::Piano Intro::
Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found
An except from Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred
What’s that, you wanted some real resaons? Well it’s basically the same “spilling your seed” argumnent that makes masturbation a sin.
I’m not sure where the links to the bible are on the WWW but it’s Genesis 38:8:
Of course, if you think the bible is the word of law, then you’re not allowed to take your clothes off to have sex either.
After a few google searches (I’m bored), I came (ha ha!!) up with this, which I offer here for nothing other than chuckle value:
I know I can 
Zweistein, here is the relevant section of the Catechism regarding birth control, among other things. This has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years, and you’re just having a problem with it now?
Dear Palandine, I fear you and others didn’t understand
the question very well. I will rephrase.
The topic is NOT birth control. That issue has been discussed to infinity.
The topic is that an important world organisation (RCC) openly states that using the only means (condoms) to prevent
a deadly disease (AIDS) is forbidden for unclear (IMHO not theological) reasons, and thus inflicting the death of millions. This is, to me, immoral. Africa is dying of AIDS.
Condoms are not the only means to prevent AIDS. Abstinence is another. Faithfulness to an uninfected spouse or partner is another. AIDS is transmitted by any number of behaviors, as well as by blood transfusions from persons who are infected. AIDS in Africa can be transmitted by rape, by prostitution (and by husbands who visit prostitutes going back and infecting their wives), and so on, again, among other causes. Now, the Catholic Church teaches that visiting prostitutes, commiting rape, and commiting adultery are all sinful. Its solution would not be to encourage a whole other level of sin on top of that, but to address the underlying root causes. Again, feel free to disagree with your own opinion, but within Church teaching this stand is wholly consistent–you can’t possibly imagine that the Church will say “Well, if you’re going to rape a woman, cheat on your wife, or visit a prostitute, be sure to wrap that rascal.” Such a teaching would be an encouragement to the underlying sin.
I think the Church is taking the long view–let’s treat the sick. Let’s educate mothers on ways not to spread the disease to their children. However, in Catholic theology it is wrong to suggest an intrinsically evil act to countermand another intrinsically evil act.
You state that this is your humble opinion, and you are welcome to it. However, the Church has been around for the better part of 2000 years and has had some time to think about these things. They don’t do things just to deprive people of fun.
Cold. Very cold.
Is being raped also a sin? If I am about to be raped and I beg the guy to put on a condom have I sinned? Is being forced into prostitution from the time your 12 a sin? Is not being in a position to refused your husbands sexual advances?
For that matter is not wanting to refuses you husbands sexual advances even if he’s HIV positive? Marital sex is not a sin. **
2000 years and that’s the best they’ve come up with.
[Italics mine] I notice you dropped the blood transfusion method of getting AIDS from your argument, as well as half of the “rape” method. Is needing a blood transfusion sinful? Is being raped? How is safe sex after a questionable blood transfusion or after being raped an “encouragement to an underlying sin”?
Palandine, are you genuinely arguing that if a person has or may have contracted AIDS through an unfaithful spouse, rape, or blood transfusion, Catholic doctrine dictates that they may not use condoms to protect any husband/wife of theirs?
I don’t think that rhetorical question gets anyone anywhere. Regardless of RCC teaching, isn’t it risky and foolish behavior for a person who knows he/she has AIDS, howsoever contracted, to have even condom-protected sex with anyone? If a person engages in risky and foolish behavior, behavior which the Church prohibits, how is that proof of the Church’s immorality?
You haven’t answered Robodude’s question. Yes, if people were to not have sex, then condoms would be irrelevant. However, as it is not the case that no one is having sex, the consequences of such a situation are irrelevant. In this world, not RCC’s fantasy world, what proof is there that condemnation of birth control does not cause deaths from AIDS?
Unless you can establish how this difference actually affects the analogy, it is irrelevant and is simply dodging the question.
Make up your mind. Does the RCC think that the means to longer life here may lead to suffering in the beyond (as you clearly stated), or do they think that this is not the means to longer life? Looks like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Starbury
The question is not whether the Church’s teaching, when rigourously follwed, will result in AIDS deaths. The question is whether their teachings as actually applied in the real world result in AIDS death. The RCC itself says that people are imperfect and we all need forgiveness. But when faced with someone who faces death for following some of the rules and not others, instead of considering changing the rules, they just say “Well, you disobeyed the rules, so you get what you deserve.” In other words, the RCC supports the death penalty for fornification, but not for murder. How anyone can not see how absolutely fucked up that is is beyond me. Saying that one teaching which causes death is justified beacuse it wouldn’t cause death if the other rules were followed makes as much sense as Stalin pointing out that if people would actually follow his rules, he wouldn’t have to send people to the gulags.
How is it irrelevant to their condemnation of birth control? It contradicts your claim that lack of condoms can’t cause AIDS without some other sin being committed.
You know, normally the word “thus” is preceded by a logical argument, not a bunch of dogma.
Paladine
No, it wouldn’t.
Well, let’s see. On one hand we have people dying of AIDS, which I think we can all agree is bad. Then on the other hand we have birth control, which the RCC says is bad, but can’t come with any reason that doesn’t reduce to “We don’t like it”. I think that tangible evil should take precedence over some theological pontifications.
I suppose the Inquisition was just a big misunderstanding. They thought the Jews liked being tortured.
Hi Gaudere.
First of all, Catholic rules are for Catholic people. I am unsure how many Catholics there are in Africa. Others are not bound by them.
No, of course needing a blood transfusion is not sinful. However, given the deplorable state of medical care in the parts of Africa that are being ravaged by AIDS, I am unsure how many cases can be ascribed to tainted blood as I reckon blood transfusions are somewhat rare and hospitals advanced enough to provide them probably test their blood supply. Given that many parts of America routinely suffer from blood shortages, I doubt that hospitals in the Congo or Mali regularly employ blood transfusions. I left it out of the argument for that reason, just as I left out the intravenous drug route because I don’t know how common IV drug abuse is in Africa. No, being raped is not a sin either, but having the Catholic Church tell potential rapists that if they’re going to rape a woman, they should wear a condom is something the Church cannot do (again, if a government wishes to make this a part of its education, that’s fine by me, for whatever that’s worth). Telling a man how to carry out a rape “safely” is something the Church is just never going to do. It will, however, stand fast to its teachings that rape is a terrible sin, as is adultery and having sex with prostitutes. I personally find it racist and paternalistic that the attitude seems to be “well, those Africans are going to rape and have sex with prostitutes and be unfaithful to their wives anyway, so let’s just make sure they’re being safe while they do so.” I would not wish to live in a society that took that sort of abuse of women for granted and made allowances for it.
From my understanding, which is simply that of a lay Catholic with an interest in theology, yes, Catholic people who have contracted AIDS are called to chastity. It’s a bummer, but it’s also in keeping with the Church’s teaching that life isn’t just about sex and that sex isn’t a “right,” for want of a better word. According to Church doctrine, sexual intercourse is unitive and procreative for a man and a woman, within marriage, and without putting any impediments in the way of the conception of a child. I’m a single woman. I’m called to chastity, even if I wish that weren’t so. I don’t get to make the rules.
Hi betenoir,
I hope my replies to Gaudere above clarify a little. It’s one of the reasons I stay out of GD–people here seem ready to assume the worst, especially of an organization like the Catholic Church, without even thinking that they might have very good reasons for teaching what they teach, reasons that go a little deeper than “sex is evil nasty dirty business and we in the Catholic Church hierarchy must do all we can to ensure that no one has fun and millions die of AIDS.”
You say that “2000 years and that’s the best they’ve come up with.” Perhaps you could come up with better. Perhaps you could find those kindly rapists who will gladly put on a condom before raping you because they care for your feelings. How will this happen? Will rapists go to the clinic in the morning to pick up a few in anticipation, or will they have to stop at the victim’s request and run to the local Walgreen’s? Perhaps you can tell prostitutes “Well, I can’t do anything to improve your life situation, but here’s a piece of latex that will protect you from HIV (never mind HPV or genital warts that condoms do not protect against, nor the physical, emotional, and financial violence visited on prostitutes), that is, if your john will wear it.” Perhaps you can tell wives "Well, your husband’s going to cheat on you anyway, violating the closest trust any two people can have, but at least he’ll wear a condom (again, never mind HPV and its role in causing cervical cancer, warts, any of the other STDs condoms don’t protect against, and the emotional pain caused by adultery). Your main point was that women in Africa are unempowered in their societies, and yet what you are suggesting could ONLY work in a society where women are viewed as equals. Shoot, women in America have a tough time getting men to wear condoms. Looking at it from that point of view, it seems to me that the Church is the group dealing in reality and life as it currently is.
I don’t have all the answers for life’s difficult questions, but I cannot easily shrug off 2000 years of teaching and say I have a better way because I’m so much smarter than the legions of ethicists that have gone before me. And again, these teachings apply only to Catholics. Others have to rely on the teachings of their faiths or on conscience. I was merely arguing against expecting the Church to mount some sort of condom campaign, regardless of the fact that it goes against serious teachings. These teachings aren’t to lay a huge guilt trip on people. Think of it this way–God is the Father, according to Christian dogma of all stripes. Parents have rules. To kids, some of thse rules look like the parent just doesn’t want the kid to have fun or that the parent hates the kid, or whatever, but generally those rules are there for good reason. To perhaps overly simplify the point, it’s the same thing here–God’s not waiting for people to sin so he can drop the hammer on them, but rather he hates to see the sin because he knows what a disastrous effect it has on his children, who he loves more than we love ourselves. A parent isn’t going to say “if you’re going to rob a bank, be sure to wear a Kevlar vest to protect against bullets,” a parent is going to expect the kid not to rob banks because it’s risky and wrong. Again, a simplification, which can be a dangerous thing, but at least it provides a bit of an illustration.
Just to address the title of this thread, “Catholic Church Becoming Immoral,” when has the Catholic Church ever been moral? Are holy wars moral? Was the Spanish Inquisition moral? Is the use of contraception a sin? They support their own version of morality. Morality is not objective.
I guess I don’t see the difference. If you’re Catholic, then presumably you would follow all their rules. To blame Catholic doctrine because someone chose to follow some parts of it and not others seems unfair, by “real world” standards.
So you’re saying that the Catholic Church introduced AIDS into the world? Because that’s about the only way I can see this being a valid argument. The fact that AIDS, and other STDs, exists doesn’t disqualify the sanctity (in their belief system) of sex. The fact that they are not willing to compromise their belief in the sacredness of sex doesn’t in any way make them immoral.
I would like to note here that its impressive how you’ve managed to work both Stalin’s gulags and the persecution of Jews into this one post.
Anyway, the teaching of abstinence has never caused death. And, referring back to my previous post, I still don’t see how the teaching of sex with one partner promotes the spread of AIDS either.
No, I don’t think it contradicts my claim because you are viewing this as if there are only two options: have sex with a condom or have sex without a condom. The Catholic Church is a big proponent of abstinence, which would prevent the transmission of AIDS. Again, you may not like this option, but it hardly makes the Catholic Church immoral.
That’s an interesting statement. We point out things we don’t like in the Catholic beliefs, and you say, not “oh, but it is good because of such and so”, but “well, not everybody has to follow this”.
What you’re missing is that some people are not the bank robbers, but are the innocent clerks in the bank. You’re telling them, “robbing banks is wrong. If no one robbed banks, you would not be in any danger. Therefore, you can’t wear a kelvar vest to protect yourself from robbers, since if everyone is good and perfect you won’t be any danger. Never mind the fourteen times this bank has been robbed previously.” You’re telling a thirteen-year-old forced prostitute that condoms are sinful. It’s not her fault she might get AIDS–why not let her protect herself? No, there shouldn’t be bad people in the world, but there are, and the rule that “every act of sex must have the possibility of conception” can do very real harm.
I’m still not sure I beleive that RCC doctrine demands that condoms can never be used. Even if a pregnancy may be a danger to the health of the mother? Even if there is a high likelihood that their child will be mentally and physically deformed?
Despite your facietiousness, I know of at least one incident where the rapist did put on a condom at the victim’s request. But anyhow, the question is, was the request for the rapist to use a condom a sin?
I think reasonable adults can evaluate the risks and choose to engage in sex or not, as they choose. It is less risky and foolish to use condoms, but the Church won’t allow that option for a loving married couple who were the victim of an unfortunate incident–nope, gotta bump up the risk factor just because God wants there to be a possibility of a baby (who might have AIDS, too-yay! :rolleyes: ). Or else, congratulations, your wife has just been “called to celibacy”–and you too–because she got a bad blood transfusion. If a couple evaluates the risks and decides not to engage in intercourse, I think that’s their right, but to require intercourse to be as unsafe as possible for the purpose of cranking out more babies seems rather unfair to both the adults and children involved.
I frankly don’t understand the issue of “possibility of pregnancy”. If they were really worried about that, they’d crack down on oral sex, not condoms. I’m sure God can always engineer a faulty condom if he wants a baby, but getting the sperm from the gut to the uterus is much more tricky.
Yes. Why is this difficult? Atheists don’t have to follow Muslim teaching, Jews don’t have to follow Buddhist teaching, and non-Catholics don’t have to follow Catholic teaching. Therefore for the 5 billion people in the world who aren’t Catholic, what the Catholic Church requires of its members shouldn’t be an issue. The Catholic Church’s teachings are good because they acknowledge women and men as more than sex objects, they encourage respect for women, they treat human life and sexuality as sacred and beautiful, and when followed lead to an orderly, disciplined life in which love is more than sex. Claims like that can stand on their own. However, none of the countries in Africa are Catholic theocracies (indeed, they aren’t any Catholic theocracies in the world). The church has a right to put forth teachings for its members, and that’s all it’s doing. The OP seemd to be intimating that by teaching consistently to its own members that the Catholic Church was somehow increasing the spread of AIDS. I fail to see where he has proved by any evidence that that is the case. It seems that in Catholic-bashing “cite, please?” doesn’t apply.
So let’s hand out Kevlar vests to all the clerks. That’ll solve the problem. Never mind the fear of being robbed, never mind getting beaten, or stabbed, or shot in the head, never mind the possible loss of your livelihood–put your faith in this piece of Kevlar and it will save you from harm. It’s ever so much easier for us to do this than to actually make changes to improve society. It’s much easier for us to do this than to encourage people to act with human dignity. It gives us the illusion of progress and safety without doing any of the actual work required to make that a reality. And again, in what fantasy world do 13-year-old forced prostitutes have enough standing in society to demand that their abusive johns wear a condom? If the guy refuses, does the 13-year-old forced prostitute get to say “no glove, no love”? Please. We’re not talking about the suburbs here, we’re talking about war-torn, deperately poor places that don’t have a very good record of treating women with any sense of equal dignity or worth. Most men HATE condoms. Put the two together, and what do you get?
For what it’s worth, I’m the sister of a “mentally deformed” brother. He has brought nothing but joy to my parents from the day of his birth. My closest friend is physically deformed. I’m glad we don’t have eugenics, and she is too. For what it’s worth, I don’t know whether condoms are banned in all instances. If you’re genuinely interested in the topic, I’d have a local priest look into it for you. I am not an expert. The general philosophy is that the goal must not be a sinful act. For example, a pregnant woman who finds out she has cancer of the uterus can have her uterus removed even though it will mean the death of her unborn child, because the goal is to cure her cancer, not to kill the child (however, a woman in that case is also free to choose to forgo treatment so her child can live). There may be similar instances, but I’m not sure, and I tend to have my doubts.
I assume the victim was not a member of a rival tribe getting gang-raped for her ethnicity or religion or a refugee from war getting raped by government soldiers. Again, we are talking about countries where women have next to no standing, not North America or Europe or Japan or Australia, or whatever. Do you honestly believe that soldiers and other men who respect women so little will abide by a rape victim’s request? For Pete’s sake, nuns get raped in Africa on a fairly regular basis. Gaudere, I think you’re looking for an excuse to say “wow, that Catholic God is a real SOB.” I’ve tried to explain that it’s not like that. God’s mercy knows no bounds, and I’m not going to place any bounds on his love. God is entirely good. I don’t know whether it’s a sin or not, but I do know God’s justice is perfect and he knows better than I do. I’m sorry if that’s the best I can give you.
This is nothing new. There are millions of gay and lesbian cradle Catholics in the world who are fully expected to maintain a monk-like existence for life. Expectation of universal celibacy for those whose psyches and issues make them different from the convenient “average” person sexually is a Catholic trademark.
Hold on to your hat…fellatio as an end in itself is considered a sin by the Church, even within marriage. As a part of foreplay, it’s licit. But if the semen goes anywhere other than inside the vagina, it’s a sin. This precludes masturbation, fellatio, coitus interruptus, frottage, anal sex, and probably a few others that I’m too vanilla to have ever heard of.
jayjay
Yes, that’s all it’s doing. Very simple isn’t it ? Just teachings for the members, but no trace of love and compassion.
It’s said in the news, in the papers, on the internet. Millions are reached. Don’t forget that most African people are not very well educated and just follow the teachings they get from the missionars, and are easily influenced.
The only proof I see is that some in African countries up to 2/3 of the people are bearing HIV. The Catholic church will definetely loose their members in either or the other way.
As I said before, not even the RCC expects people to follow all the rules.
Why? Isn’t a doctrine that requires perfection obviously flawed?
Huh? Where did you get that?
If the “sanctity” of sex is more important to them than life itself, then that does make them immoral.
I never said they did. I said that the teachings against birth control promote the spread of AIDS.
No, I’m not viewing them as the only options, I’m viewing them as the only possibilities. Some people will either have sex with condoms, or without. Those are simply the only two possibilities. You can talk all you want about how theoretically they could not have sex, but that’s not going to happen.
Do you really need a cite for such an obvious statement?
So as long as we don’t have a full solution to a problem, we shouldn’t do anything about it? That seems to be what you’re saying, and I find that attitude rather opposed to the importance of life you keep talking about.
You’re good at dodging the point–but not quite good enough. If a bank is in a high crime area, and the owners of the bank require that the clerks not wear kevlar jackets because robbing banks is wrong, do you think their reasoning is sound? You can act to protect innocents from bad things without condoning the bad things. You can allow people to wear a seatbelt while fighting against drunk driving. I never said bank robbery should be condoned, just that people have the right to protect themselves from bad people. You’re just saying that bad people shouldn’t exist, so good people cannot try to protect themselves. You are ignoring what the real world is like in favor of tactics that would only be nonharmful if the world was perfect.
So you’re argument is not really “it’s sinful to use condoms”, but rather, “oh, it won’t work anyway”? Considering that you’ve argued that forbidding condoms is OK despite the real-world consequences because people should never have sex except with their husband/wife, I find your sudden refuge in “oh, that’s not very likely in the real world, so it’s not a valid argument” to be quite interesting. And I wasn’t even arguing that all johns will be polite and respectful, just that I find it abhorrent to tell a 13-year-old that trying to protect herself from diseases and pregnacy is a sin. If a forced child prostitute could use a condom, would it be a sin?
And with the RCC teaching that they are sinful, they have one more reason not to protect their partner. I have found that men who are properly educated about the protection condoms can give from disease and pregnancy do NOT hate condoms when they are in a situation where such an outcome is possible and undesirable!
I think that if two people know that their combination of genes will result in a child that has a severe deformity that will cause great pain and suffering for the child and a great burden on the parents, and they do not wish to have a child, they should not be required to abstain from sex forever. Apparently the RCC may feel differently.
What the heck does this have to do with whether requesting that your rapist use a condom is a sin? No, not all rapists will do so. But is the actual request from a soon-to-be-victim a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church or not?
Seriously, I’m not. I am not arguing with the Catholic God. I am arguing with you.
I’m not Palandine, but I don’t believe it is, because the victim is being forced into a sexual situation she did not control and is requesting the condom to help protect herself. I think the only time it would be sinful is if two consenting individuals were to use the condom, because they would be choosing to engage in a sexual relationship which is non-procreative. The woman in the process of being raped is in a different situation, because she’s not choosing to engage in sexual activity…she has no choice in the matter, and the rape is already a perversion of the natural purpose of sex, which is to attempt to procreate with someone you love and are married to. Culpability there would be with the rapist, not the woman being raped. A similar situation would be true in the case of the person forced against her will into prostitution. Btw, the encyclical is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm
Um, Palandine, that is not true at all. Catholicism is not like Judaism, which holds that they are a distinct people, and their rules (with the exception of the Noahide laws) do not apply to others. The RCC believes that its moral code should apply to all.
Examples relevant to this discussion: in the U.S., Catholics are a minority religion. Yet, the RCC fights hard against the distribution of condoms in public high schools. The large majority of public high school students are not Catholics, but the RCC doesn’t merely fight hard to have Catholic parents refuse those schools permission to give condoms to Catholic students. They lobby to ban the program completely.
Ditto abortion. If the RCC believed its prohibition against abortion applied only to Catholics, why are they so appalled at abortion worldwide, including in such non-Catholic countries as China and Japan?
Ditto homosexuality. The RCC isn’t just against gay marriages by Catholics, but by people of all (or none) religions.
The Ryan, as I noted earlier in the thread, I am not a Catholic - I’m an atheist. I know the Catholic position due to 15 years of Catholic education (which may explain why I’m an atheist :D). I’ll explain the Catholic position, but don’t ask me to defend it, and don’t impute their position to me.
Sua