There has to be something wrong with your understanding, the Pope directives are for Christians, and as it have been pointed out not all Catholic do exactly as the Pope direct them, you are not to believe any thing but to know that he is not teaching you, he may care and have concern even for you but he is not you spiritual leader, I don't understand your preoccupation with what he teaches his people, if you want to play Russian roulette your odds are pretty good one in a hundred but even that is not acceptable to the Pope, if you are one of the unlucky ones, you will die, the pope directive to you is dont spread your curse to other. Abstain! If a Christian is in the one in a hundred, his fate is the same and the directive is the same dont spread it, repent and save your soul. He direct Christian to Abstinence and faithfulness to one partner and that they get to know their partner well enough before having sexual relations. It is beautifully simple.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV
- Thread starter challupa
- Start date
There has to be something wrong with your understanding, the Pope directives are for Christians, and as it have been pointed out not all Catholic do exactly as the Pope direct them, you are not to believe any thing but to know that he is not teaching you, he may care and have concern even for you but he is not you spiritual leader, I don't understand your preoccupation with what he teaches his people, if you want to play Russian roulette your odds are pretty good one in a hundred but even that is not acceptable to the Pope, if you are one of the unlucky ones, you will die, the pope directive to you is dont spread your curse to other. Abstain! If a Christian is in the one in a hundred, his fate is the same and the directive is the same dont spread it, repent and save your soul. He direct Christian to Abstinence and faithfulness to one partner and that they get to know their partner well enough before having sexual relations. It is beautifully simple.
Alceste
Vagabond
Here you are sorting crimes into "potentially dangerous behavior" and "crimes where one party is guaranteed to suffer at the hands of another". Which category do you think consensual sex between adults falls into?
I ignore laws and authorities at all times, unless it suits my own purposes. I don't need parents any more, thanks. I'm all grown up, so I can think for myself.
Heh... I had to go back and re-read that sentence. At first, I thought you were being sarcastic. Yes, most people pick and choose. They consider the laws that actually have a basis in morality to be less negotiable than the ones that are more arbitrary.
No, I don't, because that's not what I'm suggesting.
I've already used one engineering example in this thread; here's another.
Say you're a fire protection engineer. Your client has made an application to the municipality, county, or other relevant authorities to build a warehouse. On all their application forms, they've stated that the warehouse will be used to store steel girders. Nice, non-flammable steel. Relative to other types of warehouse, the fire protection requirements (e.g. fire resistance ratings, sprinklers, standpipes, etc.) are at the low end of the scale.
However, because of your relationship with the client, you discover that they actually plan to use the warehouse to store tires and cans of gasoline - they didn't tell anyone else this because they wanted to get the warehouse built with a minimum of regulatory fuss and expense. The fire protection requirements for this type of warehouse are severe: heavy-duty fire separations between different parts of the plant, major fire resistance ratings for the protection around structural members, more and larger fire sprinkler heads, etc., etc. The fire protection system for a warehouse storing non-flammable items would be nowhere near enough to deal with a fire with this high-risk use.
If the owner goes ahead and builds their firetrap-waiting-to-happen warehouse, they're obviously breaking the law and putting people in danger. However, what about you, the engineer? If you only design the fire protection systems to account for a warehouse that holds non-flammable items, would your conscience be clear? Would you bear any of the responsibility if a fire occurs and people die?
When it comes to engineering, the answer is yes, the engineer would be responsible. He knew what was going to happen and failed to take that into account in his design. If people died in that fire, he would quite possibly end up in prison for his actions.
Now... when religious leaders act like that hypothetical engineer, why should they get a free pass? If the Pope is confronted with a group of people who he, just like anyone else, knows will not all practice abstinence and tells them that condoms are wrong, why is this action above reproach? Is it enough for him or his supporters to say "well, it's their fault and not mine, because if they followed the rules (even though I knew they wouldn't) they would have been fine"? If so, then why is it not permissible for the engineer to take the same position?
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
emiliano, I have taken the liberty of separating your run-on sentence into sentences. Please do this yourself in the future.
As I mentioned, even if he only gave directives that would cause the deaths of many Christians, he would still be wrong.
But some do believe what the pope tells them, and as a result, when they do have sex, it is unprotected, resulting in HIV transmission.
Actually, Catholic dogma affects a lot of people other than Catholics. You yourself seem to not know the difference between Catholics and Christians, since you keep saying that his teachings are for Christians only, when in actuality most Christians have no affiliation with the pope. I, an atheist, was taught in high school that abstinence was the only way to go, and I have no doubt that this was because the school board in my area is 100% Catholic.
I am greatly concerned when anyones actions cause the deaths of thousands or even millions of people.
If all the pope had said was that abstinence was the best way, that would be fine, although such claims don't significantly change the number of people who abstain. However, his claims that condoms are ineffective will lead to people not using condoms. According to this page, your chances of contracting HIV when having sex with someone with HIV are 1 in 5000 with a condom, and 1 in 500 with a condom. So how is it that, if the pope is really concerned, he would assert that it's better to multiply your chances of contracting HIV by 10?
And incredibly ineffective.
As I mentioned, even if he only gave directives that would cause the deaths of many Christians, he would still be wrong.
But some do believe what the pope tells them, and as a result, when they do have sex, it is unprotected, resulting in HIV transmission.
Actually, Catholic dogma affects a lot of people other than Catholics. You yourself seem to not know the difference between Catholics and Christians, since you keep saying that his teachings are for Christians only, when in actuality most Christians have no affiliation with the pope. I, an atheist, was taught in high school that abstinence was the only way to go, and I have no doubt that this was because the school board in my area is 100% Catholic.
I am greatly concerned when anyones actions cause the deaths of thousands or even millions of people.
If all the pope had said was that abstinence was the best way, that would be fine, although such claims don't significantly change the number of people who abstain. However, his claims that condoms are ineffective will lead to people not using condoms. According to this page, your chances of contracting HIV when having sex with someone with HIV are 1 in 5000 with a condom, and 1 in 500 with a condom. So how is it that, if the pope is really concerned, he would assert that it's better to multiply your chances of contracting HIV by 10?
And incredibly ineffective.
eugenius
The Truth Lies Within
great post
Just to expand on that: AFAIK, the Vatican's stance on condoms is the same in all circumstances: they're never permitted. However, (again AFAIK), I don't believe they've ever instructed HIV-positive people to not have sex with their spouses. Have they?
If all that is correct, then it's not just a matter of people ignoring the Church's teaching on one issue and following it on another. The Church doesn't have any problem with people having sex within the confines of a marriage, and is generally very much against condom use in that context.
In all fairness, the RCC have discussed letting married couples use a condom if one is infected with HIV. To date they are still undecided, but hey they are thinking about it!:sarcastic
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
If I remember correctly, the statement of their policy is roughly, "Everyone should abstain until they are married, and people with HIV should abstain to prevent spreading their disease." So while it's not directly said, I think the implication is there.
Also, there's a retroactive perception that the catholic opposition to condoms has anything to do with STDs. The RCC is opposed to all birth control, including methods which do not in any way prevent disease. This promotes other irresponsibilities in that Catholic couples often have more children than they can adequately care for.
Last edited:
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
When birth control is needed for economic purposes, the Church permits what it calls "natural family planning"- a natural form of birth control based on rhythms of fertility (which is highly effective). I don't quite grasp its justification, but Catholic doctrine does offer a way for married couples to be sexual without worrying about children, when context demands it.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Penguin,
In your analogy, is not the true moral option for the engineer to refuse to make designs that will be put to an unlawful end, given that he has such knowledge? He should alert the authorities and remove himself from the project, rather than simply make the illegal activity safer.
In your analogy, is not the true moral option for the engineer to refuse to make designs that will be put to an unlawful end, given that he has such knowledge? He should alert the authorities and remove himself from the project, rather than simply make the illegal activity safer.
It's not actually that effective even when it's practiced properly. If it were, I'd have kids by now... but that's probably very off-topic.
In any case, to do it properly means more than just checking a calendar; it means taking temperature readings, making graphs of trends, and generally doing a fair number of things on a regular basis that would probably be beyond the ability of someone who can't figure out how to use a condom correctly.
Well, of course God considers it to be acceptable to prevent conception by placing a span of time between the sperm and the egg. Placing a physical barrier between them, though... that's right out.
:sarcastic
In truth, I think the reason that the Catholic Church is okay with natural family planning is that it's not effective enough to be really considered a birth control method.
Yes - and that would be analogous to the Pope not making any public statements at all on this issue.
Yes - though the analogy breaks down a bit when civil law in the analogy translates to "God's law"; in the Catholic viewpoint, I don't think there would be much point in the Pope informing God that people aren't 100% abstinent who "should" be - I mean, he wouldn't be telling God anything He didn't already know, right?
However (and the analogy might be breaking down even more here), a perfectly acceptable approach for the engineer to take would be to counsel his client to file the proper applications and meet the legal requirements for the actual intended use. It's not the fact that the client wants to build a warehouse for flammable products that's the problem; it's that he wants to build it without proper safeguards and approvals.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
I agree that the Church's modern permission for NFP is, today, the weakest point in its absolute prohibition against artificial birth control and contraceptives [ that is, in terms of interior consistency] , nor do I quite see how it can be overcome. I do think, however, that contraception has much of the moral implications that the Church speaks of- though I disagree it is "intrinsically evil".
There are such things as a centers in Catholic dioceses that exist for the promotion of its proper application. Used properly, it is quite effective, from what I have read. Nonetheless, Catholic doctrine does expect marriage to be fruitful, in something of an unplanned way, and so NFP was never intended to serve as a simple stand in for artificial birth control. There is something today about the mentality of child production, with its industrious emphasis, its materialistic and individualist contexts, its narcissistic encouragment, that I find problematic. In my opinion, Catholic doctrine fails to hit upon the perfect nuance- which is probably impossible to find from any vantage point. Nonetheless, when the teachings are applied with the aid of informed conscience, I believe one arrives relatively close to the truth of the matter.
Finally,
I'm not sure how secure the engineer's analogy is. The Pope is, in the Catholic mind, not really the engineer so much as he is the mouth piece of the law- God's law, as you said. He states what the legal foundations are for the construction of any plan and encourages that any plan regard them. The Catholic teaching authority [Magisterium] tends not to prescribe praxis for this very reason, that its manadate is only to bring attention what is "legal" and what is not.
I think I can see one way it can be overcome: a new papal encyclical that reverses the position put forward in Humanae Vitae. I'm sure that the Vatican wouldn't want to do this, but since the matter's not one of Papal Infallibility, I assume that there would be some wiggle-room in the doctrine, theoretically.
I think the analogy is sound in that both the Pope and the engineer are individuals whose words and actions have repercussions, and both people (just like anyone else) are responsible for their own actions.
In any case, I think we have to remember the two central tenets of the Law, as least as they're presented in the Bible: love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself. However the Vatican justifies its position with details of Catholic doctrine, when we step back from the issue, I think it's clear that by advocating a course of action that is reasonably recognized to cause great suffering, they have failed in meeting that second part of the law. There is no love for one's neighbour in working against the control and containment of a fatal to disease amongst your neighbours.
If the Catholic Church can justify its actions with its own interpretation of God's Law, then this just means that their interpretation has become detached from the core principles on which it is supposedly based.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
He'd rather teach them not to have sex at all. Its in his interests and the interests of his God (apparently). I don't agree with his methods, teaching people to not have sex at all whilst providing no contraception for those who defy these methods is a joke.
Why doesn't he come out and say:
"Don't live your life, be a prude, be boring, and you'll be rewarded (assuming this crap im preaching is actually true)."
No he couldn't and this has several reasons, one been that this devise has been found to fail, one in a hundred fails to protect and to be fair these is a highest quality assurance perhaps the highest possible one, and it must be expensive to implement and as the manufacturer are in the business of making a profit for their investor a I doubt that they'll willing to lift the present level of quality assurance, another reason is that the Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics/Christians and that there are other issues involved that need to be considered, it would be impossible for you to understand this (you are not a spiritual person) because you are an atheist ( reason won't work) The Pope must consider concepts that you could not possibly grasp in the state your are in, concepts as repentance, penance and behavioural changes, abstinence.
Who told you that the prude and those that have control over their urges are boring?
They don't have AIDS, they are healthier and wealthier than those that have more vices than resources, if you abstain from excessive alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco you will live a life of abundance.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
What does alcohol drugs and tobacco have to do with sex? In our country HIV is very very low. As a general rule here when i was at highschool, if you havnt had sex by 18 theres some work to do to catch up
Sex does nothing, having sex is healthy. As long as you protect yourself no harm can come about.Abstaining from sex does not destroy urges. Supressing urges is unhealthy and really quite boring. Why live when you deny yourself the simple pleasures life offers?
What does alcohol drugs and tobacco have to do with sex? In our country HIV is very very low. As a general rule here when i was at highschool, if you havnt had sex by 18 theres some work to do to catch up
Abstaining from sex does not destroy urges. Supressing urges is unhealthy and really quite boring. Why live when you deny yourself the simple pleasures life offers?
Abstinence is a virtue that have application in all of our activities of daily living, that is what make if worthwhile to attain, it just involve to stop to think, analyze, weight benefit versus consequence and then act, it can be practiced in all areas of life, humans are intellectually superior to other mammals in that they don't act instinct alone, we can learn good behaviours, we choose how to act.
" Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body"
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
So the bible is your reason, my mistake, i actually thought you had a real arguement.
Abstaining from sex is redundant morally, consequences can be omitted via contraception so your arguement is useless based on modern standards. Then again, thats a sin too, so i guess this Church of yours needs to re-evaluate its stance to benefit the real world.
Sex is not immoral, its what we do. It makes us feel better and thwe consequences of our actions can these days be controlled.