NationStates Jolt Archive

A cardinal no less (and apparently a favorite of the now sick* John Paul II) has voiced his opinion. Still believing that condoms are bad and immoral, but thinking that "thou shalt no kill" overrides it (that is, it is better to teach about contraception in order to stop aids).

Source: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4226489.stm)

So what are your opinions on this. Personally, I like it, sign that the church is slowly modernising and being more reasonable. However I still think it has a long way to go.




* He has the flu

I am under the impression that the cardinal who said that also has had to do an about face of sorts

Wasn't this fellow's last couple of statements on this issue along the lines of " yes, condoms do provide some protection, but....."

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only?

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only?
Jesus told them.

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only?
Even in the New Testament there's lots of verses about avoiding "sexual immorality" and things like that. There's some that come closer to premarital sex, although I'm not sure if that is mentioned specifically in the Catholic Bible. For example, Colossians 3:5 :
"Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry"

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only? I'm not 100% sure. I'll keep with it for the moment, though, as it doesn't affect me…

Jesus told them.
JESUS!

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only?

They don't think that. They think it is for procreation and fun. So you can't wear a rubber because then it would just be fun, which is wrong.

They don't think that. They think it is for procreation and fun. So you can't wear a rubber because then it would just be fun, which is wrong.

Where did Jesus (or anyone in the Bible for that matter) make the disticntion between sex for enjoyment and sex for procreation. Obviously sex outside marriage enjoyment is wrong, I know that. But I dont see where Catholics get the idea that sex is for procreation and fun and not just fun?

They don't think that. They think it is for procreation and fun. So you can't wear a rubber because then it would just be fun, which is wrong.
What's so fun about using a condom? I think it defeants both purposes.

What's so fun about using a condom? I think it defeants both purposes.
It lasts longer.

What's so fun about using a condom? I think it defeants both purposes.


*Nods*

.....yep

It lasts longer.
A little self control makes it last longer and feels a lot better than a rubber sleeve that prevents any real contact sensation.

Where exactly do Catholics get the idea that sex is something that is for procreation only?
the idiots who run their church told them.

these idiots got that idea from the idiots before them, who got them from the idiots before them et c including the idiots who thought the inquisition and crusades were a wonderful idea.

What's so fun about using a condom? I think it defeants both purposes.
it's a lot more fun being a woman with a guy wearing a condom.

let's put it this way: what goes in must come out... it's a lot easier if it doesn't go in in the first place rather than having to run off to the shower right away to clean up.

A cardinal no less (and apparently a favorite of the now sick* John Paul II) has voiced his opinion. Still believing that condoms are bad and immoral, but thinking that "thou shalt no kill" overrides it (that is, it is better to teach about contraception in order to stop aids).

Source: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4226489.stm)

So what are your opinions on this. Personally, I like it, sign that the church is slowly modernising and being more reasonable. However I still think it has a long way to go.




* He has the flu
it's nice to see that one of the "flock" has the guts to admit that condoms can prevent AIDS, but how many Catholics are going to listen to him when the Vatican is teaching that condoms CAUSE AIDS? i wonder how many centuries it will take for the Vatican to admit that they have been lying and deliberately spreading misinformation about contraception, and that these lies are literally killing millions of people?

how many centuries did it take for them to admit that Galileo was right?

it's nice to see that one of the "flock" has the guts to admit that condoms can prevent AIDS, but how many Catholics are going to listen to him when the Vatican is teaching that condoms CAUSE AIDS? i wonder how many centuries it will take for the Vatican to admit that they have been lying and deliberately spreading misinformation about contraception, and that these lies are literally killing millions of people?

There is a difference between Catholics as a congregation, and the Catholic Church. Whilst many in the congregation that know condoms don't cause AIDs (or rather know that condoms actually prevent the AIDs, the church claims that AIDs can permeate through the condom rather then it causing AIDs), and I know a few that actively petition for the Church to change its teachings (including a couple of priests). The Catholic Church is different though, I have no idea how many bishops and cardinals actually know that the Church is lying, but the important thing is that many are remaining quiet, with very few speaking against the party line. IIRC recently the Congregation of Spanish Bishops spoke out against the policy on teaching sex in Africa but were forced to recant effectively. (cannot remember if that was in the BBC article though).

However, the fact that many CAtholics (both laity and clergy) know the Church is lying (misrepresenting, really it is all the same) don't mean squat. There are a few that are spreading these lies out of ignorance or out of true belief, and they are the ones that matter since they are the ones with the power.

As much as it pains me to say it, the best possible solution at the moment if for John Paul II to die and for a Cardinal that know the truth and is prepared to act on it elected so that the teachings can be changed.

how many centuries did it take for them to admit that Galileo was right?

Not long, took them until recently to actually apologise though.

*starts singing "Every sperm is sacred ...."*
A condom for thoes who know where that song is from :)

*starts singing "Every sperm is sacred ...."*
A condom for thoes who know where that song is from :)
Meaning of Life

Meaning of Life
*hands you a body sized condom*

*hands you a body sized condom*
Woo!

Teenager = horny.

So teaching abstenince isn't going to work. Texas only teaches abstinence, and they have the most abortions and teenage pregnancies.

Now you tell me whether or not we should have condoms?

Teenager = horny.

So teaching abstenince isn't going to work. Texas only teaches abstinence, and they have the most abortions and teenage pregnancies.

Now you tell me whether or not we should have condoms?
Now what does that have to do with AIDs, Africa and the Catholic Church.

The Catholic church is bad! They want to use their idealistic views to change the world! But it will never work because it's not practical!

The Catholic church is bad! They want to use their idealistic views to change the world! But it will never work because it's not practical!

*Zips back to the 1770's*

Republicanism is bad. Republicans want to use their idealist views to change the world! But it will never work because it's not practical.

Seriously though, I'm against the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. But that is just stupid.

Jesus told them.
I realy with people would stop using the savior of all mankind to advance their weird opinions. I read the new testament and Jesus never mentioned condoms at all, although Judas did mention them in passing once in Mark.

There is a difference between Catholics as a congregation, and the Catholic Church

Thank you thank you thank you, for saying this. Not all of us believe everything the church tells us. I, for one, am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and definetely for the use of condoms and whatnot. Many of my Catholic friends are the same way. Its the fact that the vast majority of the leaders of the church are so radically against the modernization of the church that is the problem. Not all of them are, but many of them are. Its wonderful that one of them did speak out, though, even if he did have to recant what he said. Perhaps it will help, even if only a smige.

Personally, I like it, sign that the church is slowly modernising and being more reasonable.

Haha. Didn't they not admit that the Earth was round until sometime in the 80s?

I realy with people would stop using the savior of all mankind to advance their weird opinions. I read the new testament and Jesus never mentioned condoms at all, although Judas did mention them in passing once in Mark.
The pope has a special hotline to Jesus. It doesn't have to be in the bible to be the word of God. The Pope speaks for god here on earth.

it's a lot more fun being a woman with a guy wearing a condom.

let's put it this way: what goes in must come out... it's a lot easier if it doesn't go in in the first place rather than having to run off to the shower right away to clean up.

I don't know about all that. The ickiness factor afterwards is certainly, well, icky, but the actual sex part is *so* much better without.

That being said, no couple should forego the use of condoms unless they are ready and willing to deal with a pregnancy.

Thank you thank you thank you, for saying this. Not all of us believe everything the church tells us. I, for one, am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and definetely for the use of condoms and whatnot. Many of my Catholic friends are the same way. Its the fact that the vast majority of the leaders of the church are so radically against the modernization of the church that is the problem. Not all of them are, but many of them are. Its wonderful that one of them did speak out, though, even if he did have to recant what he said. Perhaps it will help, even if only a smige.

Please don't take offense, but I have a serious question here.

In order to join the Catholic Church, you basically have to stand up and swear that you believe all Church dogma, what the pope says, etc., etc. Yet I have never met a single Catholic who actually does. How do you reconcile the two?

Haha. Didn't they not admit that the Earth was round until sometime in the 80s?

Not that I know of. In fact I know several people who went to Catholic schools well before the 80s who were taught that the earth is both round and the sun is centre of the solar system.

Also put together with the fact that it was well known that the earth was round well before Columbus.

Please don't take offense, but I have a serious question here.

In order to join the Catholic Church, you basically have to stand up and swear that you believe all Church dogma, what the pope says, etc., etc. Yet I have never met a single Catholic who actually does. How do you reconcile the two?

I would say most Catholics in the west were born into the faith so never made that promise.

Please don't take offense, but I have a serious question here.

In order to join the Catholic Church, you basically have to stand up and swear that you believe all Church dogma, what the pope says, etc., etc. Yet I have never met a single Catholic who actually does. How do you reconcile the two?

I don't mind in the slightest. :)

I don't know how others deal with it, but I figure it this way: I'm a bad Catholic. Meaning, I believe in the basic ideas, but there's a lot a disagree with. Politically, I disagree with most of it. I try to be a good person, however. Pesonally, I think the latter is more important than the former. I go to church, and I read the news, and I make my own decisions on what to believe and what not to believe.

But like I said, that's just me. I don't know about the rest of us Liberal Catholics. ^^

Even in the New Testament there's lots of verses about avoiding "sexual immorality" and things like that. There's some that come closer to premarital sex, although I'm not sure if that is mentioned specifically in the Catholic Bible. For example, Colossians 3:5 :
"Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry"

None of that is sex specific. Only reading with very modern connotations would even cause sexual actions and desires to be the first and/or strongest meaning that comes to mind from reading those words. Passion, for example, is any strong emotion. Impurity would have originally meant anything against theJewish religious codes - which were redefined by Jesus. Immorality and evil desire could be linked to most strongly to hate, as that emotion is the antithesis of all Jesus taught. And greed is putting oneself before others.

Overall, that passage sounds rather Buddhist.

I don't know about all that. The ickiness factor afterwards is certainly, well, icky, but the actual sex part is *so* much better without.

you think so? i have found it to be either just as good or better with a condom...the sensation can be different depending on the condom used, ranging from very basic condoms that feel pretty much the same as nothing at all to elaborate constructions that can be quite, erm, intense. the added benefit is that condoms will usually desensitize the man a bit, and that can help him last longer without having to recite baseball stats in his head.

of course, i am deeply aroused by the recitation of baseball statistics, so i suppose it wouldn't really bother me either way :P.

Please don't take offense, but I have a serious question here.

In order to join the Catholic Church, you basically have to stand up and swear that you believe all Church dogma, what the pope says, etc., etc. Yet I have never met a single Catholic who actually does. How do you reconcile the two?
exactly. i define "a Catholic" based on what the Catholic rule book says. yet, for some reason, there are a significant number of people who want to refer to themselves as Catholic even though they don't fit the requirements in their own rule book. i call these people "miscelaneous Christian-type worshippers," because i prefer to use only the correct definitions of words.

you think so? i have found it to be either just as good or better with a condom...the sensation can be different depending on the condom used, ranging from very basic condoms that feel pretty much the same as nothing at all to elaborate constructions that can be quite, erm, intense. the added benefit is that condoms will usually desensitize the man a bit, and that can help him last longer without having to recite baseball stats in his head.

of course, i am deeply aroused by the recitation of baseball statistics, so i suppose it wouldn't really bother me either way :P.
Baseball stats are too erotic for me ... I have to picture porn otherwise I wont last over a minuit

No, not a Catholic.

Once you formally leave the Church, you formally leave the Church. His refusal to submit to Papal authority means he is excommunicated ipso facto - in short, he's no longer Catholic. He's a heretic.

Go check out "Theology of the Body" by John Paul II.

of course, i am deeply aroused by the recitation of baseball statistics, so i suppose it wouldn't really bother me either way :P.
my bf uses hockey stats.

though if he thinks about the game itself, well, then our fun is over for the next half hour or so.

you think so? i have found it to be either just as good or better with a condom...the sensation can be different depending on the condom used, ranging from very basic condoms that feel pretty much the same as nothing at all to elaborate constructions that can be quite, erm, intense. the added benefit is that condoms will usually desensitize the man a bit, and that can help him last longer without having to recite baseball stats in his head.

of course, i am deeply aroused by the recitation of baseball statistics, so i suppose it wouldn't really bother me either way :P.


I prefer mathematics,various greek or hebrew words and their meanings. Also if recited with an English accent, the arousal factor increases 10 fold.

Baseball stats are too erotic for me ... I have to picture porn otherwise I wont last over a minuit

LOL.....

LOL.....
Though I cant picture YOU in porn ... cause that would be WAY too erotic :D

Though I cant picture YOU in porn ... cause that would be WAY too erotic :D

HA! I was thinking more along the lines of it'd be scary. But you get :fluffle: 's for that anyway.


I wish Bottle would elaborate on those not so plain condoms. I need to be learn more about those!

HA! I was thinking more along the lines of it'd be scary. But you get :fluffle: 's for that anyway.


I wish Bottle would elaborate on those not so plain condoms. I need to be learn more about those!
I could demonstrate ;)

After reading through the first page of this thread, I have this to add: Procreation, is a gift from God, which is meant to be pleasurable between a husband and his wife.

Taking the pleasure of sex outside of the marriage contract, merely sets up the abuser for a very long time of unfulfillment and abuse by others.

Think I am joking ? Look around you and ask questions when appropiate; your eyes might open spiritually. :)

I could demonstrate ;)


Are you offering to model various kinds of condoms for me?

I'm wondering what the Catholic Church would think about THAT!

(trying hard to stay on topic)

Are you offering to model various kinds of condoms for me?

I'm wondering what the Catholic Church would think about THAT!

(trying hard to stay on topic)
;) Im sure they wouldent thing highly of them but thats alright Im not catholic :D

Originally Posted by Dempulicents
In order to join the Catholic Church, you basically have to stand up and swear that you believe all Church dogma, what the pope says, etc., etc. Yet I have never met a single Catholic who actually does. How do you reconcile the two?

Well, there isn't as much dogma as you'd think. As a former Catholic who almost became a priest, I can tell you that the Church isn't goint to make anything a dogma unless it pertains only to "faith and morals." In other words, all Catholic dogma is non-falsifiable, just like any other religion.

The pope may have opinions on matters of science and politics, but these opinions are not dogma. For instance, in the 17th century the pope personally held the geocentric theory (which had been "proven" by Aristotle). This does not mean that Catholic dogma ever said that the earth was the center of the universe. Furthermore, the Vatican did not punish Galileo for heresy; it punished him for disobedience (because in his book he made the pope seem like an idiot). In doing so the Pope was using his political power at the time (Galileo lived in the Papal states), but not all Catholics had to agree with this. In the late 1980's, the Pope was not conceding defeat to the heliocentric theory; Rome had done that when it took Galileo's book of the "banned" list. Pope John Paul II was pardoning Galileo for his disobedience of mocking the Pope.
Today, Catholics must believe that abortion and contraception are sins. They do not have to believe that they should be illegal. In fact, a Catholic can believe that we should teach contraception in schools, as long as he or she stills believes that contraception is sinful.

Well, there isn't as much dogma as you'd think. As a former Catholic who almost became a priest, I can tell you that the Church isn't goint to make anything a dogma unless it pertains only to "faith and morals." In other words, all Catholic dogma is non-falsifiable, just like any other religion.

The pope may have opinions on matters of science and politics, but these opinions are not dogma. For instance, in the 17th century the pope personally held the geocentric theory (which had been "proven" by Aristotle). This does not mean that Catholic dogma ever said that the earth was the center of the universe. Furthermore, the Vatican did not punish Galileo for heresy; it punished him for disobedience (because in his book he made the pope seem like an idiot). In doing so the Pope was using his political power at the time (Galileo lived in the Papal states), but not all Catholics had to agree with this. In the late 1980's, the Pope was not conceding defeat to the heliocentric theory; Rome had done that when it took Galileo's book of the "banned" list. Pope John Paul II was pardoning Galileo for his disobedience of mocking the Pope.
Today, Catholics must believe that abortion and contraception are sins. They do not have to believe that they should be illegal. In fact, a Catholic can believe that we should teach contraception in schools, as long as he or she stills believes that it is sinful.

Doesn’t even have to believe it is sinful (I am assuming that you mean that sex outside of wedlock is sinful not that teaching contraception is … which is what your statement made it sound like)
All they have to do is convince themselves they are teaching them so that they use it in wedlock

No...Use of condoms within wedlock is still sinful. If the use of condoms itself was not sinful, the church would politically support contraception. A modern philosophy among cardinals is "You should not compound a sin with a mistake." In other words, if you are sinning by having sex out of marriage, you should still use a condom (if this weren't sinful), because doing this doesn't make your sin any worse. Of course, Rome teaches that contraception is sinful. Therefore that philosophy does not apply in this case.

No...Use of condoms within wedlock is still sinful. If the use of condoms itself was not sinful, the church would politically support contraception. A modern philosophy among cardinals is "You should not compound a sin with a mistake." In other words, if you are sinning by having sex out of marriage, you should still use a condom (if this weren't sinful), because doing this doesn't make your sin any worse. Of course, Rome teaches that contraception is sinful. Therefore that philosophy does not apply in this case.
im not sure what you said exactly, but if i got the gist, it was pretty dumb and amolunted to using condoms sends you to hell!!!11!!shift+1

Originally posted by Reaper_2k3
im not sure what you said exactly, but if i got the gist, it was pretty dumb and amolunted to using condoms sends you to hell!!!11!!shift+1

If you had read more carefully, you would have noted that in an earlier post (on this page) I stated that I am a former Catholic. I am merely stating the Church's view. This does not make me ignorant.
Also, there is no consensus as to whether contraception qualifies as a mortal sin. Thus, the Catholic church doesn't yet teach that "using condemns sends you to hell." It is classified as a "grave" sin (one that is mortal if the sinner is commiting it fully willingly despite knowledge of its graveness), but many disagree whether people usually realize the gravity of the sin or whether they are not fully willing themselves to commit the sin. For instance, sociological pressure not to get pregnant could qualify as too strong an influence on free will.

No...Use of condoms within wedlock is still sinful. If the use of condoms itself was not sinful, the church would politically support contraception. A modern philosophy among cardinals is "You should not compound a sin with a mistake." In other words, if you are sinning by having sex out of marriage, you should still use a condom (if this weren't sinful), because doing this doesn't make your sin any worse. Of course, Rome teaches that contraception is sinful. Therefore that philosophy does not apply in this case.

Yes, because women must be continually impregnated...

Jenn Jenn, read the post above yours.

Jenn Jenn, read the post above yours.
Though (you seem to be knowledgeable) what is the basis that contraception in of itself is bad? (the churches opinion that is)

The Church's position on contraception is both Biblically and "scientifically" based. Genesis 38:9-10:
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
The Church, and other Christians and Orthodox Jews, use this to claim that sex that does not allow procreation is sinful.
Scientifically, the church is against contraception because they claim that contraception allows people to have more sex than is natural, which could "cause" them to become addicted to sex. (The church is also against the use of Viagra.) Although sexual addiction is real, and contraception does allow sex-addicts more access to their addiction, contraception does not actually cause sex addiction. Nonetheless, the church takes a very naturalistic philosophy in terms of sex; and contraception is deemed sinful because it allows people to have sex in unnatural ways (not allowing for procreation) and unnatural amounts. The church believes that it is not our place to interfere with God's holy gift of sexual interaction.

you think so? i have found it to be either just as good or better with a condom...the sensation can be different depending on the condom used, ranging from very basic condoms that feel pretty much the same as nothing at all to elaborate constructions that can be quite, erm, intense. the added benefit is that condoms will usually desensitize the man a bit, and that can help him last longer without having to recite baseball stats in his head.

of course, i am deeply aroused by the recitation of baseball statistics, so i suppose it wouldn't really bother me either way :P.

*Shrug* Maybe I'm just more sensitive to it. The condom never felt the same as nothing at all - in fact, it often bothered me enough that I could really get into it.

Luckily for me, my man can last plenty long enough without added desensitizing. =)

Never tried the elaborate condoms though...

I would say most Catholics in the west were born into the faith so never made that promise.

You can't really be born into Catholocism - not directly. If you don't go through Catechism, you're never a full Catholic. My ex wanted me to convert, so I looked into it. I just couldn't stomach standing up in a ceremony and professing to have beliefs I didn't agree with, though. And the ex turned out to be an ass.

You can't really be born into Catholocism - not directly. If you don't go through Catechism, you're never a full Catholic. My ex wanted me to convert, so I looked into it. I just couldn't stomach standing up in a ceremony and professing to have beliefs I didn't agree with, though. And the ex turned out to be an ass.
Well Ok I simplied somewhat. But most Catholics take the initiation sacrements well before they are old enough to really understand what they mean.

Anyone else see the report of the absentince (spelling? im horrible at it, sorry!) program in Texas? Apparently it did the reverse, more teenagers were having sex in Texas after they started the program after. Maybe finally some of the morons behind this nonsense will get the picture that some silly program in school is not going to the change the course of the outside cultural influences of friends and MTV. Stupid, stupid people.

Oh yea, who decides was is moral and what is not?