOT 'God said so'.
posted
He's also assuming that not using condoms means he's taking no care at all and I find it interesting that his friend has to "justify" his choice to have sex without condoms.
He's also showing a grave misunderstanding, IMO, of what sin is and what moral teaching is supposed to accomplish.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin.
You're taking an awful lot for granted or calling a lot of people "unhealthy" without reason.
No kidding. The average age for guys to get married in my circles is early twenties (probably 23 on average, if I had to guess). The VAST majority (I would estimate in excess of 95%) will have no sexual experience when they marry -- but not for lack of desire, and not because they are "unhealthy." Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a sign of the sorry state of sexual education in our modern world. Of course, it may hinge on how you define 'sexual positions', but there is a wide range of non-vaginal sexual activity that greatly lowers, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
Actually, I was referring to the fact that to ME, the phrase "sexual position" implies position during intercourse. Any other activities are referred to separately and, to me, are not included in the "sexual position" label. More like "sexual activity." As I said in a later post.
quote:The VAST majority (I would estimate in excess of 95%) will have no sexual experience when they marry
I'd be willing to bet quite a bit of money that you're wrong about this. I've known plenty of Orthodox Jews who have had pre-marital sex.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I say "my circles," I am limiting that far more than the phrase "Orthodox Jews" would.
Try the phrase (which I loathe and detest, but it is what gets used) "ultra-Orthodox" and you'll be a lot closer.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's also assuming that not using condoms means he's taking no care at all and I find it interesting that his friend has to "justify" his choice to have sex without condoms.
I'm disturbed by the "you don't need condoms for safe sex" drift I'm picking up in this, especially in relation to college age kids.
rivka, Still, I'd be extremely willing to make that bet. It'd be free money.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky do you really need me to elaborate on all the ways you can have safe and responsible sex without a condom?
and "justify why you didn't use a condom last time you had sex" is a hell of a lot more invasive and judgemental than the "justify not driving a Toyota Prius" nonsense I was subjected to in another thread.... and that was ridiculous enough.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe not, Squicky - with males, there's no way to actually test for virginity, so you're going to have to take people's word for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/europe/654/section/vatican.to.issue.document.on.condom.use.for.aids.victims/1.htm Vatican to issue Document on Condom Use for AIDS victims
quote: VATICAN CITY (AP) - At Pope Benedict's request, the Vatican is preparing a document about condom use by those with AIDS, a top cardinal said in a published interview.
"Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with AIDS," Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican's health care ministry, was quoted as saying in Sunday's La Repubblica newspaper.
It looks like they may finally not condemn the use of condoms for HIV, but they're likely to come out saying it's a "lesser sin" issue compared to knowingly transmitting AIDS.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
I'm with you.
Of course, I'm also of the opinion that one shouldn't even engage in oral sex with someone with whom one is not willing to have intercourse, although many college age kids seem to believe that oral sex is no big deal.
quote: VATICAN CITY (AP) - At Pope Benedict's request, the Vatican is preparing a document about condom use by those with AIDS, a top cardinal said in a published interview.
"Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with AIDS," Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican's health care ministry, was quoted as saying in Sunday's La Repubblica newspaper.
That's certainly a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will allow anyone the use of condoms to prevent disease, and not only people who know that they are HIV+. The goal should be to prevent the spread of HIV as much as possible, not just with those who know that they have it.
It saddens me that the goal of religion should be to enrich the lives of its practitioners, and make the earth a better place to live, and in too many cases, it does just the opposite. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
On the contrary, I think it's far more dangerous to spread the idea that condoms are a major part, much less central to, safe and responsible sex. Condoms aren't long-term effective at preventing the spread of herpes or hpv (the two most common venereal diseases) and there are far more effective means of birth control.
And there is *no* substitute for a disease free partner you can trust. Contrary to your apparent belief, it is entirely possible... in fact, it's quite easy... to get through college limiting yourself in that way. Inflating condoms (pun intended) is, IMO, far more dangerous and irresponsible than refusing to give them out.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People lie. And in guys, most STIs have no symptoms. And even if you DO make them get tested, how to you know that they've actually gone or that the tests they tell you are the ones that they actually got?
On top of that, there are plenty of people in college who don't want monogamous relationships. I think it's very important to stress that one should use condoms when one goes and bangs that dreamy frat boy only to do the walk of shame across campus the next morning and never even attempt to speak to him again.
And these "far more effective methods of birth control" are also far more expensive and difficult to obtain. Aside from the fact that, as I have said many times before, a lot of women have serious side effects from using hormonal birth control.
quote:Originally posted by pH: People lie. And in guys, most STIs have no symptoms. And even if you DO make them get tested, how to you know that they've actually gone or that the tests they tell you are the ones that they actually got?
I've always found asking for a copy of the lab results to be effective.
But yeah, I'm on the Squicky/pH side of this debate. Condoms aren't 100% effective, but for most people they're a lot better than the other options, and while responsible and mature adults can find other ways to manage their personal lives I think the vast majority of people would take the condoms aren't necessary message and say great and head off with the best of intentions. . . and then not take the other percautions that are necessary without condoms.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I have a higher opinion of the general public than you guys do. More to the point, people who are going to skip out on the other precautions with "the best of intentions" are also going to find they forgot to bring a condom along and say "ah, well, it's ok." That argument cuts both ways.
I'd also like to note, pH, that two of your objections don't really address what I said:
"people lie" - well yes they do, which is why I said you need to be able to trust your partner. You can, as ElJay said, ask for a copy of the test, or you can, like me in my present relationship, spend enough time with someone that you're willing to take the bet that they aren't lying to you about it. Admittedly less sure than getting test results with them, but taking the time to be aware of your partner is usually worth it and, well, kinda fun.
"not everyone wants to be monogamous" - Well, I *did* say "a partner" but it works for multiple partners, too. Many polyamorous people have a closed group who are all tested. It is possible to find more than one person you can trust.
I'd like to reiterate that I am not arguing against condom usage here. I think my two main points stand:
1) Condoms are far less effective at stopping some VDs than people give them credit for and false security-- the idea that using a condom is the essential point of safe sex-- is extremely dangerous. If you want to argue that it's less dangerous than not making condoms availible, fine. I think handing someone a condom and calling it "safe sex" is comparable to giving someone a can of pepper spray and saying they are protected from assault.
2) It's absurd to go up to someone and demand that they justify their non-use of a condom. I'm not very reticent about discussing such things, and I would be very put off by someone's attempt to do so.
I should also note that I'm not attributing particularly wise behavior to Blue Wizard's friend... he could be as idiotic and irresponsible as Blue Wizard paints him. What I am trying to say is that throwing a condom at such a person and saying "put a helmet on that soldier" is not remotely fixing the problem. To pretend otherwise is, IMO, more damaging.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
