# This is why I can't stomach the Catholic Church - still against condoms in Africa **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774 "2009-03-17T17:57:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/201 "2009-03-23T21:28:27Z")
No, of course not, **Steve**. I have said all along the church very badly NEEDS a VATICAN IV If I may use (borrow) an anachronism which illustrtrates my meaning? **C** all **O** ff **Y** our **O** ld **T** ired **E** thics!🙂 (Catholic trying to hang in there) Q ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/202 "2009-03-23T23:22:14Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So, let’s take your cites and my cites as they are. They contradict each other. I would propose that we consider them to “cancel each other out”. Umm, no. Yes, no doubt that **1500 years ago** , before there really was a Catholic Church (or at least during the early formative years of, depending) St Augustine did have some odd ideas about sex. I am giving you the Official Rulings and Archives of the Pope himself, since before WWII. Now, unless you’re really old, let us just say your memory is defective. God man, \*I knew this \*and I am not/never have been a Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/203 "2009-03-24T01:01:32Z")
**ACRONYM** Sorry, **Steve**!:smack: Q ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/204 "2009-03-24T01:11:33Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > **Couples are expected to bear any children that God deigns to send** them and not to use any contraceptives (though why God can’t power through a condom is a puzzler) no matter how destitute they may be. > > They are allowed NFP, which is really silly when you consider that doing something to avoid having children sure isn’t welcoming children with open arms. (bolding mine) Which doesn’t mean having all the children the physiologically can. NFP isn’t silly. It may be hard and complicated and less reliable than the pill. The difference is that you are still open to procreation, but use your knowledge of how your body works. > [@SteveG1](#): > > Agree. > Now then. The above “passages” have been part of “church teaching” for a long long time. > > Sex is bad. It is “almost OK”, so long as the only purpose is to produce more children, bit over all, it is still bad. Just “less bad”. As Paul might put it, married sex is the lesser of two evils. According to Augustine, who is still considered a “great mind” by the church, sex is not much different from disease. > > The church still holds these two “famous dead people” up as great teachers, to be admired and followed. St. Paul says celibacy - total giving yorself to God - is super good. Marriage is good. Never says lesser of two evil. He recognizes that celibacy isn’t for everyone. No “great teacher” of the Church is infallible and his views are to be respected, but only insofar as the do not contraict Church rules. > [@SteveG1](#): > > In that case, “Houston we have a problem”. I say that because your cites are not what I was taught in Catholic grade school or in Catholic high school. It also does not “mesh” with what many friends of mine (who were getting married and had to go through “marriage counseling” in order to get a church wedding) were told. My experience and theirs far more closely matched the nonsense that I cited. > > “Sex is bad”. It is only for making babies. Back in the Sixties “the pill” was bad because it interferes with the making of babies. Etc etc etc. Your cites say “Sex is OK within guidelines”. > > So, let’s take your cites and my cites as they are. They contradict each other. I would propose that we consider them to “cancel each other out”. So, your third grade teacher trumps the official rulings of the church? that’s how it works? > [@Quasimodem](#): > > No, of course not, **Steve**. I have said all along the church very badly NEEDS a VATICAN IV > > If I may use (borrow) an anachronism which illustrtrates my meaning? > > **C** all **O** ff **Y** our **O** ld **T** ired **E** thics!🙂 > > (Catholic trying to hang in there) > > Q To what purpose should the Church COYOTE? Should the Church go with what she thinks (maybe wrongly) is the will of God or rule by polls? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, no. Yes, no doubt that **1500 years ago** , before there really was a Catholic Church (or at least during the early formative years of, depending) St Augustine did have some odd ideas about sex. > > I am giving you the Official Rulings and Archives of the Pope himself, since before WWII. Now, unless you’re really old, let us just say your memory is defective. God man, \*I knew this \*and I am not/never have been a Catholic. You beat me to that but thank a lot. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/205 "2009-03-24T01:18:03Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (bolding mine) Which doesn’t mean having all the children the physiologically can. > NFP isn’t silly. It may be hard and complicated and less reliable than the pill. The difference is that you are still open to procreation, but use your knowledge of how your body works. More angel-counting. If you don’t want (more) children, you aren’t “open to procreation.” That’s like saying when I get in the car I’m open to dying in an accident. ---
**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/206 "2009-03-24T01:22:29Z")
**Aji** I just meant that the church needs to move into the 21st Century. So many things need to be re-examined (IMHO), and COYOTE was just a way for me to say that. 🙂 Q (Oh-oh. In the Pit again. No section for the dain-bramaged, huh?:smack:) ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/207 "2009-03-24T01:27:52Z")
> [@Quasimodem](#): > > (Oh-oh. In the Pit again. No section for the dain-bramaged, huh?:smack:) Are you kidding? If the brain-damaged aren’t allowed in the Pit it’ll be a ghost-town. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/208 "2009-03-24T03:43:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, no. Yes, no doubt that **1500 years ago** , before there really was a Catholic Church (or at least during the early formative years of, depending) St Augustine did have some odd ideas about sex. > > I am giving you the Official Rulings and Archives of the Pope himself, since before WWII. Now, unless you’re really old, let us just say your memory is defective. God man, \*I knew this \*and I am not/never have been a Catholic. Yes, it was about **1500 years ago** but it **is** still being taught. One thing though - How come it never changes when it says something the (let’s call them) hardliners want to hold to the exact words, but when it doesn’t match what they want, then it’s OK to say “that was long ago”? It seems I was mildly opposed because in one or more of my posts, I said that things change and so should the rules. It’s strange how the “timeline” goalposts keep moving back and forth depending on who is arguing for or against something. In that case, the comment was about “cafeteria Catholics”. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/209 "2009-03-24T03:50:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To what purpose should the Church COYOTE? > Should the Church go with what she thinks (maybe wrongly) is the will of God or rule by polls? Same way the always do- let the Holy Ghost decide. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/210 "2009-03-24T12:14:37Z")
> [@Aji](#): > > Drunk driving happens, but you don’t expect the Pope to say “if you’re gonna drive drunk, at least buckle up”. **Aji** and **The Flying Dutchman** , since when did seatbelts become some way to address the problems associated with drunk driving? Do you think that the biggest problem with drunk driving is that the driver might injure or kill him or herself? Really? How does buckling up keep you from crossing the center line and smashing headlong into a minivan? Your analogy is not only poor, but suggests that you don’t have a clue. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/211 "2009-03-24T12:32:48Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s a theological document, not a Daniel Steele book. Still plenty of giving, loving and pleasure in it. > > Your understanding is wrong. Couple are not expected “to bear children they cannot affors and lead to poverty”. Read a bit, will ya? > > What would qualify as “encourage”? The Pope saying "yo, married guys, GO SCREW YOUR BRAINS OUT??? > Definitely sex is an important part of marrige in the RCC but one that flows out of love, giving and respect; then pleasure is not only expected but welcomed and embraced. > Didn’t know that big fonts and red made an answer better. Not only did I read a Lot, but know couples who have children they cannot afford, physicaly, financaly, or physically, because their method of so called natural birth control failed. When RCC’s are the majority in a country the population Poverty level excedes (as well as in places where other religions do not allow birth control) or it is not readly available.. To except a married couple to only have sex when the woman cannot concieve is not good for a marriage or a child that is born to a family with more children then the couple can care for. What may work for a couple that have a low sex drive may work fine, but not the average couple! Teaching responsible parenting and the use of better methods of birth control is more moral than waiting for a time of month so a woman cannot concieve. If RCCs wants to believe that fine, but then don’t complain of all the worlds poverty, or expect others to support their children. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/212 "2009-03-24T15:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > St. Paul says celibacy - total giving yorself to God - is super good. Marriage is good. Never says lesser of two evil. He recognizes that celibacy isn’t for everyone. > > No “great teacher” of the Church is infallible and his views are to be respected, but only insofar as the do not contraict Church rules. That is part of the “disconnect”. When it suits the purpose, it is “divine revelation” or “God speaking through man” or Officilly Good Tasting And Less Fattening. When it doesn’t suit the purpose, then the Great teacher is no longer speaking the Word Of God, and is all too human (and fallible). Don’t you sometimes wonder which it’s gonna be? It’s all too too convenient. And paul said it was preferable to “burning with passion”. That sounds like a lesser of two evils situation. You could just as well say “it’s a little better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick”. It isn’t quite enough to be called “damning with faint praise”. Besides which, a LOT of “rules” can be traced back to these writings. > [@](#): > > So, your third grade teacher trumps the official rulings of the church? that’s how it works? Nice try at evasion. This nonsense was taught from day 1, al the way through the last year of high school. It was also “taught” in pre=marriage “training”. If it were only one instance, I would have discounted it as a fluke. However, it was far to consistent, and the “message” was always the same. So no, it’s not just one loony 3rd grade teacher. > [@](#): > > To what purpose should the Church COYOTE? > Should the Church go with what she thinks (maybe wrongly) is the will of God or rule by polls? They have voted on things in the past. It is a historicl fact that “back in the beginning”, the bishops VOTED on which books belonged in “their” Bible. They threw out entire books. I won’t say if they were wrong or right in their selections, but there was a lot of arguing and voting. VOTING. And this was the Bible, the Word Of God. So yeah they can vote when they want to. I’m not trying to pick a fight, despite how it may look. I agree with Dr Deth that things can and do change (his point about the 1500 years). I’m saying maybe it is time for a few more changes. But it has to be done honestly. A thing can’t be The Immutable Word on one side of the mouth, and “it was long ago and the guy was just human” out the other side. That is trying to have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/213 "2009-03-24T17:57:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Nice try at evasion. This nonsense was taught from day 1, al the way through the last year of high school. It was also “taught” in pre=marriage “training”. If it were only one instance, I would have discounted it as a fluke. However, it was far to consistent, and the “message” was always the same. So no, it’s not just one loony 3rd grade teacher. IOW, no matter what the official Church doctrine is, the “sex is only for procreation” teaching is being perpetuated by those who SHOULD know the official line. So, if people believe what they’re told over and over again, isn’t that what you WANT in a religion? ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/214 "2009-03-24T18:40:27Z")
The problem with the Catholic teaching on sex is you need a degree in philosophy and theology to understand them. Although the more “modern” view of their stand on sex seems good in theory when you get into the details it is not and the burden is overwhelming. First, in every sexual act their must be a chance of the woman getting pregnant. Second, each act must be a **perfect** act of self giving. Perfect, I don’t know what that exactly means but it has to be perfect. Third, you can not feel lust for your spouse and each act must be both prudent and chaste. Fourth, Frequent abstaining is good so you can return to your spouse in the right and pure frame of mind instead of in a lustful manner see JP2’s “Theology of the Body.” This is in addition to the abstaining needed for NFP which can be 6 to 12 days per month depending on many factors not limited to, temperature readings, menstrual cycle, charts, calendars, mucus levels etc. You better pray your charts and thermometer readings are correct. Sex play in those off days is forbidden as mutual masturbation. Seriously, can anything be more unnatural. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/215 "2009-03-24T19:52:36Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > First, in every sexual act their must be a chance of the woman getting pregnant. Third, you can not feel lust for your spouse and each act must be both prudent and chaste. Niether is true as my cites earlier have shown. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/216 "2009-03-24T20:01:53Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > First, in every sexual act their must be a chance of the woman getting pregnant. That’s another thing I don’t get. Why the fuck is “god’s will” stopped by a condom? Catholics are basically saying they’re god is so fucking weak it can’t put one tiny hole in thin latex. Catholic god \< cheap synthetic rubber. The real problem is the Catholic church just wants more members, and instead of winning members over with revaluations of perceived truth, good works, and charity. It’d rather try to out breed other religions. So it has asinine rules like no contraceptives, all Catholics must marry other Catholics or their spouse must sign an agreement that any kids produced will be Catholic, etc. All and all pretty creepy. Especially considering the senseless harm the no contraceptives rule causes. To paraphrase Five Man Electric Band “if God was here He’d tell it to their face Man You’re some kind of sinner”. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/217 "2009-03-24T22:21:23Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > That’s another thing I don’t get. > > Why the fuck is “god’s will” stopped by a condom? > > Catholics are basically saying they’re god is so fucking weak it can’t put one tiny hole in thin latex. Catholic god \< cheap synthetic rubber. > The real problem is the Catholic church just wants more members, and instead of winning members over with revaluations of perceived truth, good works, and charity. > > It’d rather try to out breed other religions. So it has asinine rules like no contraceptives, all Catholics must marry other Catholics or their spouse must sign an agreement that any kids produced will be Catholic, etc. > All and all pretty creepy. Especially considering the senseless harm the no contraceptives rule causes. To paraphrase Five Man Electric Band “if God was here He’d tell it to their face Man You’re some kind of sinner”. Do you actuallt think that the RCC’s position on contraception is about breeding members? It’s interesting cuz it’s always the reason people tell me we’re losing guys. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/218 "2009-03-24T22:39:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > More angel-counting. If you don’t want (more) children, you aren’t “open to procreation.” That’s like saying when I get in the car I’m open to dying in an accident. Good to know you are invulnerable to accidents…is that 6th level spell? > [@Quasimodem](#): > > **Aji** > > I just meant that the church needs to move into the 21st Century. So many things need to be re-examined (IMHO), and COYOTE was just a way for me to say that. > > 🙂 > > Q > > (Oh-oh. In the Pit again. No section for the dain-bramaged, huh?:smack:) OK, my bad. > [@SteveG1](#): > > Yes, it was about **1500 years ago** but it **is** still being taught. One thing though - > How come it never changes when it says something the (let’s call them) hardliners want to hold to the exact words, but when it doesn’t match what they want, then it’s OK to say “that was long ago”? It seems I was mildly opposed because in one or more of my posts, I said that things change and so should the rules. It’s strange how the “timeline” goalposts keep moving back and forth depending on who is arguing for or against something. In that case, the comment was about “cafeteria Catholics”. Official teachings ----\> Unchangeable (in their core) Other teachings ----\> Have to be understood in their context. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Same way the always do- let the Holy Ghost decide. Couldn’t agree more. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Aji** and **The Flying Dutchman** , since when did seatbelts become some way to address the problems associated with drunk driving? > > Do you think that the biggest problem with drunk driving is that the driver might injure or kill him or herself? Really? > > How does buckling up keep you from crossing the center line and smashing headlong into a minivan? > > Your analogy is not only poor, but suggests that you don’t have a clue. It work’s insofar as it reduces the possible damage after a crash- > [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > IOW, no matter what the official Church doctrine is, the “sex is only for procreation” teaching is being perpetuated by those who SHOULD know the official line. So, if people believe what they’re told over and over again, isn’t that what you WANT in a religion? That’s a terrible thing and you’re absolutely right that we should get our act together. > [@Icerigger](#): > > The problem with the Catholic teaching on sex is you need a degree in philosophy and theology to understand them. Although the more “modern” view of their stand on sex seems good in theory when you get into the details it is not and the burden is overwhelming. > > First, in every sexual act their must be a chance of the woman getting pregnant. Second, each act must be a **perfect** act of self giving. Perfect, I don’t know what that exactly means but it has to be perfect. Third, you can not feel lust for your spouse and each act must be both prudent and chaste. Fourth, Frequent abstaining is good so you can return to your spouse in the right and pure frame of mind instead of in a lustful manner see JP2’s “Theology of the Body.” This is in addition to the abstaining needed for NFP which can be 6 to 12 days per month depending on many factors not limited to, temperature readings, menstrual cycle, charts, calendars, mucus levels etc. You better pray your charts and thermometer readings are correct. Sex play in those off days is forbidden as mutual masturbation. > > Seriously, can anything be more unnatural. Still hung out on the “natural” thing. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > That’s another thing I don’t get. > > Why the fuck is “god’s will” stopped by a condom? > (snip). It isn’t. God’s will, in this context, does not mean He’s using his power to do something and the condom beats Him. As I have explained it’s God’s desire that we do it (like not lying or killig). Nobody says “how is god’s will stopped by a muscle in the mouth or a trigger finger”? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/219 "2009-03-24T22:56:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Good to know you are invulnerable to accidents…is that 6th level spell? I see. So “open to” means “would hate it with every fiber of my being.” Gosh, when you define it that way, it’s impossible for someone not to be “open to” having children. Want children? You’re open to them! Don’t want children? You’re open to them! Somehow, I think your theological skills are suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774/220 "2009-03-25T14:06:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It work’s insofar as it reduces the possible damage after a crash- Hmm. Not seeing it. Wearing a seatbelt reduces the possible damage after a crash… Wearing a condom reduces the possible damage after a disease infection… Nope, the latter does not make sense. See the crash is the unwanted outcome of the behavior (driving drunk), and wearing a seatbelt does nothing to alter the likelihood of the crash. Disease infection is the unwanted outcome of the behavior (having sex), and wearing a condom vastly alters the likelihood of that outcome. So, nope. Not a bright analogy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-i-cant-stomach-the-catholic-church-still-against-condoms-in-africa/489774.md?page=12)