Catholic church and condoms

[Autodidact]

That's the thing. They are not imposing it on anyone. They are voicing their opinion. It's just the same as almost any other Christian religion.

No. They are voicing their opinion that condoms should be illegal, or expensive or whatever the case may be. An opinion that something is wrong is entirely different from an opinion that it should be illegal. For example, I'm pretty sure that the Catholic religion is wrong, should I then advocate that it be illegal? No. I'm willing to allow them to be wrong. See the difference?

They have the right to believe and argue that condoms are wrong. They do not have the right to make those who disagree pay more for them, or whatever it is.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure it is a sin but as stated more people will die of STD's and AIDS, surely the catholics would rather let people wear a condom than watch them die wouldn't they?

Surely you jest? No, the Catholic Church would rather see any number of actual already born people die than allow them to have sex for fun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're right, I left that out. But you do so with the knowledge that becoming pregnant is a possiblity and you you don't use anything that would thwart that act.

The Church does allow certain things that would thwart procreation, though:

- natural phenomena like menopause and infertility - the Church doesn't ask for post-menopausal married women to stay celibate, does it?

- certain types of actions intended to prevent conception - e.g. the rhythm method/"Natural Family Planning".

I'm not really sure why the Church frowns on spatial barriers (e.g. a condom, which places a physical divide between the egg and sperm), but not temporal barriers (e.g. NFP, which places a span of time between the egg and sperm).

That's the thing. They are not imposing it on anyone. They are voicing their opinion. It's just the same as almost any other Christian religion.

There's one big difference I see: in the Catholic Church, the Church itself claims authority over its membership. In most Protestant denominations, the minister is viewed (hopefully) as a wise person who should be respected, but with no more authority than any other person.

How? By saying we don't agree with this? This is imposing their beliefs on others? Someone can tell me that they don't believe in God, they are voicing their opinion but I don't think they are trying to impose their beliefs on me.

Analogy time:

- saying "I don't believe in God" is not an imposition of beliefs.
- saying "take down your crucifix" is an imposition of beliefs.

- saying "I think condoms are wrong" is not an imposition of beliefs.
- saying "keep the price of condoms high" is an imposition of beliefs.

 

[Autodidact]

That's the thing. They are not imposing it on anyone. They are voicing their opinion. It's just the same as almost any other Christian religion.

They're doing their darned best, though.

 

[Autodidact]

How? By saying we don't agree with this? This is imposing their beliefs on others? Someone can tell me that they don't believe in God, they are voicing their opinion but I don't think they are trying to impose their beliefs on me.

Exactly. Now, if they proposed legislation to make communion illegal, then they would be trying to impose their beliefs on you, and I hazard a guess that you would object to that. That's how we feel about Catholics or anyone else trying to force us to conform to their religious beliefs. Why isn't it enough for the Pope to tell Catholics not to use condoms? Why does he have to bring the rest of us into it?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Regardless of what the hierarchy says, statistics show that most Roman Catholics DO use birth control!

So given that the Catholic Church is defined as the boty of believers, this means that it's correct to say that the Catholic Church in fact endorses and practices birth control!

The hierarchy may not like this, but it's a fact.

Bruce

 

[Autodidact]

Regardless of what the hierarchy says, statistics show that most Roman Catholics DO use birth control!

So given that the Catholic Church is defined as the boty of believers, this means that it's correct to say that the Catholic Church in fact endorses and practices birth control!

The hierarchy may not like this, but it's a fact.

Bruce

That may explain why they would like to make it illegal--it would help them control their own members.

 

[doppelganger]

Regardless of what the hierarchy says, statistics show that most Roman Catholics DO use birth control!

How do they compare statistically to non-Catholics contraceptive use?

How do per capita abortion rates compare between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics?

 

[rheff78]

Regardless of what the hierarchy says, statistics show that most Roman Catholics DO use birth control!

So given that the Catholic Church is defined as the boty of believers, this means that it's correct to say that the Catholic Church in fact endorses and practices birth control!

The hierarchy may not like this, but it's a fact.

Bruce

So, I guess all Catholics are pedophiles then too? Since there have been instances of Priests doing that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, I guess all Catholics are pedophiles then too? Since there have been instances of Priests doing that.

I don't think that's a correct interpretation of Bruce's point. If you were to apply his argument to pedophilia, you could say that if most Catholics were pedophiles, then the Catholic Church (by way of an implicit vote by its membership through their actions) endorses pedophilia.

However, most Catholics are not pedophiles, so the parallel falls apart right there.

 

[Autodidact]

So, I guess all Catholics are pedophiles then too? Since there have been instances of Priests doing that.

This analogy would only be appropriate if most priests were pedophiles. Is that what you're asserting?

 

[rheff78]

So now we are just playing in numbers? According to the quote, the body of church is what matters. No matter what part of that body or how many do it, it speaks for us all. So, according to that, all Catholics are pedophiles. It IS ONE BODY after all. So, I guess we're just a bunch of sinning pedo's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So now we are just playing in numbers? According to the quote, the body of church is what matters. No matter what part of that body or how many do it, it speaks for us all.

This is not according to the quote; it's according to your own mistaken interpretation of it.

So, according to that, all Catholics are pedophiles. It IS ONE BODY after all. So, I guess we're just a bunch of sinning pedo's.

No... you're trying to find offense where none was intended or can be reasonably construed.

 

[M O N S T E R]

This discussion makes me wonder why fundies are even anti-abortion in the first place? If one of the fundamentalist’s goals is to "save" as many “souls” as possible and if all babies who die go to heaven, then preventing abortion would increase the number of “souls” that have the potential to go to hell. It seems to me this pro-life stance eliminates this “express train to heaven” and forces otherwise “sure things” to run the gauntlet of life, increasing the chances that yet another “soul” ends up being eternally tormented. So are these christian do-gooders not, according to their own beliefs, causing more “souls” to end up in hell? This also makes me wonder why missionaries don't just stay home. Since fundies believe that people who never come into contact with "the word of god" (like people in the jungles of Papua New Guinea) will automatically go to heaven when they die, why bother? Instead, they bring the gospel message to these people and immediately sentence any of its members whom they are not able to convince to an eternity of excruciating torment in hell. Missionaries seem to be doing satan a huge favor. This point can be taken even further... If every religious person destroyed all their religious books and stopped spreading their faith, in a generation or two, nobody would ever get to hear the “word of god” meaning everyone would automatically go to heaven. Sure, some people would go to hell for destroying scriptures but it would be a small sacrifice to ensure that all future generations would end up in heaven.

 

[rheff78]

This is not according to the quote; it's according to your own mistaken interpretation of it.


No... you're trying to find offense where none was intended or can be reasonably construed.

You're right, after re-reading my post it does sound offensive. I apologize. I get a little touchy sometimes.

 

[rheff78]

This discussion makes me wonder why fundies are even anti-abortion in the first place? If one of the fundamentalist’s goals is to "save" as many “souls” as possible and if all babies who die go to heaven, then preventing abortion would increase the number of “souls” that have the potential to go to hell. It seems to me this pro-life stance eliminates this “express train to heaven” and forces otherwise “sure things” to run the gauntlet of life, increasing the chances that yet another “soul” ends up being eternally tormented. So are these christian do-gooders not, according to their own beliefs, causing more “souls” to end up in hell? This also makes me wonder why missionaries don't just stay home. Since fundies believe that people who never come into contact with "the word of god" (like people in the jungles of Papua New Guinea) will automatically go to heaven when they die, why bother? Instead, they bring the gospel message to these people and immediately sentence any of its members whom they are not able to convince to an eternity of excruciating torment in hell. Missionaries seem to be doing satan a huge favor. This point can be taken even further... If every religious person destroyed all their religious books and stopped spreading their faith, in a generation or two, nobody would ever get to hear the “word of god” meaning everyone would automatically go to heaven. Sure, some people would go to hell for destroying scriptures but it would be a small sacrifice to ensure that all future generations would end up in heaven.

you're mis-interpreting though. This may be for a another thread but I guess I can answer that here. The problem is, the Church views life starting at conception. Yes, babies would go to heaven, but that baby has no choice in what happens to it. You can't make a decision for someone else's life. Make sense?

 

[sandandfoam]

You can't make a decision for someone else's life. Make sense?

Absolutely. So why do they object to my government lowering the price of condoms to me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're right, after re-reading my post it does sound offensive. I apologize. I get a little touchy sometimes.

No worries. It happens to everyone occasionally.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This discussion makes me wonder why fundies are even anti-abortion in the first place? If one of the fundamentalist’s goals is to "save" as many “souls” as possible and if all babies who die go to heaven, then preventing abortion would increase the number of “souls” that have the potential to go to hell. It seems to me this pro-life stance eliminates this “express train to heaven” and forces otherwise “sure things” to run the gauntlet of life, increasing the chances that yet another “soul” ends up being eternally tormented. So are these christian do-gooders not, according to their own beliefs, causing more “souls” to end up in hell? This also makes me wonder why missionaries don't just stay home. Since fundies believe that people who never come into contact with "the word of god" (like people in the jungles of Papua New Guinea) will automatically go to heaven when they die, why bother? Instead, they bring the gospel message to these people and immediately sentence any of its members whom they are not able to convince to an eternity of excruciating torment in hell. Missionaries seem to be doing satan a huge favor. This point can be taken even further... If every religious person destroyed all their religious books and stopped spreading their faith, in a generation or two, nobody would ever get to hear the “word of god” meaning everyone would automatically go to heaven. Sure, some people would go to hell for destroying scriptures but it would be a small sacrifice to ensure that all future generations would end up in heaven.

Nice. Idiotic but nice. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth as well as not to murder.

 

[Autodidact]

you're mis-interpreting though. This may be for a another thread but I guess I can answer that here. The problem is, the Church views life starting at conception. Yes, babies would go to heaven, but that baby has no choice in what happens to it. You can't make a decision for someone else's life. Make sense?

Which would make you wonder why they're not wildly in favor of condoms, which under their reasoning is the greatest anti-murder device ever invented.

Really, though, no one really believes that, do they? The hypo goes like this:
You work in a lab, and your co-worker's daughter is visiting. A fire breaks out. The child is in one room, and a tray containing 32 fertilized eggs is in the next room. Which one should you rush into to save: the little girl, or the 32 "live human beings" in petri dishes?