I am using what I saw on TV, and what people show when trying to get money to support the children.
I don’t necessarily think priests rape children more than the populace at large.* I think they methodically cover it up and allow the perpetrators to avoid secular justice.*
Although I assume that asking adult men to forego sex and masturbation and then putting them in situations where they work with children in close proximity, probably isn’t a recipe for *reducing *the amount of rape in a given population.
Don’t get me wrong, the Catholic Church is evil for any number of reasons. Thinking that raping children is no big deal is just one of them.
Lots of things are unnatural under a broad enough definition of “unnatural,” including most drugs and medical treatments. The RCC are not the Christian Scientists, and to say that the reason they are against birth control is that it is considered unnatural is, at best, a vast oversimplification.
IANAC, and I neither fully understand nor fully agree with the RCC position on birth control, but to the best of my knowledge, the reason they’re against birth control is because of their understanding of what sex is and what it is for: making babies. This is not the only purpose of sex, but it is clearly a fundamental purpose, and to have sex while deliberately taking steps to avoid conceiving is to deliberately thwart God’s intended purposes. It’s sort of like bulimia, where you eat food but take steps to unnaturally avoid being nourished by it.
At least, that’s my understanding. I’m not endorsing this view—although sometimes it looks saner to me than some of the other attitudes toward sex I’ve encountered.
I think you got whooshed by a Virgin Birth reference.
I wondered about that question too. And infertility treatments in general. The RCC condemns IVF. Goes hand in hand with the rest of it.
So i do wonder how many pro lifers out there are messing around in the margins with IVF and such? What would their church thnk about it?
Exactly. The Roman Catholic Church claims great moral authority. Their defense that the media has exaggerated the problem rather misses the point.
No one thinks that they don’t do anything else. They make a fucking nuisance of themselves all the goddamned time. They need to have a seat and see to the beam in their own eye.
The timing of having sex is always something humans have a choice about, so timing sex is perfectly natural; if you just choose to have sex only on certain days, they you are simply trusting that nauture takes its course in a certain way.
Taking pills to prevent conception, or introducing physical barriers is interfering in nature. where does it stop? If you have surgery to prevent conception, is that natural? fake hormones? Allowing coceptionbut preventing implantation? I think what the church ahs said is that there is a slippery slope, and it’s hard to draw a line between A and B to say one process is Ok but the other crosses a line. (For example, why does an IUD work? Does it irritate the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation? What about spermicide? Could it kill a sperm at the moment of conception?)
After all, RU486 is simply a does of hormones that induce a miscarriage. How is that different from a normal miscarriage, other than brought about by artificially produced drugs that cause an abortion? If the pill is OK, why not RU486? IVF creates conceived human beings (from the RCC viewpoint) many of which will not survive due to artifical handling and unnatural conditions.
It is simpler to stay off the slippery slope and say “the line is here - no artificial aids to contraception.”
As for viagra - it’s a pill that causes erections. It does nothing for or to the sperm or the egg. the same sperm is produced by the man with or without an erection; the deliver is just more efficient with this pill, just as the man will deliver more efficiently if, say, he takes his heart medication and does not keel over with a coronary before orgasm. Presumably non-spermicidal personal lubricants also are OK if they help the woman perform her 'womanly duties" in a more comfortable, enjoyable manner.
The church recognizes that sex is enjoyable and an expression of love in a couple, but like other things - drunkeness, gluttony, laziness - you have to realize that too much of a good thing is a bad thing and sinful in the eyes of the church. Sex is as much or mostly about procreation; when it becomes an obsessive recreation, a substitute for videogames 3 weeks a month, it distracts you from your true purpose, to glorify the Lord thy God.
I haven’t done anytihng catholicky in years, I seriously disagree with a lot of their positions on this, that and whatever, and I recognize a lot of the issues are seriously skewed by what happens when a bunch of self-important oldmen try to make decisons about modern society. I had more than enough RC upbringing to last a few lifetimes, but I don’t attach any great importance to it. I just recognize the logic of their position and where they are coming form.
As for the chld abuse - once we get past the snide jokes, yes, if you ask a man to forgo all sexual behaviour for life, what do you think happens to some? To start with, in the good old days, the type that ended up in the preisthood varied. Some were egged into it by overdevout mothers, but many ended up there because they did not at a certain age find themselves chasing girls and carousing like the other teenage lads. Maybe they were studious or bookworms, or maybe they were not interested in women. I’m guessing very few locked themselves into the very controlled life of a priest thinking “hoo boy, his is how to meet little boys!”. But the process did select for either devout or non-heterosexual.
The biggest crime of the catholic church was the same as the boy scouts, the same as the police when they have “bad apples” who abuse their powers - cover up anything bad and “sweep it under the rug”. I guess every organization that does ths thinks it will never come to light; and it usually does, and the consequences are worse for the coverup. Oh well, they can face the music they created…
Yep my grandma was born 7 months premature and she was born in 1902! Amazing what they could do back then…
But it was the principle of the matter that concerned the church not the reality. Remember faith is belief in the suspension of proof!
That’s an interesting statement given the topic of this thread. :eek:
You’re equivocating on the word natural (and you’re not alone). Natural in the sense of natural law theory means something more like appropriate; an entity of type A is good/natural to the extent that it properly exemplifies type A and bad/unnatural to the extent that it behaves otherwise. This isn’t the same thing as “what happens in nature”. Prehistoric humans didn’t have viagra, no, but that’s irrelevant. Viagra is (arguably) natural because being unable to maintain an erection is a deficiency, and humans using their brains to correct deficiencies is natural.
I’m not sure that characterizes the Church’s position with complete accuracy, or at least its moral theorists wouldn’t traditionally put it that way. Artificial contraceptive techniques don’t simply offer a convenient cut-off point beyond which a downward slide is imminent. Rather, condoms or birth control pills (or whatever) sever the copulative act from the possibility of reproduction in a way that, say, abstinence for a few days does not. I think you hint at this later on in your post, but the quoted paragraph gives the implication that the Church would be okay with contraception if only they could be sure things would stop there.
It should further be noted that the rhythm method — and even abstinence — may be seen as suspect when done for the wrong reasons, at least in the view of some. Married couples are supposed to want to have sex and supposed to want to have children.
(Another non-Catholic. But in some ways mildly sympathetic.)
Yup, and they are, and should be, justly condemned for that action.
The public school system on the other hand…
We had a case locally just last year, where a teacher was “acting inappropriately” with students, and the school district “declined to renew his contract”, and sent him to another district with a glowing recommendation. In other words, the superintendent of the first district tried mightily to sweep it under the rug, just like the bishops. And this is not at all uncommon (see the recent Slate article, despite its somewhat alarmist tone).
Fortunately, the parents of the affected children in the first district raised hell, and the creep was prosecuted and is now in the pokey. But, no multimillion judgements against the district, no blanket condemnation of teachers, no jokes on late-night TV.
Why are they given a pass?
What does acting inappropriately mean? Were the police called? They were in the first example of that article. If the police know it’s hardly swept under the rug. How many of these incidents deal with people below the age of consent? How many superintendents are hiding actual criminal conduct?
Also, schools are not one entity, the Catholic Church is. If a specific superintendent is hiding something, bad. But it has no bearing on the superintendent down the road.
Also, the Catholic Church is supposed to be a morally exemplar organization. Why should they be held to the same standard as schools?
I say again: Cite? The name of an organization that specifically mentions South Africa in its TV spots would be a start…
I don’t understand the assumption in the OP that we can compare Viagra to Birth Control. Viagra is more accurately compared to infertility treatment, IMHO.
The RC church is just fine with many infertility treatments. They are not okay with IVF. They are fine with hormones to induce ovulation, with progesterone to maintain a pregnancy during a short luteal phase, they’re hunky-dory with tracking cycles and timing intercourse, they’re all over that stuff…as long as the actual chance for conception involves a penis inside a vagina. IVF is not okay not because it’s “unnatural”, but because it divorces conception from sexual intercourse.
In the church’s eyes,
Viagra most certainly does not divorce conception from sexual intercourse.
And, to bring it back to the OP, the RC church does not disallow birth control because it’s “unnatural”, but because it divorces conception from sexual intercourse. The “natural” or "unnatural"ness of birth control arose not from the RC church, but by the scientists developing the first birth control pills. They hoped to make their product acceptable to Catholics by emphasizing the “naturalness” of the Pill (based on their claim that the Pill simply lengthened a woman’s natural infertile cycle to include all the days of the month)… This didn’t work, of course, since the RC church doesn’t give a crap about “natural”, they just want every act of intercourse to contain the potential for making a baby.
I undersatnd that you are not endorsing the Church’s view. I just don’t see a God who is so heartless, that he would want children born to parents that don’t want them and take out their frustrations on the children, or even have the children lack the necessities of life. I just believe that all chilldren should be wanted,loved, and cared for by their parents. I feel it is being more of a responsible parent to not have children they can’t care for ,emotionally, physically,financially or mentally. It should be the individuals choice not the Church who puts a guilt trip on their followers, then talk about the fact that there are so many the poor people.
It used to be that the church even considered a thought about sex was sinful. People got the idea that sex was a bad thing and I know women in My mother’s age group who were taught They had to be ready for sex when ever the husband was ready or they were held responsible for the man’s straying! I don’t know if that was the church’s stand, but I do believe the people got the idea from the church,The church did a lot to make people thing that celibacy was more pleasing to God. Yet that is unnatural.
If I undersatnd you correctly, what is natural to some is not natural for others? In a way that would be correct for a Gay man it is his nature to be attracted to a man instead of a woman. It would be to go back to the first human’s to determine what nature was then. Human’s have evolved to use their own minds, and how to take care of their families. As I see it the Church would dictate what they can or can’t do. The Church considers itself to be, that it is God’s voice on earth, that may be a belief, but not a fact!
Some were for Ads by a religious organization asking for donations or adopting a child,some were stories that were shown on TV. I have no way to go back and find the articles or even the year that was shown , and it really doesn’t matter in the long run if it is Somalia or other countries, the fact is that many are starving to death. Some has to do with politics, but the basic thing is that people do have children they can’t care for,some are children of rape, but the fact is that the morning after pill or any contraceptiive is not availible. In Bali the TV showed a story of one man who showed the people ther how to use a condom to limit their families because they were not able to raise the children on the 2 acres of land they had.He taught them that if they limited their families they would need less land and they would have healthier children. According to the story, it helped many other families to be able to care for the Children they had. It stands to reason that it costs less to support one or two children than nine or ten.We no longer are able to just live off the land.
This sounds like the church thinks its believers are too ignorant or childiish to use their own brains, and they have to do the thinking for them.