Canonizing a Death Sentence

[woodchip]

Welp, the Grand old Mother Church has faced a moral dilemma and, sad to say, opted for a new commandment. The new eleventh commandment is:
Go Fourth and Fornicate without proper protection even though it may mean the death of you.

The Catholic church has decreed that the use of condoms is not permitted even if the use means protecting oneself from Gods scourge...A.I.D.S. So while we have had abortion debates before and when life begins, I now present to you a new moral conundrum. Is not allowing the free mingling of sperm and ova a form of abortion and would the use of the hide of one of the earths most gentle creature (lambskin for ye of the confused gourd) be considered the instrument of said abortion. What here is more important...the right of a fertile egg to be allowed life or the right of a person to not live in the fear of a long lingering death. The Catholic Church has decide for the former. How would you play God?

Foil you will now see the demographic rug you have been standing on re-weave itself.

[Vindicator]

MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.

MRS. BLACKITT: You what?

MR. BLACKITT: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

MRS. BLACKITT: Have you got one?

MR. BLACKITT: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

[Duper]

you miss the point.

Sex outside of marrage is equally scorned. Thus rendering the need for "Protection" (as if) necessary.

And, as I recall, the Catholic Church has never approved of the use of condoms. Also, there is no proof that AIDS is a "scourge from God". AIDS originated in monkeys.

really dude.. talk about drama

[TheCops]

i thought it was the catholic church in spain... but i don't really pay attention to details.

[Lothar]

I'm going to skip the question of whether or not use of condoms is a "potential abortion" or if fertile eggs have a "right" to be fertilized, except to say two things: first, the official Catholic position is only superficially similar to what you say it is, and second, I strongly disagree with the official Catholic position anyway.

With respect to condeming people to get AIDS: I'm pretty sure the Catholic church's position is "you shouldn't be having sex with anyone but your spouse." You can only interpret their teaching on birth control in light of that position -- if they say "no condoms" and "only have sex with your wife", you really have to take those two together.

If people are out there having sex with God-only-knows-who (thereby disobeying the Catholic teaching on who you should have sex with), why should they be expected to obey the Catholic teaching on what not to wear when they're having sex with someone they're forbidden to have sex with in the first place? And if you're having sex with your spouse and they have AIDS, no matter how much protection you use, you'll eventually catch it too. So the question of "is the Catholic church condemning people to get AIDS?" is easy to answer -- no, but if you take half of their teaching seriously and ignore the other half you might increase your risk.

Of course, I could be wrong -- if the Catholic church has decided to change its teaching to "it's OK to have sex with people you're not married to, but don't use condoms" then they've just made a mistake. But as long as their position is "only have sex with the person you're married to", their teaching on condoms and protection from AIDS should be treated as relating to that. If you don't listen to them when they say "only have sex with your spouse" why listen when they say "don't use condoms"?

[Avder]

Whats the Catholic Church's position on other forms of birth control, say, the pill?

[TheCops]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 0119195757

do i have to type some crank about "dim' der' liberal democrats ruining the country"?

;-0

[Lothar]

Whats the Catholic Church's position on other forms of birth control, say, the pill?

The Catholic church's official position on birth control is NFP ("natural family planning") only. Essentially, if you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex during the 6 days a month you could get pregnant.

[woodchip]

And if you're having sex with your spouse and they have AIDS, no matter how much protection you use, you'll eventually catch it too.

Not true. With proper care, there is no reason the spouse should catch AIDS

So the question of "is the Catholic church condemning people to get AIDS?" is easy to answer -- no, but if you take half of their teaching seriously and ignore the other half you might increase your risk.

Lothar you are forgetting instances of husbands being away from home and having sex with AIDS infested hookers and then coming home to their unsuspecting wives. While the husband may be the one commiting the sin of adultry, the wife winds up being the unwitting victim...all thanks to her belief in what the church teaches. Yes I know there are a number of ways to look at this. Even if the church said it was O.K. to use condoms, if the wife wanted a child then she would get the deisease anyways. On the other hand if she wanted no children, the church is then condeming her to a terrible disease.

[Top Gun]

I can provide a bit of inside perspective here. The Catholic Church teaches that the act of sexual intercourse belongs only within the context of a married man and woman. Any other form of sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. (No, Lothar, the position has not changed.) Likewise, the Church teaches that the act of sexual intercourse between a married couple serves a dual purpose: both unitive, as the ultimate sharing of one's self with one's spouse, and procreative, for the purpose of sharing in the process of creating new life. In that context, any steps taken to remove the procreative element from sex, i.e. birth control, are also wrong. So, in a sense, Lothar is right; the two teachings cannot be treated separately from one another. In the Church's view, people should not have sex outside of marriage, and within that marriage, they should not use artificial birth control. The only Church-approved method of spacing out pregnancies is known as Natural Family Planning (NFP), in which a couple observes the subtle biological changes that a woman undergoes during each menstrual cycle to approximate when she will be fertile, and thus abstains from intercourse during that time. This method is highly effective if used knowledgably and properly, but since nothing is actually being done to prevent conception, i.e. no barriers/chemicals/outside interference in the actual sex act, it is deemed permissible.

woodchip, the question of a fertile egg being allowed life is really a non-issue. By Catholic teaching, life begins at the moment of conception, when the fertilized egg and sperm have fused to form a genetically complete, unique individual. Therefore, an unfertilized egg has no essential "right" to be fertilized, nor does any sperm cell; it's all up to chance. Let me put it to you this way: obviously, every woman releases an unfertilized egg every month (unless they are pregnant or using the Pill, of course), and yet there is obviously nothing wrong with this; it is a natural bodily function. However, if something unnatural is done to prevent an unfertilized egg from being fertilized, this is considered immoral. As such, using a condom is not considered to be an abortifacient, since no conception takes place. However, such birth control methods as the Pill, the morning-after pill, the IUD, or Norplant do represent abortifacients, since they prevent implantation of the already-fertilized egg, which the Church considers to be human life.

In the case you posted about the father going to a hooker, by the Church's stance, this is not something he should have done in the first place. Also, about the "scourge of God" line, I hardly think that describes the disease. Call it the "scourge of ignorance," if you will. Simple equation: if people infected with AIDS stopped having sex with those that were not, the epidemic would be over. Naive? Perhaps, but it's also the truth.

Regarding the whole "playing God" mentality: while the Church obviously is very concerned with the well-being of those suffering from AIDS in Africa, it cannot contradict its own moral teachings to solve that problem. In other words, the end cannot justify the means.

Edit: Lothar, while I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the morality of sexuality, I'm interested in the reason's behind your disagreements with the Catholic Church's teachings on it.

[Lothar]

And if you're having sex with your spouse and they have AIDS, no matter how much protection you use, you'll eventually catch it too.

Not true. With proper care, there is no reason the spouse should catch AIDS

Link? Information?

From what I understand, the only way to avoid AIDS is to not have sex with someone who has it. Condoms (even used 100% properly) don't stop the virus, do they? What else are you supposed to do in order to avoid getting AIDS?

Lothar you are forgetting instances of husbands being away from home and having sex with AIDS infested hookers...

No, I'm not forgetting them, I'm just grouping them in with "stuff that shouldn't happen under the doctrine of the group in question". If either spouse is going outside the marriage, both spouses are in trouble, and "use condoms" or "don't use condoms" won't make any difference to them. Again, it wouldn't be an issue at all if both followed the rest of the Catholic doctrines -- and as soon as they quit following one of them, it becomes silly to complain about what strict adherence to the remaining doctrines would do to them.

I'm interested in the reason's behind your disagreements with the Catholic Church's teachings on it.

I don't think there's any scriptural basis for the claim that the unitive and creative processes should not be separated (Note that Sarah's shock when told she'd have a baby was not "but I don't have sex", it's "but I'm too old" -- implying she was still having sex even though she didn't think she could conceive.) It's church tradition, and while the modern church has tried to rationalize it, historically it seems to come from gnostic ("sex is bad, only do it to reproduce") ideals. In particular, the attempt to draw the distinction between "artificial" birth control and NFP seems to me like rationalization of the traditional position, rather than a legitimate theological / moral / scriptural point. Either way, you're separating unitive and creative processes; either way, you're preventing conception. I just don't buy the idea that (for married couples) there's a moral difference between stopping conception by blocking the sperm and stopping conception by keeping your pants on.

[Top Gun]

I guess you don't buy into Tradition as well as Scripture, do you? Didn't think so. Without that, I can't really respond to your argument about Sarah properly. As for "sex is bad," far from it; the Church sees sex as one of the ultimate goods, a wonderful and fully spiritual thing. It is because of this, because of the view of sex as the ultimate expression of love and commitment and as the sharing in God's creation, that it should only be shared between those who are married and have formed the deepest of bonds. I disagree with you about the morals of NFP vs. traditional birth control; I think there's a big difference between putting a condom on and abstaining from intercourse a few days per month. The former treats sex as a mere satisfaction of physical desire; the latter encourages communication between spouses (regarding the female body's signals) and fosters a deeper love; i.e., having to wait a few days can make the act all that much better and can encourage other, nonsexual desplays of affection. The way I see it, the distinction regards doing something artificial or extraordinary. There's nothing at all unnatural about abstaining from sex for a few days, but there is about putting a piece of latex over one's genitals or taking a concentrated dose of hormones. One is done to consciously prevent any chance of conception, while the other is intended as a method of naturally spacing out pregnancies . I know you probably won't agree with this distinction, but at least in my mind, it exists.

[Ferno]

an eleventh commandment huh.. makes me wonder if the first ten were thought up the same way..

[Top Gun]

an eleventh commandment huh.. makes me wonder if the first ten were thought up the same way..

Ferno, he wasn't being literal. Besides, we all know there were originally supposed to be 15.

[Lothar]

Tradition can be a useful teacher, but it can also be deeply flawed -- and with a history as "colorful" as the Catholic church has had, I don't think its traditions are reliable enough to make strong conclusions from. In particular, because the Catholic church has a history of sexual dysfunction, I don't trust its traditions in this area. That doesn't mean you can't tell me what the traditions say -- in fact, I'd encourage you to share them. You're not going to convince me to change my mind using Catholic traditions, but you might give me a better idea why you believe what you do. There was a pretty good discussion of this over on TMB not too long ago, and it taught me a lot about where Catholics were coming from.

I think you misunderstood my point about "sex is bad". I don't think the Catholic church currently holds that position, and that's not what I was trying to say. Rather, I think a lot of the Catholic church's traditions -- which inform its current position -- were formed out of gnosticism, which holds that the physical (and therefore, sex) is bad. Many of these traditions have persisted even as the Catholic church recovered from gnostic heresies, and the positions have been re-explained in new terminology, but fundamentally their roots are in gnostic thought. This is another reason I strongly distrust tradition in this particular area.

I disagree with you on the idea that a condom "treats sex" a certain way and abstaining "treats sex" a certain other way. In the thread I linked to (or possibly in the thread it was split from) this question was asked several times: on what basis do we say a particular birth control method "treats sex" in a particular way? What principle is it that tells you condoms treat sex like a purely physical act? It seems to me that to say method X treats sex in way Y, you're making a statement about the psychology of people who use method X (or implying the opposite about those who don't use method X.) Unless you have a solid principle to go on, you can't really make those statements about anybody but yourself. In this case, you're making statements that simply don't match up with my experience.

1) You said abstaining "encourages communication" about female biostats -- but that communication can take place just as easily with any barrier contraceptive, from condoms to 2-pairs-of-pants. In fact, female biostats are the basis for an entire other birth control method (FAM - fertility awareness method.) That charting and communication are easily separable from NFP as a whole, so that particular "advantage" is not one.

2) You also say abstaining fosters deeper love through waiting and nonsexual expression, but again, that's not specific to NFP. In fact, I find that when I'm the most sexually expressive, I'm also the most non-sexually expressive, so it seems like NFP would be counterproductive on this front. For some, the time off might really foster other forms of expression, but for me, I find it's more harmful than helpful.

3) You said non-pants barriers treat sex as a "mere satisfaction of physical desire". But for me and many others, using those barriers (or engaging in oral sex or other non-productive activities) is exactly the opposite -- it's a statement of the spiritual depth of sexual interaction. To me, going without sex in order to avoid pregnancy makes far too much of the physical (the "creative"), while finding a way to have non-productive sex during fertile times recognizes how spiritually important a healthy sex life is (from the "unitive" perspective.)

4) You say that abstaining is "natural" while barriers are "unnatural". But there's nothing natural about avoiding sex with your spouse. Scripture goes so far as to warn against it except for short-term devotion to prayer.

5) You say that barriers are done "to consciously prevent any chance of conception" while NFP is "intended as a method of naturally spacing out pregnancies." Here, all I can say is that you're imposing an awful lot of philosophy on top of two similar sperm-transfer prevention mechanisms (sperm-in-condom or sperm-still-in-the-man.) Either can be used with either intent, and it's somewhat disrespectful of the Catholic church to have branded the "intent" of non-NFP users in the way it has.

All that is to say, how a particular method "treats sex" is not nearly as cut-and-dried as your post makes it out to be. Overall, it seems like the Catholic church has tried very hard to justify its gnostic tradition and denigrate others' traditions when the proper response would be to re-analyze the tradition from a scriptural perspective.

[Drakona]

Seems like a pretty petty moral distinction to me. If you're practicing NFP, then you're having sex precisely at times a pregnancy can't result. Sure sounds to me like sex operating in a 'unitive' capacity without a 'creative' one!

I think there's a big difference between putting a condom on and abstaining from intercourse a few days per month. The former treats sex as a mere satisfaction of physical desire; the latter encourages communication between spouses (regarding the female body's signals) and fosters a deeper love; i.e., having to wait a few days can make the act all that much better and can encourage other, nonsexual desplays of affection. The way I see it, the distinction regards doing something artificial or extraordinary.

I felt this way to some degree before I was married--as if anything unnatural detracted from the experience. I wondered if using a condom would feel as awkward as kissing with a plastic bag over my head. That was just inexperience speaking, though. Though I cannot claim to have done any kissing with a plastic bag over my head, I have had sex both with and without condoms, and my worries were awfully overblown!

The difference between good and bad sex lies in the relationship, not in the setting. Sure, condoms dull sensations a bit or take a minute of bother to put on. But let me tell you, in the midst of a truly satisfying and holy sexual experience, that won't make one whit of a difference. Sure, sex can be used to create children--and that's a wonderful thing. But in the midst of a truly intimate experience, it's not exactly on your mind. To suppose that being 'natural' or possibly bearing children are somehow essential to a righteous sexual experience completely misses the point. It's like saying a piece of music is unwholesome if it doesn't have educational lyrics. It's not at all about making children--it's about making music.

There are good and bad things about just about every birth control system. NFP does give you a continuous courtship/honeymoon feeling. But then FAM (NFP + barrier during fertile times) allows for a honeymoon that never ended in the first place. Some methods allow for completely natural and spontaneous sex, others require preparation. Some require close attention to the wife's body--a hassle at times, and at others and advantage. NFP is one of many options, but by no means automatically the best. And to suppose it is essential to a holy sex life is to assume too much about the power of the birth control system. In reality, that is not even close to the heart of the matter.

The church has historically had a difficult time being comfortable with sex. Good Biblical prohibitions--against multiple partners, against sex outside of marriage, against homosexuality--have often been mixed with superstitious and philosophical prohibitions--against certain positions, against certain types of acts, against certain methods of birth control or certain aids. The latter often aren't morally justified, and spring from a fearful and naive view of sex.

The reality of the matter is that the moral distinctions around sex are relational, not physical. Like with the issue of meat sacrificed to idols in Romans 14, it may have moral effects--don't cause your brother to stumble, don't disrespect your spouse, don't harm your body--but the thing itself is just a thing. The physical, relational, spiritual pleasures of sex are not to be feared, but celebrated. Different positions aren't evil unless they hurt someone physically or emotionally--beyond that, they're creative and holy. Different methods of birth control aren't evil--some don't work well and some aren't fun, but they're just birth control. Different sex acts aren't evil unless they hurt someone physically or emotionally--beyond that, they're ways to express love! The same is true for toys, for lingerie, for whatever extras people decide to use--some like them, some don't, but the heart of the matter is the wisdom of their use and the impact on the relationship. In the end, the morality of sex is not about hampering the physical, but nurturing the relational and the spiritual. Romance, respect, intimacy, love, self-sacrifice, passion, blessing, care, self-control, patience, perseverence--these things are important. Who has to clean what from what afterwards... is not, really. It's not about the rules, it's about the relationship.

[DCrazy]

I just think it would be funny for Lothar to log on and start disagreeing.

[Lothar]

At 3:30 AM? Are you nuts? What would I be doing awake at such a horrible hour?

[fliptw]

From what I understand, the only way to avoid AIDS is to not have sex with someone who has it. Condoms (even used 100% properly) don't stop the virus, do they? What else are you supposed to do in order to avoid getting AIDS?

If they didn't stop the HIV virus, no one would buy them.

recall the methods of transmission for HIV - provided you aren't using an animal skin condom, use condoms properly, and not have them break on you, condoms are highly effective in preventing the spread of HIV.

They aren't 100% effective due to condom failure and user error.

[Top Gun]

At 3:30 AM? Are you nuts? What would I be doing awake at such a horrible hour?

Hey! I'm up around that time every night, er, morning!

I should have known that getting into a theological discussion with you would soon get me far over my head. After looking at the quotes you selected, I realized that a lot of the wording I used wasn't the best, and some of my expressions didn't make a whole lot of sense. In particular, some of my emphasis on the term "artificial;" it's not particularly the involvement of some outside chemical or material that determines the morality of contraception. (For example, Onanism, or the withdrawl method, is also classified under birth control, even though there's nothing really artificial about it.) There's a lot about my own faith that I don't fully understand, and a lot more that I do understand but find it difficult to put into words. I'm drawing on a particularly good class in Catholic morality from my junior year in high school for a lot of the content in my posts, and my memory isn't all that great, so there are probably a lot of points I should be making that I'm not. After reading part of the thread that you linked to, I'm getting the impression that TheMouse is much more experienced in these matters, and I'm glad that you were able to pick up some understanding from him.

I'm not going to forego on a more in-depth response, but I will have to hold off for a few hours, since I have a class coming up, so I'll make another post later and take another crack at it.

[Ferno]

an eleventh commandment huh.. makes me wonder if the first ten were thought up the same way..

Ferno, he wasn't being literal. Besides, we all know there were originally supposed to be 15.

you sure about that?

[Dedman]

Seems like a pretty petty moral distinction to me. If you're practicing NFP, then you're having sex precisely at times a pregnancy can't result. Sure sounds to me like sex operating in a 'unitive' capacity without a 'creative' one!

Rats, you beat me to it. I think for the first time ever, I agree with both Lothar and Drakona at the same time.

[Will Robinson]

i thought it was the catholic church in spain... but i don't really pay attention to details.

No, I'm pretty sure they moved to La La Land a while back.

[Mobius]

My father is a retired doctor. When he retired, I asked him what the biggest problem was in his medical practice over the previous 37 years. He immediately answered "catholicism".

The catholic church (I won't dignify it with a capital letter) is the most evil organisation on the planet and is single handedly responsible for more misery, medical harm and misinformation than anything else in the history of mankind.

I see the catholic church in California may go bankrupt with over 2 billion dollars worth of sexual violation cases pending. I can only say "Good riddance to bad rubbish".

[Stryker]

Of course, had it not been for the Catholic church, we wouldn't have had the modern medicine that your father practiced, but hey...

[Drakona]

"Good riddance to bad rubbish"? Geez, Mobi. A little bitter?

fliptw, I was wondering myself about the effectiveness of condoms in stopping HIV transmission between married people. I had heard serious statistics about it, but I didn't have references. Someone told me there was a study in which something like 17% of the uninfected married people contracted it while using condoms. But when I looked online for the study, I found that statistic quoted (uncited!) several places, and then a variant: one said 17 people, not 17%, and again gave no citation. Bad sign. A worse sign was that nobody gave the correct dimensions on the statistic (it's rate of transmission per time period/number of sexual encounters--I had been assuming the 17% figure was per year, as with similar birth control numbers, but nobody said as much). Those are strong signs that what I had heard was fiction.

Searching for more detailed information yielded nothing better, though. Google gave me a lot of general information and no hard statistics or specific studies. The site you link to notes,

It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

but also states,

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Such subjective and general statements are hardly helpful for answering extreme questions. Just how effective, exactly, is "highly effective"? Just how non-absolute is "no absolute protection"? Is it good enough for the single encounter, but little more? Or will it stand up to years of continuous sexual activity between an infected person and an uninfected one?

Numbers and studies (in particular, user/method failure statistics) are helpful here, and I couldn't find any. I know what they are for pregnancy: 14% and 3% (that's 14% of "typical" couples getting pregnant over a year of condom use, and 3% of couples that do it perfectly)--but I don't know what they are for disease transmission, nor do I know if it's reasonable to assume the figures would be similar. Something definitive would be helpful, and I can't find anything. That's unfortunate. They would have a large impact on the morality of the Catholic view.

If in a marriage where one partner is infected and the other isn't, it's only a matter of time until both are, then if one objects to condoms on moral grounds, prohibiting their use probably doesn't do much damage. But on the other hand, if careful condom use can prevent the spread of the virus even over several years, then it seems like an unreasonable burden to ask such married couples not to use them.

I would be curious to know which it is--I have heard many hand-waving claims and conflicting statistics from different people. Something definitive would be nice.

I do wonder where Woodchip ran across such a sensational story, though. I went looking for the story and couldn't find anything recent that had changed. Most of the commentary I saw on Google noted that the church was holding on to a position about the morality of condoms that was formulated a few decades ago, before AIDS was a big problem. According to this (2003), as well as the article cops linked, the news is not some recent proclamation banning condom use, but that there are those in the church trying to change things in light of AIDS.

[Dedman]

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Interesting find Drakona. I wonder, is there something about homosexual sex that would decrease the effectiveness of condom assuming that one person in both the hetero and homosexual couples had HIV? I just find that statement to be curious. Without the full context of the quote, it would seem to be making a value judgement.

[Top Gun]

Mobius, you are a truly disgusting piece of slime. I won't even dignify that with a valid response. Get the hell out of this thread, and stop spewing your prejudice. You would call an organization that does more charitable work than just about any other on this planet a purveyor of misery and evil? You would call an organization dedicated to preserving the dignity of human life evil? God, you are more disillusioned and crazy than I thought.

Now that that's out of the way, I can at least address a few points above. Lothar, you mentioned a history of "sexual dysfunction;" I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about things such as the somewhat widespread practice of priests/bishops having wives/mistresses, and often children, during the Middle Ages, or are you referring to more current events. Either way, while acknowleding that memebers of the Church leadership have sinned in the past, the Church's moral teachings have remained constant; while the human element is flawed, the divine is not. Regarding traditions, is there anything in particular you want me to discuss, such as the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption? I do want to steer clear of getting too much off-topic, but we could start a new thread if you want.

Regarding the roots in gnosticism, I'm not overly knowledgable about the subject, but I will say that I have never had this impression. From what I can tell, the Church has tried its utmost to stay clear of gnostic thought. However, as I said, I'm not too familiar. I will say, though, that I think your assessment of the view of the physical body as wrong. There are a few things I can use to back this up. For instance, did you know that the Church, while allowing the dead to be cremated, strongly prefers burial? And, even if a person is cremated, their ashes may not be scattered/flown into space/kept on the mantelpiece; they are to be interred in a mausoleum or something similar. The spiritual aspect behind this is the belief in resurrection of the body, that, at the end of time, our souls will be reunited with our bodies in a more perfect form. The doctrine of the Assumption is related to this; according to it, Mary, sanctified by being the Mother of God, did not suffer any corruption on her body; rather, she was assumed into heaven body and soul at the time of her death. As for sex being bad, by Church doctrine, the act of consumated marriage, exemplified through sexual intercourse, is a sacramental act, something that is sacred. These two points, and more can be made, seem to be just about as opposite from gnosticism as one can be.

About NFP vs. other types of birth control, this is where my phraseology really began to break down. Suffice it to say that there are many people who could explain the whole issue much better than I have. I'm going to make another attempt at it, but it might not be much better, so I'll apologize in advance:
What I meant when I made the statement about "treating sex" in different ways was that, in my mind at least, and according to the Church, there's a difference between NFP and other means of controlling pregnancy. Let me phrase it this way: obviously, when you're taking the Pill or using a condom or IUD or diaphragm or even using the withdrawl method, your entire intent is to make it impossible for the sperm and egg to unite, or at least to prevent that fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (This is where the term "abortifacient" comes in, since the Church teaches that the fertilized egg represents human life.) However, when talking about something such as NFP, you're literally leaving it in God's hands. You're attempting to have sex at the times least conducive to pregnancy, but if there's an egg present at that time, you have a good chance at it.

I know this definition doesn't make much more sense than the last one, but I'll keep trying. I'm also sorry that I had to cut this short; I'll try to respond to more of your/Drakona's posts later.

[Drakona]

It's from the page fliptw linked to, Dedman. Probably it just means heterosexual relationships are all the studies it mentions cover. I just wish it gave more precise statistics.

[woodchip]

I do wonder where Woodchip ran across such a sensational story, though. I went looking for the story and couldn't find anything recent that had changed. Most of the commentary I saw on Google noted that the church was holding on to a position about the morality of condoms that was formulated a few decades ago, before AIDS was a big problem. According to this (2003), as well as the article cops linked, the news is not some recent proclamation banning condom use, but that there are those in the church trying to change things in light of AIDS.

Girl, ya gotta learn how to Google better Also your wish is my command:

"On Tuesday, in a fundamental shift of policy, Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, the spokesman for Spain's Conference of Catholic Bishops, said condoms could be used as part of the global effort to prevent Aids.

The Vatican, however, quickly stepped in to set the record straight.
"The use of prophylactics is unacceptable even as a solution to the problem of Aids, because the objective is the fight against fornication," said Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the Vatican's health secretary, in an interview published yesterday by the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica.

He added: "The sixth commandment says it clearly: do not fornicate."

http://tinyurl.com/3hvqc

[woodchip]

I just wish it gave more precise statistics.

Try this:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

[Lothar]

I went looking for the story and couldn't find anything recent that had changed.... the news is not some recent proclamation banning condom use, but that there are those in the church trying to change things in light of AIDS.

Girl, ya gotta learn how to Google better...

"On Tuesday, in a fundamental shift of policy, Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, the spokesman for Spain's Conference of Catholic Bishops, said condoms could be used as part of the global effort to prevent Aids.

The Vatican, however, quickly stepped in to set the record straight.
"The use of prophylactics is unacceptable even as a solution to the problem of Aids, because the objective is the fight against fornication," said Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the Vatican's health secretary, in an interview published yesterday by the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica.

So she was exactly right -- there was no fundamental change in Catholic church policy. Rather, there was one spokesman who went against the traditional policy, and the Vatican quickly responded by defending the traditional policy. There's no new proclamation here, just a voice of dissent against a decades-old position.

The survey you linked to is pretty much devoid of applicable results, but it does mention risk reduction of 85% (page 17). While that's better than nothing, if you're having regular sex with someone with AIDS, you'd better just plan on getting it. Condoms might delay it, but they're not going to prevent it.

While I completely disagree with the Catholic church position, there's nothing particularly new about it, and AIDS does not provide a fundamental challenge to it.

[Beowulf]

At 3:30 AM? Are you nuts? What would I be doing awake at such a horrible hour?

Proving Drakona right?

[snoopy]

What I have read about HIV is that transmission is massively more likely if bleeding occurs, therefore anal sex and rape lead to infection much more than consentual "normal" sex. I would venture that anal sex and rape also fall in the "condom misuse" category, leading to a higher percentage of barrier failure in these cases, too.

[Zuruck]

I completely agree with Mobius. What is the one thing that since it's inception, has caused nothing but death, pain, confusion, and chaos? The catholic church.

I make a little boy give me a blowjob, I get murdered in prison four days in. A "holy" man does it, he gets moved to another parish to do it again.

[Drakona]

The catholic church (I won't dignify it with a capital letter) is the most evil organisation on the planet and is single handedly responsible for more misery, medical harm and misinformation than anything else in the history of mankind.

I completely agree with Mobius. What is the one thing that since it's inception, has caused nothing but death, pain, confusion, and chaos? The catholic church.

These statements only show your historical ignorance. There have been many governments, militias, religions, and organized crime rings in the history of mankind that have been much, much more evil than the Catholic church (even as you apparently imagine it). Consider the various religions in history that have required human, or even child sacrifice. Consider modern governments that have slaughtered masses of innocents, and ancient governments that ruled with unrestricted brutality. Consider organizations that have pressed women and children into sexual slavery, that have murdered mercilessly on a massive scale to hold power or to influence it. I can think of a lot of organizations that have mainly caused death, pain, confusion, and chaos, and the Catholic church is not one of them. On the contrary, it has continuously striven (often successfully!) to be an agent of life and order, and to relieve misery. It has made mistakes in history, and has at times watched violent and evil things with little protest, but to call it "most evil" displays an utter lack of perspective.

I myself don't think too highly of Catholicism as a worldview, or of the Catholic church as a church. But there is no denying that the Catholic church has accomplished a lot of good in its history. Everything from holding Europe together and preserving knowledge through the middle ages, to founding charities and influencing politics for good in modern times. Catholics have historically (and modernly) striven for holiness, for beauty, for intense service to God, and these are not things to be sneezed at. Many Catholics have been very virtuous saints and servants of God. Indeed, the ancient pope Gregory is one of my heroes, as is Brother Lawrence (his "Practice of the Presence of God" is one of my favorite books). Mother Teresa--to many, a person iconic of goodness--was Catholic.

History, people, religions... these are complex things. Very rarely can you summarize something fairly in a sentence or two, and even more rarely can you call something unrestrictedly evil or good. Such complex things deserve to be treated with honesty and careful respect. The history of the Catholic church, the nature of Catholics as a people, and the value of Catholic Christianity as a religion all fall into this category. If we do indeed live in an age of religious tolerence, it should be a bare minimum of courtesy to treat with respect (even if in disapproval) the things that others consider sacred.

[snoopy]

....This is me pwning you.....

Shame on me for misquoting....

[Top Gun]

Thank you for that post, Drakona. I've become so sick of people applying the actions of a few bad apples toward larger groups/organizations/religions that are, for the most part, good. One example: on another forum, someone made a post about a small group of nuns working as missionaries in Indonesia who were requiring the locals to convert before they could receive aid supplies. I think just about everyone would say that that is completely wrong and goes against what the nuns profess to believe. However, just a post or two later, some of the following comments pop up: "See, this is why I hate organized religion." "I hate the Catholic Church; it's full of hypocrites and child molesters." As if the actions of ten or so people represent an entire religious group of around a billion people. The very thought is absurd. People like that, and yes, I'm including both zuruck and Mobius, are just using the incident as a justification for their own bigotry and bias. I understand that many people are uncomfortable with religion, but outright hatred for it...that requires a pretty delusional person.

[Ferno]

I've become so sick of people applying the actions of a few bad apples toward larger groups/organizations/religions that are, for the most part, good.

agreed.

[Vertigo 99]

everytime a woman menstrates, a potential life is lost!


i am against woman's menstration.


i heard it attracts bears!