PDA

View Full Version : Catholic Condoms


Ejector
23rd Apr 2006, 16:23
The latest is a welcome sign, but why does the Pope, expose so many uneducated poor Catholics to Aids and other STD’s and KILL them, instead of giving humantry aid in the form of food, education and educate against aids and use condoms to avoid this ???? :confused:

G-CPTN
23rd Apr 2006, 17:56
HOW does a married couple 'acquire' AIDs? If they obeyed Catholic laws they wouldn't CATCH the diseases that condoms guard against.

BlueDiamond
23rd Apr 2006, 18:11
Not necessarily, G-CPTN, there are other ways for an adult to become infected. In addition, some babies who were born HIV+ and who have grown up, married, and never had sex with anyone but their spouse, can still infect their partner.

Regardless of any of that, the Catholic Church will never agree to the use of condoms ... not even to save lives. Sex, in the considered opinion of that church, is for procreation, not enjoyment. :rolleyes:

G-CPTN
23rd Apr 2006, 18:18
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/704730
Isn't this 'concession' a red-herring, though? Only if couples CONTINUED to use condoms, would the transmission of AIDs be avoided. Is this arrangement only for once the menopause has been reached? :confused:

Rick Storm
23rd Apr 2006, 18:39
Church; My thoughts go like this, if you don't play the game, don't make the rules. Jezz they still have to look at the Pope ass to make sure he/she ain't a woman!!!!! At least if our C of E bishops are gay, they tell us.

Mac the Knife
23rd Apr 2006, 18:45
HOW does a married couple 'acquire' AIDs? If they obeyed Catholic laws they wouldn't CATCH the diseases that condoms guard against.

Game and Set (but perhaps not Match) to G-CPTN :}

Having said that, I'm not a Catholic and an generally pro-choice (which is a nice way of saying that I approve of contraception and abortion generally)

I'm never quite sure whether to admire or laugh at the Catholic church for their resolute disregard of the realities of this world. I'm afraid that the idea of a lot of elderly celibate gentlemen deciding on and instructing married couples on their intimate behavior strikes me as fairly risible, but there you are...

The Catholic church DOES educate against AIDS in a funny sort of way - it says don't have sex outside marriage. Virologically, that's a good solution - Humanologically it's a pretty bad one.

The Catholic church has a big problem with sexual pleasure, except as a part of procreation. Although the so-called rhythm method is accepted (just), it isn't viewed with any great favour, since it attempts to separate procreation from fornication.

I'm not quite sure where these odd ideas come from or what their theological origins are, though I'm sure thare are many thousands of learned tomes that would explain it to me.

But religion isn't about reality or practicalities or demonstrable truths, it's about faith, which has nothing to do with reality.

tilewood
23rd Apr 2006, 18:46
If Catholics use condoms you get fewer Catholics. Not really in
the interests of The Pope Corporation. ;)

SixDelta
23rd Apr 2006, 20:00
I think all religions should demand the USE of condoms.

The fewer God botherers in this modern world the better.

And don't even get me started on "Creationists"!! :mad:

ex_matelot
23rd Apr 2006, 20:07
Oi,Jenvey...'Ahem....duel????

You were adrift matey!:oh:

ExSimGuy
23rd Apr 2006, 20:56
Mac

I think that the popular view is that the "parable of the seed on stony ground" may be the theological background to this ruling. Personally, I think it's a very poor interpretation, and only a generation or so ago, Roman Catholic women were being told that contraception was "not allowed", even if their doctor had warned them "one more pregnancy (after 9 kids:eek: ) could be fatal" (from my ex-wife's home village in Ireland)

So 10 kids with no mother is preferable to contraception? To my mind, a sensible sized family, that can be financially supported, with 2 parents, would be a better way to go:rolleyes:

Another "interpretation" that I disagree with is the ruling against the (re)marriage of divorcees. In "Mark", "John" and "Luke", Jesus is reported as saying that you shouldn't divorce. Only "Mathew" goes on to report the rest of the teaching with an "unless""

(Mat 19)

Whilst I disagreed with the Roman Church's "interpretation", I respected it, but of recent years, it would seem that "annulments" were getting more easy to obtain - especially when the local church's roof needed attention. That really annoys me.

(a "nasty pagan Proddy":E )

Mac the Knife
23rd Apr 2006, 22:46
I have to say that I think that rules that few follow (there is good evidence that a very large number of practicing Catholics now DO practice contraception, and also that a lot of priests turn a blind eye) are a bad idea.

Just like laws that are unenforceable (or in practice rarely enforced).

Yes, I remember hearing the story about Onan and also a whole variety of stunningly unconvincing bits of theological argument and rationalisations.

But whatever the whys and wherefores, I can't see the Vatican ever condoning contraception, no matter what assorted churchmen may actually think. It'd be too much of a turnaround, implying that 100 years of teaching had been wrong. Pity really, as I don't see it producing anything but unhappiness and unplanned children.

I suppose it's a dogma that now just can't be abandoned. Dogma's an interesting thing - lots of extremely unproductive Islamic dogma as well, that we can't understand why they cling to.... Judaism has loads of it, but has devised excellent ways around it when it gets in the way - very practical!

:ok:

Standard Noise
24th Apr 2006, 02:55
Sex, in the considered opinion of that church, is for procreation, not enjoyment. :rolleyes:

And all this time I thought the priests were actually enjoying fiddling with the choir, didn't realise it was possible to 'procreate' with choirboys. But then, what would I know, I'm a Presbyterian.:rolleyes:

Loose rivets
24th Apr 2006, 04:38
Virologically, that's a good solution - Humanologically it's a pretty bad one.


Humanologically? Humanologically ? You made that up!!http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/huvud.gif

Mac the Knife
24th Apr 2006, 07:26
'Course I did!

Don't you think it's a nice word? I love the way it rolls off the tongue.....

Enriches the English language dontcha know.

Well, everyone knows what it means!

:ok:

acbus1
24th Apr 2006, 07:43
The banning of condoms by the Catholic Church is on a par with their more ridiculous dictates.

So why is the Catholic Church doing nothing about menstruation and wet dreams? (we all know [email protected] is a sin, of course).

Go on......answer that one with anything less than illogical religious gobbledygook!

Something to do with the Sun orbiting the stationary, 3500 year old Earth, perhaps? :rolleyes: :p

verticalhold
24th Apr 2006, 09:39
Heard this as a news item on the radio four programme PM on Friday night. I nearly lost all bladder control when the programme went to the Rome correspondent David Willey!!!:E

Rushton
24th Apr 2006, 09:53
I am amazed that so called sane people actually take any notice of a bloke in a white dress. Why should the rest of humanity pick up the tab for those that get the disease that could have been avoided with the use of condoms (Yes i know that comment is a generality, as there is more than one way to catch it), but please - can't people think for themselves?

Devil's advocate now tramps of again to bunker to await the bombers

ExSimGuy
24th Apr 2006, 20:52
Rushton,

Pretty much with you on that one. I do take notice of the "guy in a white dress", though not the same ones you are talking about.

"Breed to populate the world with Romans" (or, isn't that what the Muslims are taught/doing? and causing one of the biggest unemployment problems in the Middle-East in the process?)

(right there beside you in the bunker)

Howard Hughes
25th Apr 2006, 00:29
So why is the Catholic Church doing nothing about menstruation and wet dreams?
I did'nt know 65 year old men were able to......Well you know.;)

Loose rivets
25th Apr 2006, 05:43
Bloody cheek!!!!!:}

Blacksheep
25th Apr 2006, 05:52
If sex is for procreation and not for enjoyment, why did God make it so much fun? :confused:

BlueWolf
25th Apr 2006, 06:07
If the Church (any Church, come to that) were a little less dim and dogmatic, perhaps they might have understood that "The pro-creation of New Life" is not limited to simply making babies.

Sex is fun because it creates new life force. It's good for you. It makes you healthy. Etc etc etc.

And it makes babies too! Good, healthy, fun sex, makes the best, healthiest babies, who grow up into the best, healthiest people.

But it doesn't have to be limited to babymaking in order to be good, healthy, and fun, and to create new life.

Not rocket science really.
;)

<Metaphysicist's hat off again>

ExSimGuy
25th Apr 2006, 18:08
Good healthy viewpoint there Lupus.:)

I'll drink to that :ok:

(but then it's well-known that I'll drink to anything ;) )

tilewood
25th Apr 2006, 19:59
I did'nt know 65 year old men were able to......Well you know.;)


Howard Hughes I am having more fun at exactly twenty years
older than you than I did at 41. Things can only get better!!


"Nurse, where's my lubrication?!!! :p

tart1
25th Apr 2006, 22:12
"Nurse, where's my lubrication?!!! :p
OOOhhh......... is lubrication allowed then?? :rolleyes:

Howard Hughes
25th Apr 2006, 22:52
Howard Hughes I am having more fun at exactly twenty years
older than you than I did at 41. Things can only get better!!
"Nurse, where's my lubrication?!!! :p
It seems a number of men older than myself have taken my sentence out of context, http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/angryoldman.gif what I meant was....
Oh never mind, I am sure the women over 50 got what I was talking about.....;)
OOOhhh......... is lubrication allowed then??
Sooo many lines, sooo little time...;)