Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News0 min ago
Condoms and catholics
30 Answers
I wondered how the catholic church can justify that it's wrong to use contraception/condoms, especially in areas where HIV and AIDS are prevalent?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tessaten. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The Catholic Church believes that intercourse is a sin unless used to create children, therefore birth control cannot be sanctioned.
It is difficult to see how this argument can be ratified in a continent ravaged by HIV, but it is only one of the modern dilemas of which Churcch is aware, and chooses not to address.
The Catholic church is rapidly loosing its quota of priests and nuns because it refuses to move forward from its twelfth century dogma and doctrines, and does little, if anything, to encourage children and youg people to folow its teachings.
I honestly believe that a faith which adopts personal guilt as a cornerstone of its teachings can be of no lasting good to society, and its eventual decline and death from apathy and stuborness will be of benefit to everyone.
It is difficult to see how this argument can be ratified in a continent ravaged by HIV, but it is only one of the modern dilemas of which Churcch is aware, and chooses not to address.
The Catholic church is rapidly loosing its quota of priests and nuns because it refuses to move forward from its twelfth century dogma and doctrines, and does little, if anything, to encourage children and youg people to folow its teachings.
I honestly believe that a faith which adopts personal guilt as a cornerstone of its teachings can be of no lasting good to society, and its eventual decline and death from apathy and stuborness will be of benefit to everyone.
Don't get me started on Catholics!
When I was little and joined the Brownies I didn't realise (as a Methodist) I was the only non Catholic child there. On the first ever Sunday church parade we trooped into the Catholic Church for the service. As everyone stood and joined the queue for communion, the priest pushed me out of the line and shouted, "You can't take Communion, you're a child of sin."
I still see that priest around town and if he was on fire I wouldn't........well, use your imagination.
When I was little and joined the Brownies I didn't realise (as a Methodist) I was the only non Catholic child there. On the first ever Sunday church parade we trooped into the Catholic Church for the service. As everyone stood and joined the queue for communion, the priest pushed me out of the line and shouted, "You can't take Communion, you're a child of sin."
I still see that priest around town and if he was on fire I wouldn't........well, use your imagination.
I mean, how can they? I know that any religion can find textual justification for their beliefs. What really bothers me is the amount of people dying from HIV/AIDS related sickness, who could avoid this if they were to use contraception. The catholic church seems to want to stop people protecting themselves. I just find this impossible to understand.
-- answer removed --
You could look at it two ways.
Yes, by doctrine or general interference they are meddling in people�s lives by banning the use of contraception as they assert that sex is for the sole purpose of reproduction. Thus if anyone is doing the horizontal lambada, it is only to have children.
This of course carries the inherent risk of people having unwanted pregnancies and all manner of STDs etc. But this is not the intent of the �ban� as the ban also includes abstention, that is, ok, if you don�t want to have children and you don�t want to get an itchy rash and/or life threatening illnesses that are transmitted through sex, then you simply don�t have sex.
The problem seems to arise in many nations where either they do want to have children but their partner may already be infected, or they are ignoring the second part of the Papal canon. Of course, it can also arise through sheer neglect and lack of compassion/personal responsibility as well as instances of rape.
Now before anyone goes all uppity, I am Catholic and think the blanket ban is abominable. And, I went to scouts and was never treated differently to anyone else. Well, except when I got a badge for needlework and flower arranging, but that�s something else.
Yes, by doctrine or general interference they are meddling in people�s lives by banning the use of contraception as they assert that sex is for the sole purpose of reproduction. Thus if anyone is doing the horizontal lambada, it is only to have children.
This of course carries the inherent risk of people having unwanted pregnancies and all manner of STDs etc. But this is not the intent of the �ban� as the ban also includes abstention, that is, ok, if you don�t want to have children and you don�t want to get an itchy rash and/or life threatening illnesses that are transmitted through sex, then you simply don�t have sex.
The problem seems to arise in many nations where either they do want to have children but their partner may already be infected, or they are ignoring the second part of the Papal canon. Of course, it can also arise through sheer neglect and lack of compassion/personal responsibility as well as instances of rape.
Now before anyone goes all uppity, I am Catholic and think the blanket ban is abominable. And, I went to scouts and was never treated differently to anyone else. Well, except when I got a badge for needlework and flower arranging, but that�s something else.
I am neither Catholic nor Evangelical or any thing else. If I may, I would like to say something. Before Naomi comes and tells me that this question is for Catholics.
I think Octavius answer makes sense, reason because as far as I know sex outside marriage is not allowed or is considered a sin in Catholics. May be they are against condoms for that reason as condoms can give people freedom about sex without the fear that they (woman) might get pregnant and consequently get found out.
As far as disease and other things are concerned then I believe health is the main and most important thing. But then how many people are there who never had sex outside marriage and still got HIV etc. May be just a fraction.
I think Octavius answer makes sense, reason because as far as I know sex outside marriage is not allowed or is considered a sin in Catholics. May be they are against condoms for that reason as condoms can give people freedom about sex without the fear that they (woman) might get pregnant and consequently get found out.
As far as disease and other things are concerned then I believe health is the main and most important thing. But then how many people are there who never had sex outside marriage and still got HIV etc. May be just a fraction.
Surely that is a paradox? If they are able to make decisions and justify them by whatever means, then they must have followed a thought process.
And in respect of your recent racist and homophobic outbursts Doc, I strongly suspect you are lacking in intelligence, rationality, justification and thought.
And in respect of your recent racist and homophobic outbursts Doc, I strongly suspect you are lacking in intelligence, rationality, justification and thought.
If religion requires suspension of intelligence and rational thought then almost all of the people believing in religion should be uneducated and with no knowledge at all. But surely that is not the case. Yes one thing is true that a little knowledge is always dangerous as it makes people think that they know about every thing.
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.
athiesm is not a belief it's a non belief in any of the brands of fairy tales. How can not believing in a religion be in any way comparable to believing in one? I think your off on one there Quinlad. You may dig up some technical definition of atheism, if so don't bother. I don't believe in any gods/religion this is all there is science does it's best to explain what's around I'd rather suscribe to a scientific theory that has been tested a thousand times than believe some early crowd control h0rsesh1t about some god or other. Think of a noun for that and that's what I'm talking about.
Yes I understand that you are an atheist and I commend your choice and conviction in that �non-belief�. What then so abhors you about people who choose to believe otherwise that encourages you to belittle them so aggressively?
Are you a militant atheist? Are you seeking the eradication of religion completely or just emphasising your non belief in a supreme deity?
If it is the former, then how are you any different to the religious parties who treat other religious or non-religious parties with little or no respect, or even hatred and persecution? If it is the latter, then you must understand that �religion� is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power, belief in God/a god/many gods is only one aspect of what we mean by religion.
Are you a militant atheist? Are you seeking the eradication of religion completely or just emphasising your non belief in a supreme deity?
If it is the former, then how are you any different to the religious parties who treat other religious or non-religious parties with little or no respect, or even hatred and persecution? If it is the latter, then you must understand that �religion� is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power, belief in God/a god/many gods is only one aspect of what we mean by religion.
