# Catholic church becoming immoral ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544 "2001-08-01T21:47:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544/61 "2001-08-06T21:25:21Z")
Gr8guy > [@](#): > > Okay, I’ll sort of buy that, but why, then, does it follow that other posters don’t understand your point? Starbury explicitly said so: > [@](#): > > So I still don’t see how it promotes the spread of AIDS. > [@](#): > > I would argue that the RCC opposes the spread of AIDS but that, due to a (IMO) misguided policy about condoms, doesn’t oppose it as effectively as it could. There’s an important distinction between not opposing something as effectively as possible and actually promoting it, is there not? They have one position which decreases HIV infections, but another that increases them. It is not simply that they failing to oppose HIV infections; they are actively promoting behavior that increases them. > [@](#): > > Saying “if you have AIDS, don’t have sex, but if you do, use a condom” is a lot weaker an exhortation to abstinence that just saying “if you have AIDS, don’t have sex.” Well, I think that human lives are more important than coming up with the strongest exhortation as possible. Apparently the RCC disagrees. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If they allow birth control measures for legitimate health concerns, and they do not allow condoms to stop the spread of HIV, then it follows that they do not consider HIV a legitimate health concern. > > No it doesn’t. They allow people to use birth control for legitimate health concerns, not to make sex safe. Are you even bothering to think before posting, or are you just parroting the party line? If they allow people to use birth control for legitimate health concerns, but not to make sex safe, as **you yourself assert** then it follows that they do not believe that making sex safe is a legitimate health concern. Here are some analogies to help you grasp this concept. If I say “I don’t have a Mac, I have a real computer”, it follows that I do not believe that Macs are real computers. If I say “He’s not a member of a real religion; he’s a Scientologist” it follows that I do not believe that Scientology is not a real religion. > [@](#): > > What legitimate health concern does using a condom address that ISN’T related to enabling safe sex? That question is completely irrelevant, and is yet another example of inserting arbitrary exceptions to general rules whenever it’s convenient. > [@](#): > > No, but when the intended effect it to enable something they would call wrong, it IS enough to declare that a sin as well IOW, it is wrong because it might cause fornicators to not die. Yet later you claim that the reason they oppose condoms is **not** because it might cause fornicators to not die. You’re contradicting yourself. > [@](#): > > There’s a big difference between saying that you don’t see a logical basis for their teachings and saying that they don’t see that they have reasons for their doctrine. Why should I care whether they think they have a logical basis? What matters is whether they do have a logical basis, not whether they think they have one. > [@](#): > > The fact that they do, even if you think these reasons are illogical, should be enough to tell you that they don’t oppose condoms on the grounds that those evil nasty fornicators might not snuff it if they use them. But a logical conclusion from their reasons is that fornicators should die. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2001, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544/62 "2001-08-06T22:56:30Z")
> [@](#): > > they are actively promoting behavior that increases them. May I ask what this behavior is? I suspect you’ll tell me that this behavior they are promoting is not using condoms during sex with a partner with AIDS. I agree with you that this is a stupid rule, but if thing X is forbidden, it follows that you shouldn’t make rules about how to do thing X. > [@](#): > > Are you even bothering to think before posting You know, I could ask you the same question, but how would that help further a rational discourse? > [@](#): > > If they allow people to use birth control for legitimate health concerns, but not to make sex safe, as you yourself assert then it follows that they do not believe that making sex safe is a legitimate health concern. No, it doesn’t. It follows that they don’t believe using birth control to make sex safe is a legitimate answer to a legitimate health concern. If they could think of a reasonable way other than birth control to address a legitimate health concern, 5 gets you 20 that they would oppose using birth control to address the concern. In other words, STD’s are a legitimate health issue; using birth control to prevent STD’s is not (in their opinion) a legitimate answer. Why else would they preach abstinence for people with STD’s if they thought STD’s weren’t a health concern? > [@](#): > > That question is completely irrelevant, and is yet another example of inserting arbitrary exceptions to general rules whenever it?s convenient. See, this is the crux of the debate. To the RCC (and I’ll say it again: I am not a catholic, I think their policy is misguided, but I think your arguments against it are missing the point), the distinction is crucial: INTENT MATTERS. It’s the principal of unintended secondary effect, after all. To do something whose stated purpose is to enable a sin is a sin. Should sex for non-unitative and non-procreative purposes be a sin? I don’t think so, but once they’ve made that definition, they can’t be expected by a rational person to say that doing something for the sole purpose of enabling same is good. > [@](#): > > IOW, it is wrong because it might cause fornicators to not die. Yet later you claim that the reason they oppose condoms is not because it might cause fornicators to not die. You?re contradicting yourself. _sigh_ No no no. Their reason to oppose condoms is because they think sex should be procreative. The use of condoms is therefore wrong because it makes sex non-procreative. In light of this, if you have AIDS, you have two choices: abstinence, or unprotected sex. Since unprotected sex might cause your partner to die, this too is wrong. Hence, you should abstain. That’s their argument, and what you’re basically saying is that “yes, but **if** I choose to have sex even though I have AIDS, why can’t I use a condom?” Their answer is that you’re not to make that choice to begin with. I suspect that if you’re in this situation and make this choice, you’ll probably ignore church doctrine on condoms too (I would, even were I catholic). But they’re not going to hand out guidebooks on how to do something they consider sinful, because as far as they’re concerned, they’ve already given you the answer: don’t do it. > [@](#): > > Why should I care whether they think they have a logical basis? What matters is whether they do have a logical basis, not whether they think they have one So intent doesn’t matter? If a person has what they think is an argument for supporting position X and you have what you think is an argument for opposing position X, they’re automatically wrong, misguided, and (because your argument says so) immoral? (Or to put it another way, why should they care whether you don’t think they have a logical basis?) I guess this is one area where we have to disagree, and until an agreement is reached on this, we’ll keep on talking right past each other. > [@](#): > > But a logical conclusion from their reasons is that fornicators should die. You know, you keep on saying that this is true, and I keep on saying that it’s not, and we’re not getting anywhere. So I’ll once again try to actually give an argument for why this isn’t a valid conclusion to make. (I’d like to see your argument for the statement that they oppose condoms on the grounds that fornicators might not die if they use the things.) Their reasons for opposing condoms have **nothing to do** with people who have AIDS. I would argue that their position is that people shouldn’t have sex with someone who has AIDS, period. A consequence of a separate position, one on the purposes of sex, is that people shouldn’t use condoms. These two positions aren’t at all contradictory, but it does mean that someone who disregards position #1 but not position #2 is hosed. Is this a problem? Of course it is! (This is why I oppose their stance on birth control, but I don’t believe that one should blindly villify them for their doctrines either). You can certainly draw from these positions that a person who has sex with an AIDS victim is probably going to die because they won’t use a condom (this assumes that either a person is willing to ignore stance #1 but not stance #2 (for whatever reason) or that they don’t know that the person they’re having sex with has AIDS), but I don’t see how you can take their reasoning for these positions (however specious that reasoning is) and arrive at the conclusion that the RCC, even tacitly, believes that fornicators should die. ---
**Author:** ![Starbury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Starbury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starbury)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2001, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544/63 "2001-08-07T19:04:17Z")
Well, **g8rguy** has basically said everything I would have, but a few points that I wanted to respond to: **The Ryan** – > [@](#): > > Starbury explicitly said so: > > > [@](#): > > > > So I still don’t see how it promotes the spread of AIDS. This didn’t mean that I was unable to understand the point you were arguing, it meant that I thought it was not a valid point. > [@](#): > > It is not contradictory to say that some of the RCC’s policies increase the spread of AIDS, while others decrease them, and the latter is hardly a counter to the former. I don’t think its a contradiction, I think its an inaccurate interpretation of the Church’s policies. As I said before, you are taking one aspect which, _if it was the only thing the Church said on the matter of sex_, would probably support your argument. But the Church has never suggested that their policies on sex allow for its members to pick and choose what parts they are going to follow. The church’s position is not ‘Don’t use condoms even if it means you’re going to get an STD’, its ‘Don’t have premarital sex and only have sex for procreation purposes and STD’s won’t be a problem for you’ (to paraphrase it rather poorly, I admit). I don’t know how else to state that. > [@](#): > > Yes, but given that someone is having sex, they say to not use a condom. No, they say do not have sex unless you are doing it for procreation. They are not accepting premarital sex as a “given,” as it is a fundamental aspect of their doctrine. I really can’t see how you’re going to blame the Church for this. If someone is willing to act contrary to the most important part of the doctrine (sex only for procreation) why are they going to follow the part of the doctrine (no condoms) that is derived from it? > [@](#): > > …but if you do decide to risk it, you shouldn’t do anything to reduce the risk. Its more like: if you do decide to risk it, you’re obviously not following the Catholic doctrine. So what does it matter what they have to say about the use of condoms? You’re obviously not following the doctrine anyway. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > What legitimate health concern does using a condom address that ISN’T related to enabling safe sex? > > That question is completely irrelevant, and is yet another example of inserting arbitrary exceptions to general rules whenever it’s convenient I think this question is relevant to the discussion. The fact that you see it as an arbitrary exception again shows that you are unable to look at the Church’s policy on sex as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2001, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544/64 "2001-08-08T17:04:02Z")
I agree that the Catholic Church’s postion is consistent and non-evil as far as saying that sex should be for unitive and procreative purposes only. And, I accept that they had to say something about condoms because it was inevitable that someone would ask. Though I think what they SHOULD have said was, “Condoms are irrelevant since there should be no sex going on at all except between married people attempting to have children.” I DON’T get why they fight to make the sale of comdoms illegal. I think they should stay out of that. There’s a LOT of good reasons for separation of church and state. I think that the Catholic Church has never really fully agreed with this. Do we want to make all ‘sins’ illegal? Does the Catholic Church want to? Would making ‘sins’ illegal be a moral act? Should we set up a sort of pre-purgatory here on earth so that ‘sinners’ will have to pay for their ‘sins’ BEFORE they die? If we did a good job, then God could do away with purgatory altogether. That would leave him a whole extra dimension to do something interesting with. Create some people with free will and some without, mix them together and see what happens? That’s what I’d do if I was God with an extra dimension to play with. (Can you tell I’m an atheist?) I frequently bash various actions of the Catholic Church, both modern and historical. Most recently, I have been criticizing the Pope’s choice to bring back indulgences. Also, I have been known to criticize the works and philosophy of Mother Theresa who I think was a genuinely twisted individual. I do not begrudge Catholics to worship as they choose. I do not begrudge them the right to proselytize in appropriate places (i.e. church property and at announced public events paid for by the church which anyone can easily avoid). But, I do want them to refrain from enforcing church doctrine upon anyone through the legal system. Succeeding in making condoms illegal could indeed be described as actively increasing the spread of HIV. I don’t understand which part of the Catholic doctrine makes them do this. Calling something a sin and lobbying to make it illegal are not the same thing at all. They can call breathing a sin for all I care, but they better not try to make it illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-becoming-immoral/74544.md?page=3)