Being Catholic raised, I have serious problems now with the attitude of the SA bishops (and in fact the whole Catholic church) declaring that using condoms is a sin and not permitted, not even for protection agains Aids.
This is completely immoral and not at all based on writings in the old and new Testament. There are IMHO NO theological arguments… Where do these guys get the right to declare such disaster, and still thinking they are serving God or humanity. Yikes. Let them burn in hell. Totally confused and disappointed Catholic.
I was under the impression that the Catholic Church’s stance on all forms of Birth Control was the same: to wit, if you’re doing anything to prevent conception you’re committing a sin.
I’m sure someone more versed in the Church’s teachings than I will come along and straighten this out, however.
What is the origin of the birth control = sin doctrine, anyway?
That is actually an interesting question. RCC beliefs on contraception derive more directly from the concept of natural law, which is a Roman creation. Is there anything in scripture concerning contraception?
Absolutely there are theological arguments, natural law being the most obvious.
I think the main defense of the RCC position on condoms (disclosure: not Catholic, and do not subscribe to their beliefs), is that their condemnation of birth control has not caused a single death from AIDS. People can (and, in the RCC’s POV, should) abstain. Heck, according to the RCC, they should be doing that anyway, whether AIDS existed or not.
Finally, the RCC is taking a longer-term view. Sure, people may be dying from AIDS, and sure, condoms may prevent many of those deaths. But what price life in this world, when the means to a longer life here may lead to suffering in the beyond?
Sua
Are condoms absolutely verbotem, no matter the circumstance? I find it hard to beleive that the Church would mandate that a married couple, one of whom has AIDS, must have unprotected sex. Or are people who contract AIDS (and their wife/husband) supposed to be celibate for eternity?
The problem is considering the encyclica ‘Humanae Vitae’ which discusses birth control to avoid unwanted childeren, but my point here is that Africa is facing a DISASTER due to AIDS and the Catholic church still approaches the problem as an anti-conception problem, which depasses the fundamental issue since Africans in general have large families, and don’t mind the thoughts as stated in Humanae Vitae.
The fundamental position of the RCC that sex should at least have the potential of sparking human life, regardless of how many children you have already.
Gaudere - the RCC’s position on contraception is not equivalent to its position on abortion. Abortion is strictly verboten, while contraception is a matter of conscience. Catholics, though surprisingly few are aware of this, can act in ways contrary to the church’s teachings, so long as they do so in honest good conscience.
Actually, most teachings of the RCC fall into this category. Abortion, apostasy, and a few others are the only teachings that can never be disobeyed under any circumstances.
Sua
It should be noted, however, that “in good conscience” translates in actual practice as “a conscience informed by the proper teachings of the Church”…in other words, if Mama Ciccarella doesn’t want anymore little Ciccs, she can use birth control. But she knows that God will be disappointed…
In other words, it’s a neat bookkeeping trick, but it doesn’t mean much.
jayjay
In that example, the RCC wouldn’t consider Mama Cicc to be acting in good conscience, so she wouldn’t come within the loophole - her motivation would be considered by the church to be selfish.
But say Mama has suffered from severe post-partum depression with some (but not all) of her other kids. In that case, particularly as PPD is treatable, the RCC teachings would forbid birth control, but Mama could act in good conscience and decide to start using contraceptives, and God wouldn’t be disappointed.
Sua
I can’t buy the natural law argument, what did the church fathers 1800 years ago know about nature, natural history and the physiological aspects of human sexuality? Next to nothing! The unique aspect of human sexuality is it’s primary purpose of pair bonding a man woman together and our ability to have sex at all times during the year, humans don’t have mating seasons. We humans are “designed” to have sex outside the context of reproduction, this is in complete contradiction of Catholic theology that states every sexual act (hugging, kissing, petting, intercourse, thought) must have the possibility of conception. The CC claims “natural law” when actually it goes against our unique human sexuality.
Well, the natural law argument comes from Aquinas, about 800 years ago, who adopted it from Aristotle, about 2300 years ago. Nitpick, I know, but… From what I’ve heard, using a condom to prevent conception, according to the RCC, isn’t appropriate, but using a condom to prevent disease in some cases can be.
How do they know that?
IMO, that’s like saying that riding a motorcycle should always have the potential of causing brain damage, therefore halmets are immoral. What one might consider “natural” or “unnatural” is irrelevant. After all, medicine is unnatural, but the RCC doesn’t seem to have a problem with that.
Uhh. . . tries to remember Religion classes According to the RCC (which I am not a member of), the two purposes of sex are unitative and procreative. This came with a really cool little diagram that I wish I could reproduce. Anyways, Unitative means to increase love, procreative means to have children. Therefore the purposes of sex (within marriage, mais oui) are New Life and Stronger Love. Wouldn’t Mr. Herman be proud of me. . .
Therefore, according to the RCC, if you are able to bear children, then you should not use contraceptives. The only thing allowed is the rhythm (sp?) method, which doesn’t work. I’m really not sure why they’re so anal retentive about this.
Y’know why? Cause helmets and medicines help to prolong/sustain/protect human life, while contraceptives seek to prevent it. does happy dance
SuaSponte:
If this truly is the RCC’s position, then I would say they are truly evil. Any religion that teaches that it is okay to kill people in order to save their souls is a danger to the entire human race.
Considering that condoms are not 100% effective, isn’t that position irrelevant to the issue at hand?
Super Gnat
IOW, “This logic only applies when I want it to. Any time I don’t want it to apply, I just make up some excuse for why it doesn’t apply. Hah!” I’m not sure which is more ridiculous: the arguments against evolution, or those against birth control.
you know, I have a theory about that. I think the Catholic priests have invented the whole “no contraception” thing to keep people in poverty and them on top.
More kids = less free income.
Oh that’s right - the priests I’ve met in my life have all been kind enough to toss lose change at me as they drive by in their Jaguars.
Robodude:
Because the act that causes transmission of HIV is sex. Don’t hava the sex, and use or lack of use of condoms is irrelevant.
I’m no fan of the RCC, but your analogy is, er, inapt. The RCC considers human life a good thing, and human death a bad one.
As above, the RCC doesn’t think their position kills anyone. It is the sex, which they want people to not do, that kills people.
Cite, please? Much as I think the RCC’s position on gobs of issues is ill-informed, I do believe that they are aware that hugging, kissing, petting, and thought bear not possibility of conception.
Sua
Because if you actually follow the Catholic teachings on this, you won’t be exposed to AIDS. For example, let’s say that you and your wife have followed everything that the Church teaches – you would never have had premarital sex, and so your only partner would be your spouse. Thus, short of a blood transfusion or sharing infected needles with someone else (which is unrelated to their condemnation of birth control), you won’t die from AIDS. Thus, the Catholic Church’s teachings have not caused a single death from AIDS.
I also find The Mick’s theory on the aristocracy of Catholic priests to be absurd. How exactly are these priests “on top”? A fair amount of the infrastructure of the Catholic Church is made up of people in convents and monastaries. They are hardly flaunting their wealth in front of their impoverished followers, and many have taken vows of poverty themselves.
(on preview, I see that SuaSponte has basically responded with the same thing I said)
I suppose I should have added that the theory was a joke, intended to be stupid as well as not funny.
Awright, now I’m blushing. In my defense, the RCC attracts one hell of a lot of conspiracy theories, so sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.