I was talking to Airman. I didn’t say it was a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
But since you ask, the RCC is at least indifferent to the suffering of AIDS victims and prefers that suffering to condoning the use of condoms.
According to the Vatican, the woman is allowed to spread the births apart, but NOT out of selfishness (I’ve kept the rest in for fun and flames too).
- The fecundity of marriage
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that** “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”**152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161
2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.
The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.163
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Well, the Church holds that having sex for pleasure outside the confines of marriage is wrong. Doubtless you disagree. But the Church has always taught this lesson, and it will continue to do so, your disapproval notwithstanding.
Well, considering that we thought at the beginning that we’d be lucky to be able to have children at all, I’m awfully glad now that we have three.
We always regarded children as a blessing, and the greater tragedy to my wife and me would have been not being able to have any.
Reproductive freedom also means the freedom to reproduce, and we’re taking advantage of that, thank you very much.
Oh, you are so much holier than us craven heretics! Let your virtuous non-fucking be an example to all the sinners who mock God with their latex-armored, purple-helmeted warriors.
I’m terribly sad they elected a very conservative Pope. I can’t get vitriolic about it, but once upon a time BBJ was Catholic. Of course as soon as I could I stopped being Catholic. I am pretty much agnostic now.
But, I had hopes that if we had a slightly more liberal Pope the catholic church could start being a church I could admire rather than despise. Sure, we weren’t going to get approval of birth control or abortion or gay rights and priests weren’t going to get to marry, but the church may have at least discussed these issues and come closer for next time.
I had hopes that we were only a pope or two away from maybe saying at least birth control was OK in order to protect the rights of women and keep AIDS from spreading in third world countries.
But maybe, just maybe, we’ll get more priests like mine when I was growing up who would tell women in private that it just might be ok to use contraception. And let’s not forget the converted Episcopalian priests who were allowed to become married catholic priests if they converted. I still hope this starts an uproar at some point…
To be fair, while I am being sarcastic and picking on Doors a bit, there is a serious undertone to it. I would say that it is my position that it is reasonable for a person to be critical of the Catholic doctrine, and that it is also reasonable for that person to have misgivings about this Pope (based on what I have read).
So, when Airman Doors decides to come out , guns blazing, declaring that the OP hates Catholics and that we are enjoying tearing a good man down I sort of get my back up.
That being said, that is really not the sort of poster that I want to be and so I will apologize for not showing more respect for the points of views of others than is shown to mine.
Apparently, even the Germans don’t like him! (Pope Rebound I, that is, not Airman). From the AP:
Sister Carla Simmons brings home care to AIDS families in Uganda.
Catholic AIDS hospices in the Diocese of Eshowe, South Africa.
Cambodian AIDS hospice run by the Maryknoll order.
I can post hundreds more links like this.
Perhaps it would be better to say that you have a disagreement with the Church on this issue, since there is ample proof that it is not indifferent to the suffering.
What did he do in his whole one hour or less in office to warrant this thread? After all the previous anti-Catholic threads and some of the posts that came before my first one, what conclusion would you like me to draw? That you’re such a hater of a man who has done nothing so far that you preemptively want to call him an asshole? Because that’s the only conclusion I can draw.
I think in all fairness that this is what you are inferring from the Church’s stance, rather than actual Church doctrine, which is fair enough, but one needs to be clear about facts verses opinions.
In my previous pitting with you, you were unable to get over the idea people shouldn’t lecture the church for sticking to its’ guns, and not saving lives. But hey, what about Jesus’ non-approval? Would that change your mind? As I recall, he advocated breaking rules, in order to save lives (Never mind the fact that Rabbis before him said the same thing.)
So, we should not expect any religious instituion to change and adapt with the times? What they once taught as moral and righteous should always be taught as moral and righteous, no matter how much the rest of society has advanced and “liberalized”? Guess someone had better get on the horn to Spain and tell them to start torturing Jews again. And Germany has fallen way behind on witch burnings. At least we’ve got a Crusade going again, although last time I checked, the Church actually opposed the new one. Wonder if Ratzinger’s going to change that, too?
Yes, the Church is very quick to break out the compassion once the misery is in place. What the Church cannot bring itself to do is take a big picture look at what causes the suffering, and working to prevent it.
I was talking to Airman, not to you.
-
Following a pure Catholic sexual code is still no guarantee against getting the virus.
-
Preaching sexual purity is like preaching world peace. It sounds nice but it ain’t gonna happen. It’s a completely unrealistic and useless way to address a public health issue. It’s also unrealistic in that it denies homosexual relationships as being legitimate and by failing to endorse a safe mode of expression gay sexuality, the Church instead marginalizes all same sex relationships as equally sinful and so offers no reason or incentive or blessing for gay men to live in more safe relationships or follow monogomous models. Telling gay people to just become straight is stupid and outdated and abusive and irresponsible.
One condom is still more effective than a thousand sermons.
The choices about how to address AIDS are not summed up as “condoms vs. abstinence” but as teaching safe sex practices vs. harranguing people about their morality. Merely row beating people about their sexual purity is completely ineffective and worthless.
That’s not what I asked; I asked, do you agree withthe CC’s teachings that women have no right to control their reproduction. It’s nice that you and the mrs have three kids, but what about people in impoverished circumstances with twice that number due to obedience to Church doctrine?
And thanks for the cite, St. Pauler, but " Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality," otherwise known as the rhythm method, doesn’t work.
If it were necessary to break rules to save lives, that would be a vallid argument.
But in fact, FOLLOWING the Church’s rules - all of them - will save more lives than breaking the rules you advocate.
You would like to pick and choose – break some rules because it feels good, get into life-threatening jeopardy, and then break other rules to save your life.
Better to follow all the rules from the start.
Oh, not alone it doesn’t. But with prayer and the love of the little lord baby Jesus and a donation to your local church…
No. The rhythm method does not work well, true, but that passage (“self-observation”) refers to a much more detailed method involving basal temperature and the observation of vaginal mucus… and it is highly effective.
Be honest. It is not as if this man emerged from a vacuum or as if his politics and beliefs are a mystery. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to have issues with that.
That said, yes you have a technical point when you state that he has done nothing as Pope to merit a pit thread.
I am still not sure where you are getting the “hates Catholic” thing. I am guessing that you have some history or baggage from past threads that I have missed. I will point out, however, that it is quite possible to be in profound disagreement with the teachings of Catholicism and still not hate them.