The Loss of Freedoms

[Michele 1]

Quote

Please explain that how the catholic churches anti-condom stance is preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. Post it here, send a PM, believe me I am all ears on this one.

I'm not catholic, so please don't take my word as the church's position. But as it was explained to me, when I asked similar questions, it has to do with the idea that premarital sex is not a wise choice, and the availability of avoidance of consequences of premarital sex is made much easier by the use of contraceptives (including condoms). In other words, if one does not engage in pre-marital sex, one will not have to face the consequences of sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy (or both).

If one already has premarital sex, it is often the case that "this one time" won't matter, and unprotected sex will occur. We all know that it happens; it's a rare event that someone can stand up and swear that they've never had unprotected sex and be truthful. So the only real way to avoid the consequences is to not engage in pre-marital sexual activity.

To give someone a (false) sense of security while using condoms (i.e. they break, are used incorrectly, et cetera), a person might believe that there is no risk to sexual activity. The urging of the use of condoms presumes sexual activity, whereas abstinence is advocated by the church, and so the use of condoms is frowned upon as it "provides" an easier decision to have premarital sex if the consequences are "avoided."

Additionally, the church believes that the sexual union between husband and wife is sacred; a gift of bodies uniting and bringing great pleasure while also providing an opportunity for conception. To refuse that part of the gift of sex (conception) by using contraception is throwing a gift back into God's face, as it were.

Specifically in Africa, I think, the church believes the use of condoms encourages promiscuity, and promiscuity tends to expose a person to a wide array of stds and pregnancy.

Do I agree with this position? No. But then again, I can see their point and understand their view. They are not the government there, and they are not the Drs there. Theirs is a religious perspective, and I'm not even sure if they are a predominant religion in Africa (perhaps some parts, but I doubt all, or even the majority, of Africa is catholic).

What I'd like to see happen is education about AIDs, and how to stop it's rapid, horrific advances. That will come down to the local level, I think, and it will also include some of the leaders who currently advocate sex with virgins, olive oils, bark from a specific tree, and whatnot as preventative and curative measures. The lack of education, imho, is what causes the greatest grief, and that education is not the responsibility of the catholic church. Rather, it's the responsibility of the government(s) to educate their citizenry, and that is not happening in any real, tangible sense of the word.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not a theologian, and not a member of the catholic church. Please don't rely on my word as if I were speaking for them; I'm just trying to share what I understand of why the church advocates abstinence rather than sexual activity in a purely sociological sense.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

I'm not catholic, so please don't take my word as the church's position. But as it was explained to me, when I asked similar questions, it has to do with the idea that premarital sex is not a wise choice, and the availability of avoidance of consequences of premarital sex is made much easier by the use of contraceptives (including condoms). In other words, if one does not engage in pre-marital sex, one will not have to face the consequences of sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy (or both).

But of course, that is plain wrong.

A very large problem in many African countries is with Married, monogamous women being infected by having unprotected sex with their husbands who have had unprotected sex with prostitutes.

Quote

The lack of education, imho, is what causes the greatest grief, and that education is not the responsibility of the catholic church.

And yet the church still tries its hardest to deliberately proliferate wrong and dangerous information to its flock. Take for instance the systematic discrediting of condoms. The stance of the Catholic church in this matter is misleading, harmful, immoral, dangerous and disgusting.

They cannot be defended by arguing it is not their responsibility to teach when they actively mislead. They cannot be defended fullstop.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,461]

Thank you for writing that.
I disagree with it too, but it was respectfully written.

It'd be nice if all children were loved by their parents too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,010]

>The lack of education, imho, is what causes the greatest grief,
>and that education is not the responsibility of the catholic church.

If the catholic church does their best to advocate a policy whereby education is REQUIRED to prevent millions of deaths - then they do indeed have a responsibility to ensure that education happens.

It's as if a US health organization advocated heavy use of amphetamines for weight loss, but then considered itself not responsible for educating people in their usage, and claimed that any subesquent misuse had nothing at all to do with them.

If, on the other hand, the catholic church wishes to not involve itself in such matters, then that is certainly one of their options. But you can't advocate for something then absolve yourself of responsibility when your advocacy shows results.

[Michele 1]

Jakee, as I said, I don't speak for the church.

Quote

A very large problem in many African countries is with Married, monogamous women being infected by having unprotected sex with their husbands who have had unprotected sex with prostitutes.

Do you think that's a cultural issue or a religious issue? IOW, does the church promulgate extramarital sex, or is it a cultural issue? If you trace the issue to it's roots, that's where the solution can be found.

Quote

And yet the church still tries its hardest to deliberately proliferate wrong and dangerous information to its flock. Take for instance the systematic discrediting of condoms. The stance of the Catholic church in this matter is misleading, harmful, immoral, dangerous and disgusting.

Time and again, people blame a religious organization for preaching their beliefs. That's what they do! Religious organizations of all ilk say what they believe is the "right" thing, and the "correct" thing according to their faith. To hold a religious organization responsible when they preach/teach their position which goes against what you personally believe is, imho, fallacious and irresponsible.

Orthodox Jews don't eat pork or shellfish (bottom feeders). There are valid reasons for this (frankly, valid for when they were written, some 3 thousand years ago; not quite so valid nowadays). Should we rail against the orthodoxy and scream at them for an outdated rule which was instated so people didn't die? No, and even those who refrain from eating pork and shellfish or keep kosher nowadays are respected.

Religion teaches religion. Public health officials teach public health. When a church teaches it's doctrine, it needs to be seen as that doctrine, and not held responsible for things which are not criminal (i.e. pedophilia in the RC church is still a crime; however, I don't believe they teach a doctrine of molestation...so that's a poor example).

If a country was run by the catholic church, I'd expect to see religious teaching involved in the government (ala Rome). A good example of a religiously run government is Iran (see Darius' argument for dress codes...it's religious in nature, and implemented by a government run by a religous group). However, I am unaware of any catholic run government in Africa; holding the church responsible for anything other than the teaching of their own religion in a country they don't govern is, imho, a misplacement of responsibility.

To ask an entire religious organization (whatever it may be) to not teach what they sincerely believe in is a violation of freedom of religion, in my opinion. As long as it's not a criminal endeavor (ala Jim Jones, or those in other religions which teach blowing up themselves and taking 10 others with them, which is murder), then their ability to teach what they believe in is what separates them from another religious organization.

Keeping the separation between religious teaching and government responsibility is paramount for both to operate effectively. I honestly can't fault the catholic church for teaching what they believe in. I can, and do, fault those public health officials who do nothing to help the situation, and who, in fact, encourage false remedies and ignorantly espouse causative cures (i.e. sex with a virgin will cleanse the carrier of an STD).

Frankly, the governments have fallen down on the job, and to blame a church for that is misplaced.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Quote

Thank you for writing that.
I disagree with it too, but it was respectfully written.

It'd be nice if all children were loved by their parents too.

You're welcome, Wendy.

And I wish all children were wanted, loved, and cherished by their parents, too.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

Quote

>The lack of education, imho, is what causes the greatest grief,
>and that education is not the responsibility of the catholic church.

If the catholic church does their best to advocate a policy whereby education is REQUIRED to prevent millions of deaths - then they do indeed have a responsibility to ensure that education happens.

I'm not going to post much in here. I get to hot headed. But I do want to say this. Michele's post was right on except for this statement...

"education is not the responsibility of the catholic church."

The catholic church has taken GREAT STRIDES to try and educate people about why condoms are not the answer, about sex, about catechetical issues. In fact, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most broadly disseminated, most widely translated catechism of the Cath. Church ever. There are numerous programs in poor and developing countries to try and combat the crisis of HIV and AIDS. However, the only thing that people focus on, instead other the true "meat and potatoes" of these education programs is the church's proscription on condoms and artificual contraception. Selective hearing at it's finest.

It is simply an incredible myth to state that the church says "don't use condoms!" and then doesn't do anything in the way of teaching and education to help substitute better behavior. What a lot of people are chosing to hear in this debate is the Church saying "don't use condoms" and FAILING miserably to hear the rest of what the Church is saying... be faithful to your spouses. Don't engage in extramarital or premarital sex. Submit to your spouses and love them as Christ loved the Church, even unto death. How silly it is for someone to commit adultery, contract HIV b/c of it, then come home and transmit that to his spouse b/c the church said he can't use a condom?!? Can't you see the incredible lack of logic here?

Furthermore, to say that the church actually CAN stop the use of condoms is ludicrious (sp?). There are many other secular factions out there who are pushing pro-condom, pro "safe-sex" agenda.

In the end it comes down to personal responsibility on an individual level and family level. There ARE condoms out there in Africa and third world countries. The Catholic Church has NO power to prevent them from being there and being distributed.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Michele 1]

Quote

I'm not going to post much in here. I get to hot headed. But I do want to say this. Michele's post was right on except for this statement...

"education is not the responsibility of the catholic church."

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Not too bad for a non-catholic, hey?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not going to post much in here. I get to hot headed. But I do want to say this. Michele's post was right on except for this statement...

"education is not the responsibility of the catholic church."

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Not too bad for a non-catholic, hey?

Ciels-
Michele

Actually VERY VERY good!!! You made me proud!!!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,010]

>The catholic church has taken GREAT STRIDES to try and
>educate people about why condoms are not the answer, about sex,
>about catechetical issues.

I don't know if I'd characterize their efforts as "great strides" - but I do agree that the church does put effort into education, and that overall that's a good thing. I may disagree as to how they go about it, but at least they're trying.

[micro 0]

Quote

>The catholic church has taken GREAT STRIDES to try and
>educate people about why condoms are not the answer, about sex,
>about catechetical issues.

I don't know if I'd characterize their efforts as "great strides" - but I do agree that the church does put effort into education, and that overall that's a good thing. I may disagree as to how they go about it, but at least they're trying.

well, at least we partially agree.

another thing on condoms... when we're talking about the situation as we did above, where a man goes out on his wife, gets infected and brings it home, practically and generally speaking, is this the kind of man who can be trusted to USE a condom in the first place - when he commited the adulterous act and contracted the disease and THEN when again when he brings it home to his wife?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,010]

> where a man goes out on his wife, gets infected and brings it
>home, practically and generally speaking, is this the kind of man
> who can be trusted to USE a condom in the first place . . .

Many americans use them as a matter of course, both for HIV/STD protection and pregnangy prevention. Issues of morality aside, they work well for both - which is why many advocacy groups suggest their use.

[kallend 2,034]

Well written, and the Roman Church can advocate whatever it wishes to its followers.

When it trys to influence legislation that affects non Roman Catholics, I have a very serious problem with that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

In the end it comes down to personal responsibility on an individual level and family level.

From the attitude presented in previous threads, self control is something that is totally foreign to the human mind, especially when it comes to the idea of abstinance until marriage. How antiquated!

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

abstinance until marriage. How antiquated

It didn't work all that well then, either. Women married a whole lot earlier as a rule, so not as much opportunity. There were also fewer opportunities to support yourself as a woman.

And, well, guys just don't have the same penalty for premarital sex, do they? Particularly before DNA testing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,010]

>especially when it comes to the idea of abstinance until marriage.
>How antiquated!

Yep. Worked a lot better when people were married by their parents/matchmakers at age 15. A little harder to implement today.

Given that we are the fattest nation in the world, with alcohol and tobacco being two of our top killers, abstience clearly isn't one of our strengths. A dietary-health program founded on the principle of "if you don't tell them anything about food, they won't eat much" is as doomed to failure as a program that hopes that if you don't hear about sex you won't have any.

That being said, an educational program that covers sexual health (including abstinence, use of condoms, risk factors from various types of activities etc) can have an impact on the spread of STD's. Give people their options, and let them decide. They may choose abstinence; good for them if they do.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

In the end it comes down to personal responsibility on an individual level and family level.

From the attitude presented in previous threads, self control is something that is totally foreign to the human mind, especially when it comes to the idea of abstinance until marriage. How antiquated!

Indeed! Esp. when condoms fail. They break. Sometimes they're defective. People also aren't 100% effective in putting them on right. We're relying on an exterior device to save people from a disease that can LARGELY be eradicated by self-restraint!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

abstinance until marriage. How antiquated

It didn't work all that well then, either. Women married a whole lot earlier as a rule, so not as much opportunity. There were also fewer opportunities to support yourself as a woman.

And, well, guys just don't have the same penalty for premarital sex, do they? Particularly before DNA testing.

Wendy W.

It worked wonderfully for my wife and I and many of our friends who vowed to be celibate until we married. No unplanned pregnancies, no STDs, no broken hearts, none of the excess baggage that often accompanies a licentious lifestyle.

It wasn't easy but it was very, very well worth it.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Indeed! Esp. when condoms fail. They break. Sometimes they're defective. People also aren't 100% effective in putting them on right. We're relying on an exterior device to save people from a disease that can LARGELY be eradicated by self-restraint!

And that is the problem. You can wish for it, you can teach, you can preach against it, but you WILL NOT ever stop premarital sex. It does not even matter if the people involved firmly believe in only marital sex; everyone has the possibility of a breakdown in their self-restraint at some point.

So, the best thing is to ensure that people know ALL available tools so if they DO breakdown, at least they can TRY to be safe and responsible within that breakdown.

Sound illogical? Perhaps, but the world and reality often is.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Well written, and the Roman Church can advocate whatever it wishes to its followers.

When it trys to influence legislation that affects non Roman Catholics, I have a very serious problem with that.

And if non RC try to influence legislation that affects RC do you feel the same?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Indeed! Esp. when condoms fail. They break. Sometimes they're defective. People also aren't 100% effective in putting them on right. We're relying on an exterior device to save people from a disease that can LARGELY be eradicated by self-restraint!

And that is the problem. You can wish for it, you can teach, you can preach against it, but you WILL NOT ever stop premarital sex. It does not even matter if the people involved firmly believe in only marital sex; everyone has the possibility of a breakdown in their self-restraint at some point.

So, the best thing is to ensure that people know ALL available tools so if they DO breakdown, at least they can TRY to be safe and responsible within that breakdown.

Sound illogical? Perhaps, but the world and reality often is.

No, it doesn't sound illogical at all actually.

HOWEVER... the mere existence of things like condoms makes it easier FOR self-restraint to breakdown. It's easier to give in to temptation when you can avoid the consequences of f*cking up by using a condom when you're cheating on your wife (and thereby avoid an STD or an unplanned pregnancy). Perhaps these problems would be so rampant if we wouldn't make is so easy for people to be so weak.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Does the same logic hold for say:

1. Alcohol?
2. Fat foods?
3. couches? (hey if we ban the sale of couches, maybe people will get off their ass and start being active)
4. Guns? (hey if we make it harder for people to get guns, we will also make it harder for them to shoot somebody with them?)

Why are you in fovour of that logic when it comes to condoms, but not in favour of the same logic when it comes to guns?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

No, it doesn't sound illogical at all actually.

HOWEVER... the mere existence of things like condoms makes it easier FOR self-restraint to breakdown. It's easier to give in to temptation when you can avoid the consequences of f*cking up by using a condom when you're cheating on your wife (and thereby avoid an STD or an unplanned pregnancy). Perhaps these problems would be so rampant if we wouldn't make is so easy for people to be so weak.

I think that is REALLY reaching. Was there infidelity before condoms were around? Of course there was.

You take away the condoms, you will NOT stop premarital sex. You will just make it less safe. Do you think the a spouse thinks, "Well, I would not cheat but since we got these handy condoms things, I think I will?"

I don't really think that goes through his/her mind. If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat. And if they are worried about pregnancy and they have no comdoms...well, blowjobs are still cheating.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

Does the same logic hold for say:

1. Alcohol?
2. Fat foods?
3. couches? (hey if we ban the sale of couches, maybe people will get off their ass and start being active)
4. Guns? (hey if we make it harder for people to get guns, we will also make it harder for them to shoot somebody with them?)

Why are you in fovour of that logic when it comes to condoms, but not in favour of the same logic when it comes to guns?

I don't quite understand what you're asking for w/ regard to alcohol and fat foods. Your example of couches is rediculous and doesn't deserve an answer.

As for guns: making it harder for people to get them also makes it harder for people to shoot others - INCLUDING innocent law abiding citizens who shoot perpetrators while defending themselves and their families. That's hardly a good thing.

As for condoms: if you need a BARRIER in order to safely engage in the most intimate, loving act that two human beings can engage in, so as to protect yourself from some possible disease you might get, should you really be having sex w/ this person anyway?

At root, IMO, what condoms do is denegrate sex to a recreation activity. "Let's engage in all the pleasure that sex can give us w/o the possibility of any of the responsibility of it." Where is the mutual self-donation, the mutual self-giving? It's not there. There is a barrier between the lovers. They aren't even touching. They're feeling but what they're touching is latex or whatever condoms are made of. There's just something so impersonal about it.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

As for condoms: if you need a BARRIER in order to safely engage in the most intimate, loving act that two human beings can engage in, so as to protect yourself from some possible disease you might get, should you really be having sex w/ this person anyway?

So, if you make a conscious decision to be with someone who has an STD, no sex for you? Or do you just have to get STD too? I mean, you are taking a chance regardless, but at least with a condom you are TRYING to keep from getting a disease.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.