I call bullshit. I’m pretty sure that they screwed around just as much, it just wasn’t talked about as much. Of course, if you consider having a steady mistress a “commited relationship” I guess that you can lower the stats a bit. I know it was quite common for men to have a wife AND a mistress (or several mistresses) if he could afford them.
What are you claiming? That Drunk driving can be done without risk? If so that claim is amazingly false. Why would you even make it? If you really are according to the US Department of Transportation:
Yea clearly the same thing as responsible condom use.
There’s 6+ billion people. The earth is full enough.
God must be a real asshole if he expects us to multiply beyond sustainability and starve.
I don’t know how true this story is but I’ve heard the the government of China put out videos about how to use condoms. Births skyrocketed. Seems in the video they showed some guy sliding the condom over his finger as a metaphor for his thinger. So people where putting condoms on their finger and having sex.
Seems kind of silly but I’d believe it after some stuff I’ve seen around here including my friend who was convinced you had to have sex for ayear to get pregnant, and wouldn’t believe me at all when I tried to explain reason to her.
She has a kid now.
First, that seems like a counter scenario to the one I posed earlier about the married couple with one getting HIV from a blood transfusion and not knowing it and passing it on unknowingly, whether or not the HIV came to the husband because he had a transfusion or was a cheater, it could be prevented if the wife were “allowed” to use rubbers. Simple.
Second, that’s one of the nuttier statements I’ve ever heard.
Third, you came up with the question, come up with the cite.
I’m waiting for an answer to my question, a few posts above.
Since when did the Church start encouraging married sex, or ANY kind of sex at all?
Don’t make me call bullshit.
Why call bullshit ? A man supporting several regular sexual partners is not sexually networking and spreading HIV.
It’s bullshit because it’s not true. The sole difference now is what we know about people’s sexual behavior.
Sure, but if you think the wife will be allowed to use rubbers if the Pope says so, then you are sadly mistaken.
I also want to add one more point regarding the misplaced confidence in assuming condom use will prevent a wife from contracting HIV from her philandering husband whether she’s aware or not. What’s she gonna do when she wants a child? That is a far stronger biological urge for many women than sex.
I thought I already did to some extent reporting on the comparison of HIV incidence between Latin America and other global regions.
But digging some more, and in the interest of full disclosure, I learned that the main Catholic countries, Spain, Italy and Portugal have an HIV incidence over 100% higher than Germany. The Netherlands or Norway. I must admit that the RCC bears serious responsibility.
(numbers mine)
-
“Defensive” use of condoms or other birth-control methods may be acceptable if the intercourse is unwanted and concerns have been expressed. If you don’t respect your wife then it’s no longer lawful sex but forced sex and limiting the unwanted results of unwanted sexual relations is acceptable.
-
Sympto-Thermal method of Natural Family Planning. Rythm is long, long gone; it’s not even reccomended.
-
You were under the wrong impression.
Once you commit mortal sin it doesn’t get any “more mortal”. Shooting 4 people is not “more mortal” than shooting 3.
“Thwarting the will…” doesn’t mean what you imply. God desires something and He informs us. You don’t “beat” God by wearing a condom, you do something He told you not to. -
But it is safer if you buckle up.
Mostly agreed. Every person has the right to make his/her own decisions and bear the consequences. If you want to bowl at my place, you gotta wear the shoes. Don’t wear them if you don’t want to, but you can’t play.
Since the very first pages of the Bible. St. Paul says it’s better to be married than burn (with desire).
This 1936 document might enlighten you.
Only 1 in 6 Africans is Catholic. Just saying.
I wasn’t speaking of BOTH instances in one case. That is, I say that there were casual sex encounters AND long term sexual relationships in the past that were not confined to marriage. The guys would have sex with the local gals, and they’d have sex when they travelled, and they’d spread the STDs to both casual and long sex partners. Similarly, the gals would enjoy themselves with the travelling salesmen, or whatever other male happened to cross their paths, if they thought they could get away with it.
I’m not saying that EVERYONE did it, mind you. I am saying that it was not uncommon, though. People are people, and a lot of them are going to have a wandering eye. Some of them will act on what they see, no matter what time period you’re talking about. We know that just making laws won’t stop some people from breaking them. That goes for religious laws as well as laws of the land.
WOW, what a romantic document. The CC has absolutely no concept of what sex is like, no true notions of love, romance and loving desire. It them it is all a philosophical abstraction.
It is my understanding that the RCC church does not approve of Condoms or any form of birth control except only when a woman cannot concieve or the time of month. They call any other methode unnatural, every intercourse a couple have must be open to conception as they should not block God’s desire for a child to be concieved. They use,I believe his name was Anan in the old testement as spilling his seed to be evil.
If a couple is supposed to have sex just at certian times, I believe that is unnatural and I know of many couples in my generation who had many fights because of this rule. Some lived unhappily together for 40 or 50 years and thought of sex as something dirty.
I can understand their sex outside of marriage rule, but to expect a married couple to bear children they cannot afford that leads to extreme poverty in many, many cases is unfair and immoral.
Heart transplants etc. are not natural or keeping one alive on tubes against their will can also be immoral.
Most RCC’s that I know of now do not pay any attention to the church’s teachings.
I’m coming to this thread late, but I could not let the following comment pass without accolade:
Excellently put, and an apt criticism of lots of traditional beliefs. Well said, sir.
I see that my question about how the Church “encourages” sex within marriage was never answered. I assume then that it is being ignored. So, as someone who was born and raised Catholic, I have to call BULLSHIT on what the person claiming it said.
However, the notion that sex with a virgin would cure other STDs isn’t a new thing:
"The myth of the Virgin Cure has a rich and culturally diverse history stretching back to 16th century Europe, and more prominently to be found in 19th century Victorian England, where, in spite of the emphasis on morality, rectitude and family values, there existed a widespread belief, that sexual intercourse with a virgin was a cure for syphilis, gonnorhea, [and other STD’s]. "
(from: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm)
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.
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.
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.
What.
Did I kill the thread?
"Sex Within Marriage
For Catholics, sex within marriage is a wonderful thing. It not only helps to unite the couple, but also presents the possibility of creating a new life. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage is the ideal, stable environment in which to raise children. Couples that abide by the Catholic Church belief system are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances allow. However, the Church also recognizes the need to space children out ’ they certainly don’t expect a woman to constantly be pregnant! For this reason, certain forms of birth control are considered to be acceptable. "
http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Religion/Catholic/Pius_XI/Casti_connubii
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved”
Note that was back in **1930. **
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
"2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: "
)italics mine)
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”.