|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
OK, if you wnat it that way.
The realistion that marriage is a sacramental reality which initmately reveals the nature of God is a powerhouse of inspiration for many Catholic couples; you may not get it yourself, but you might at least stop trying to attacking people who do know God in this way.
I will when such people uniformly take themselves out of the political and stop using such beliefs as sticks to enact harmful policies that undermine public health and also (on different points) hurt my friends. When the Catholic Church ceases to be a homophobic and sexist institution opposed to public health and that tries to throw its weight around politically then I shall cease to be opposed to the Catholic church. You cease the attacks from your side and so shall I. Until then I shall treat it the same way I would any political organisation whose stated goals would lead to dragging humanity backwards by the hair into the middle ages.
And yes, it may be a "powerhouse of inspiration". But that is certainly not enough. Hitler inspired millions - I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is remotely as bad as Hitler, merely that inspiration is not itself a moral good. What matters is what you are inspired to do. And in my experience the RCC inspires individuals to do good and groups to try to oppose the Enlightenment and the moral progress we've made in the last few hundred years.
quote:
I suppose I can just hope and pray that one day you'll understand.
And I can just hope that one day the Vatican will be treated as a historical museum and that you will understand and support this.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Whatever may be said to the contrary the dam has been breached.
By allowing an exception based on intent and consequences the Pope has effectively made it possible for other intents and consequences to be employed in justifying what many Catholics (the majority?) do in practice anyway.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I will when such people uniformly take themselves out of the political and stop using such beliefs as sticks to enact harmful policies that undermine public health and also (on different points) hurt my friends.
We're right back to the same old argument we alwayscome up against: Catholics are entitled to their opinions, so long as they keep them to themselves and don't talk about them where other poeple might hear and sympathise with them. Well, screw that.
The Church is a voluntary organisation, with prcatically no power of enforcement over her members (persuasion only, which will only really influence those who already believe her), and even less over political bodies, national or international. If people do or enact what the Church says it's because they choose to; if they don't there's not a damn thing the Church can do about it except (at worst) declare them excommunicate. And just how scary is excommunication to non-Catholics?
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out: abstinence, continence, fidelity and celibacy are the least HIV-friendly ideas out there.there.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Understandable, because no one likes being told that they are doing wicked things, especially when they are, like contraception, very wicked indeed.
How wicked is contraception that isn't technically early abortion, in current Catholic teaching? Serious question, and open to anybody.
I'm asking because I can't reconcile what you've said with what appears to be the pastoral position of don't ask, don't tell. I'm an outsider so I could be talking rubbish but it's not usually contested that large numbers of Catholics use contraception and are not excommunicated for it. Sometimes people say that these large numbers don't know the teaching of the Church on the matter of course, but I have to say I find that ludicrous.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Whatever may be said to the contrary the dam has been breached.
By allowing an exception based on intent and consequences the Pope has effectively made it possible for other intents and consequences to be employed in justifying what many Catholics (the majority?) do in practice anyway.
So, no matter what the Pope actually said (speaking personally in an interview, by the way, and not in a way that commands assent from Catholics) about one specific example, he is now committed to supporting the widespread use of condoms in lots of situations?
How is that supposed to follow, exactly?
Sounds like the "wishful thinking as pressure" I was talking about up-thread to me.
[ 22. November 2010, 16:08: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
yadda yadda yadda yawn
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out
I question this although I take your point. I'm really convinced of the Christian teaching on many issues but it doesn't stop me screwing up through weakness sometimes or even, dare I say it, my own deliberate fault.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out
I question this although I take your point. I'm really convinced of the Christian teaching on many issues but it doesn't stop me screwing up through weakness sometimes or even, dare I say it, my own deliberate fault.
Sure, GreyFace - that would go for all of us. But at least committedly attempting to practise those values would minimise the screw-ups more effectively than abandoning them altogether. And to really give them a go, belonging to a belief community that supported you in that endeavour could actually be pretty helpful in avoiding the harmful behaviour and effects rather than the opposite. Which is why I take issue with justinian.
[ 22. November 2010, 16:18: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
We're right back to the same old argument we alwayscome up against: Catholics are entitled to their opinions, so long as they keep them to themselves and don't talk about them where other poeple might hear and sympathise with them. Well, screw that.
Oh, Catholics are entitled to broadcast their opinions by megaphone if they like. The core problem here is that then you guys appear to want protection from being blasted straight back. If you want to call things sins then by the same count, I can call what you are advocating for evil. But apparently you want free licence to preach without opposition. I'd prefer if you (a) changed your minds or (b) shut up about your harmful beliefs. But I don't intend to make you. What I intend to do is to point out how harmful your beliefs are when you preach them.
Apparently I'm supposed to keep my beliefs to myself and it's only the RCC who should be allowed to preach on any matter where my beliefs are in direct opposition to the RCC. Well, screw that.
quote:
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out: abstinence, continence, fidelity and celibacy are the least HIV-friendly ideas out there.there.
And here's where I laugh about polyanna preachings. The Roman Catholic Church has held sway for hundreds of years over the moral thought of Western Europe. And these weren't great times.
As for being non-HIV friendly, the Public Health line is ABC. Abstain. If you can't abstain, Be Faithful. If you can't be faithful, use a Condom. Which is even less HIV friendly than the teachings of the RCC because it acknowledges human faliability and actually helps sinners rather than just tells them they should be Righteous.
Edit: Nice to see you have as much of an argument as normal, Triple Tiara. And ChesterBelloc, ABC. No one in their senses denies that A and B are useful. But the Roman Catholic teaching is akin to 1: Don't go tightrope walking. 2: Don't fall off. 3: We're going to cut the safety net.
[ 22. November 2010, 16:30: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The other thing both partners have to be able to deal with is of course not having sex for two weeks in the month, or so.
Please don't quote yourself as me.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently I'm supposed to keep my beliefs to myself and it's only the RCC who should be allowed to preach on any matter where my beliefs are in direct opposition to the RCC.
That's ridiculous, Justinian - no-one is saying that. I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
Not only is that discriminatory, it's not even possible unless you want to restrict Catholic freedom of expression. If you allow Catholic freedom of expression, you run the risk that people may be persuaded to believe and act in accordance with it. So long as people are free to accept or reject that Catholic discourse what's the problem?
Finally, the "abstain" and "be faithful" bit of the mainstream message you quote is practically never heard: only the condom bit is. [The Pope's recent reflection on the exapmple he gave in the interview suggests that in the absence of this moral motivation, the use of a condom may be an indication of some moral instinct beyond personal gratification.] The Church is a bit better at emphasising the first two than mainstream secular culture, since she does not consider them merely prudentially but also has a distinct moral ontology to recommend them as virtuous in themselves.
But give the piper his due: insofar as public health campaigns do emphasis abstinence and fidelity this is highly to be commended and is a common rallying point.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for being non-HIV friendly, the Public Health line is ABC. Abstain. If you can't abstain, Be Faithful. If you can't be faithful, use a Condom. Which is even less HIV friendly than the teachings of the RCC because it acknowledges human faliability and actually helps sinners rather than just tells them they should be Righteous.
Can you clarify to this babe in the woods how the Pope's statement isn't perfectly in line with the ABC approach you described? Given that someone (specifically, a prostitute) is neither abstinent nor faithful, condoms are preferable to no condoms.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Whatever may be said to the contrary the dam has been breached.
By allowing an exception based on intent and consequences the Pope has effectively made it possible for other intents and consequences to be employed in justifying what many Catholics (the majority?) do in practice anyway.
Actually, if you read what he said, he hasn't allowed an exception. He has said that the use of a condom in this situation may be a first step in the direction of moralisation.
A criminal starting using a really sharp knife to stab people instead of a jagged screwdriver to reduce the pain of the victim may be taking a step towards moralisation; recognising consequences and having an intent to abate them. It doesn't mean using a sharp knife to stab someone is a good thing; nor would it justify the Church in handing out nice sharp knives to killers.
(Note: I'm not drawing parallels between sexual activity and stabbing people: I'm just trying to illustrate that saying something may be a step towards moralisation doesn't mean the something in question is in any way right itself).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently I'm supposed to keep my beliefs to myself and it's only the RCC who should be allowed to preach on any matter where my beliefs are in direct opposition to the RCC.
That's ridiculous, Justinian - no-one is saying that. I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
And you misunderstand. I treat Catholics the same way I do the right wing of the Tory party. I wish every single one of you would change your beliefs, I believe that in groups you are working against what I consider good and right, but I am happy to let you speak as long as you don't try to suppress others trying to speak.
I may disagree with what you have to say, sir. But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
quote:
So long as people are free to accept or reject that Catholic discourse what's the problem?
None at all. I sincerely hope that the day will come when all of humanity rejects Roman Catholic discourse. And hope that some of my efforts will do some small thing to bring that about. My problem is with the content of Roman Catholic teachings and that you apparently confuse opposition to this with attempts to stop you speaking at all.
quote:
Finally, the "abstain" and "be faithful" bit of the mainstream message you quote is practically never heard: only the condom bit is.
Two reasons. First, public health tends to the utilitarian (I go into the impacts in more detail below) and in most places there aren't full scale ABC public health campaigns set up. Secondly, the combination of the Vatican and the Press ensures that C is regularly in the headlines.
quote:
[The Pope's recent reflection on the exapmple he gave in the interview suggests that in the absence of this moral motivation, the use of a condom may be an indication of some moral instinct beyond personal gratification.]
Yes. He's for once right. Wanting to provide people pleasure without attaching suffering is definitely an indication of a moral instinct.
quote:
The Church is a bit better at emphasising the first two than mainstream secular culture, since she does not consider them merely prudentially but also has a distinct moral ontology to recommend them as virtuous in themselves.
That I will grant.
quote:
But give the piper his due: insofar as public health campaigns do emphasis abstinence and fidelity this is highly to be commended and is a common rallying point.
It normally is from what I can tell ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The core problem is that condoms are the easiest part. The part that does not require people significantly changing their behaviour but that has a noticably positive impact in reducing the transmission of STDs. It's the one that can be given to sinners as well as saved. Which is why it's where the campaigns start; highest potential saving in lives or illness for lowest outlay. And in cultures where HIV isn't rife and the STDs are curable, it is sufficient for most people (with the full ABC focussing on high risk or already infected groups). A and B on their own don't normally have sufficient penetration even into Catholic cultures to make STDs vanishingly rare.
To quote an ancestor of mine "How much easier is it to split a man's head open with an axe than change one thought in that skull?"
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Can you clarify to this babe in the woods how the Pope's statement isn't perfectly in line with the ABC approach you described? Given that someone (specifically, a prostitute) is neither abstinent nor faithful, condoms are preferable to no condoms.
In this case it seems to be perfectly in line with it - although see my previous post in this thread. However the Pope's statement appears to be an outlier with regard to the normal teachings of the church. That it's an apparent outlier (and one in the right direction) is why it's getting so much attention.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
If you ever become convinced that contraception is actually seriously wrong, though, the option of NFP will be open to you;
So if someone ever becomes convinced that it is seriously wrong to have sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception, they have the option of having sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception.
Wait, what?
If they use NFP they don't have sex in a way that can prevent conception. That's rather the point.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But the point of NFP is to prevent conception, otherwise why not just have sex whenever you feel like it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
And you misunderstand.
Wherefore, I thank you for your clarification and apologise for my misunderstanding. I also thank you for your whole post, with refreshingly big bits of with I agree - the desired extirpation of Catholicsm aside, that is. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But the point of NFP is to prevent conception, otherwise why not just have sex whenever you feel like it ?
The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
Say you want to leave your car stationary for a couple of hours. You can do it in two ways: leave the engine running consuming fuel but not in gear, or turn the engine off.
In one case you are using fuel in a way which avoids movement; in the other case you're not. I wouldn't say that leaving your car engine switched off while not going anywhere was 'using fuel in a way which avoids movement', would you?
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I wouldn't say that leaving your car engine switched off while not going anywhere was 'using fuel in a way which avoids movement', would you?
And I wouldn't say there was any moral difference between the two. Either way the car is going nowhere.
[ 22. November 2010, 18:05: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I wouldn't say that leaving your car engine switched off while not going anywhere was 'using fuel in a way which avoids movement', would you?
And I wouldn't say there was any moral difference between the two. Either way the car ain't going anywhere.
Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act. When we're talking about people, what their relationship is, and how they act in the image of God, morality does start to come in, I'd say.
(Actually, I think would say there was a moral difference even in the case of the car - it's not good to waste resources and create pollution if you can achieve the same result without doing so. But the green argument for NFP, whilst influential for some people, isn't what were discussing).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But the point of NFP is to prevent conception, otherwise why not just have sex whenever you feel like it ?
The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
Does this mean NFP doesn't prevent conception? Or simply that it's not "designed" to do so and simply operates by luck? I'm pretty sure you're torturing the English language in ways forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act.
Then come up with a better analogy then. It was yours to start with.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
Does this mean NFP doesn't prevent conception? Or simply that it's not "designed" to do so and simply operates by luck? I'm pretty sure you're torturing the English language in ways forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
I don't see that!
If during the fertile phase of the cycle you're not having sex, then how can you be said to be "having sex in a way which would avoid procreation" at that time?
And at any other time, you're having sex which can't result in procreation anyway, so you're not "having sex in a way which would avoid procreation", because it doesn't need to avoid conception (that's the point of NFP; you never change the nature of the act of intercourse).
Seems simple enough English to me.
Now if Marvin the Martian (to whom I was responding) hadn't been trying to make a point by using the phrase 'having sex ... in a way that prevents conception', but instead had said 'working with the natural patterns of fertility in a way which prevents conception', then the whole question wouldn't have arisen - but that would have rather broken the point he was trying to make.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act.
Then come up with a better analogy then. It was yours to start with.
It was an analogy for the question of whether it was meaningful to use the phrase 'having sex in a way which prevents procreation', not an analogy for the marital relationship. Since you don't seem to be arguing with its function in that respect, it seems to have served its purpose.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think it did that for me either. The point was whether there was any meaningful difference between using a pill or condom to avoid pregnancy or timing sex to avoid pregnancy. Your answer was that the latter was not having sex in a way that was designed to avoid procreation (presumably timing doesn't count as design in that) and thus we got to go to analogies with cars and engines running.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Please don't quote yourself as me.
Sorry, that was an unintentional, sloppy quote-header copy and paste.
No official doctrinal document of the RCC has ever outlawed the use of contraception in general and a condom in particular outside of the confines of marriage. Specifically, the English version of Humanae vitae is definitely mistranslated in a key place. The Latin (and hence binding) document speaks in paragraph 14 of "coniugale commercium" - conjugal intercourse - whereas the English falsely has "sexual intercourse". The German translation speaks of "ehelicher Akt", the French one of "acte conjugal", the Italian one of "atto coniugale", the Portugese one of "ato conjugal" and the Spanish one of "acto conyugal" - all in line with the Latin. Only the English remain stuck with a false translation (for unfathomable reasons).
Contraception does not - on official RC teaching - turn bad the sexual act per se, but rather only the conjugal act. Of course, any sex other than in a marriage between man and woman is sinful in the first place by the lights of the RCC. But there is no official teaching that contraception would somehow "add" to the sinfulness of extra-marital sex. The RCC has not declared contraceptive means to be evil in and by themselves.
There is hence nothing particularly new to what BXVI has said, as far as content is concerned. Whether that male prostitute has sex with a male or female customer, that sexual act is sinful. Using a condom does not however make this sexual act somehow "more evil" - or at least the RCC has not officially taught this. However, it can be good in the sense of preventing the spread of disease. So for the male prostitute to use a condom is doing a little good, and as such may be a first step toward a more moral life.
The only thing special here is a pope discussing such detail of sexual sin. That may be a sign for a particularly pastoral approach. Or it may be a sign for just how low one has to stoop these days to find any common ground for dialogue. It is quite amazing how easily people jump from what is good for a male prostitute to what may be good for them. Since when do male prostitutes provide an example to follow?
[ 22. November 2010, 19:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing special here is a pope discussing such detail of sexual sin. That may be a sign for a particularly pastoral approach. Or it may be a sign for just how low one has to stoop these days to find any common ground for dialogue. It is quite amazing how easily people jump from what is good for a male prostitute to what may be good for them. Since when do male prostitutes provide an example to follow?
Indeed. As I noted earlier the official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that a prostitute is permitted to protect himself (and presumably herself, though Benedict XIV didn't seem interested in the particulars of female sex workers for whatever reason ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) from infection, but it's a grave wrong in the eyes of the Church for a wife to protect herself if her husband is infected with something.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that a prostitute is permitted to protect himself (and presumably herself, though Benedict XIV didn't seem interested in the particulars of female sex workers for whatever reason ) from infection, but it's a grave wrong in the eyes of the Church for a wife to protect herself if her husband is infected with something.
That's all a bit confused.
First, nothing the Pope said in the bit of the interview we're all talking about is the "official position of the Catholic Church". So far, it's just a personal expression of some ideas relating to the use of condoms in situations about which the Church has no defined teaching, except that the sexual behaviour itself is wrong. As IngoB has said, the binding prohibition on the use of condoms applies exclusively to conjugal acts between a husband and wife. There is no de fide teaching on the use of condoms outwith the conjugal act.
Secondly, it is not just himself that a male prostitute is protecting by using a condom - it is his clients also. Relatedly, since there was no intention by the Pope to give any kind of comprehensive teaching on the use of condoms by prostitutes in the interview, it is glaringly unreasonable to conclude he doesn't care about the health of women sex workers. His intention behind his using a rent boy example, it seems to me, was to remove any issue of the deliberate prevention of conception from the example - which would unduly have complicated the issues in question - the better to focus on the use of condoms to limit the spread of disease.
Finally, I have already given an example of how a husband could protect his wife from infection even if he were visiting prostitutes, and it is not obviously contrary to Catholic principles.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Finally, I have already given an example of how a husband could protect his wife from infection even if he were visiting prostitutes, and it is not obviously contrary to Catholic principles.
Your earlier suggestion would be completely useless in the actual case I was positing, where one of the parties to a marriage was already infected. In essence your suggestion was that an HIV-positive husband could take steps to prevent spreading the infection to any prostitutes he hires but that it would be a grave sin in the eyes of the Church to take similar measures for his wife.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
First, nothing the Pope said in the bit of the interview we're all talking about is the "official position of the Catholic Church". So far, it's just a personal expression of some ideas relating to the use of condoms in situations about which the Church has no defined teaching, except that the sexual behaviour itself is wrong.
Nothing that the Pope says in areas regarding morality, faith, etc, is just "personal expression." It may not be official teaching, but this surely will be treated as essentially identical to church teaching.
Anybody in that level of authority can effectively have "personal expressions" of ideas when they're in office. Obama cannot have give his personal opinion without it being received as having the seal of the POTUS on it. Ben Bernanke cannot give his personal opinion on financial matters w/o it being received as being from the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve.
Yeah, perhaps this is unfair, but it is definitely how the world works.
He should have kept his trap shut, or issued some degree of official guidance.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Official guidance about what? The Church's position on condom use by male prostitutes?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Official guidance about what?
Whatever point he was trying to make.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
His point was that a male prostitute's use of a condom might be a step toward morality because they were taking some responsibility for the health of the other person.
So if we assume that the position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a male prostitute's use of a condom might be a step toward morality because they were taking some responsibility for the health of the person, what impact could that have on the average Roman Catholic who presumably aren't male prostitutes?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
The point would be to clarify whether a couple is now "allowed" to use condoms to prevent the spread of disease. A step towards 'moralizing' the RCC's teachings on marriage.
For now we can only speculate due to Benedict's folly in bringing up the issue in the manner he did.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
People could if they purposefully ignored what the Pope actually said and instead acted on what they wished he said. Why not just ignore the Pope entirely and do what you want to do? That's just me. I'll never understand what motivates progressive Roman Catholics.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People could if they purposefully ignored what the Pope actually said and instead acted on what they wished he said. Why not just ignore the Pope entirely and do what you want to do? That's just me. I'll never understand what motivates progressive Roman Catholics.
Indeed. Just because the Pope believes it may be more moral (or at least not more immoral) for a prostitute to take steps to not deliberately infect his clients does not mean that he considers it moral for a man to do the same for his wife. Any assumption that the Pontiff is in any way concerned with impeding the spread of sexually transmitted diseases between husband and wife (or heterosexuals generally) is wishful thinking at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of his words at worst.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You really think there are a significant number of men who are infected with AIDS, know they are infected with AIDS, believe AIDS is transmitted through sexual intercourse, yet have unprotected sex with their wives because the Pope says using a condom is a sin and if the Pope would just say using a condom is OK if you just happen to be a jerk who is incapable of being faithful to his wife that the AIDS epidemic would suddenly end or even decrease significantly?
If you do, I have property in Arizona with a lovely view of the ocean I am willing to part with for a very reasonable price.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
What the Pope has done is effectively to support the Bishop of Rustenburg, Kevin Dowling who has promoted the use of condoms where prevention of disease is a priority eg between husband and wife where one is HIV positive, by prostitutes etc. There were demonstrations against Dowling in the States for such heterodox views.
Rustenburg is an extremely poor diocese with a very high incidence of HIV/AIDS. Dowling has established a hospice next to his house and personally ministers to people in the hospice and those dying in rural villages. Prostitution is often the only choice for women to support families with all the dangers this involves and Dowling is sympathetic to the plight of these people and provides what support he can. He was listed in Time magazine's 100 most influential people a couple of years ago.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any assumption that the Pontiff is in any way concerned with impeding the spread of sexually transmitted diseases between husband and wife (or heterosexuals generally) is wishful thinking at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of his words at worst.
Any assumption to the contrary is ridiculous calumny. The pope however is certainly no moral utilitarian, knows that the end does not justify the means and has not made sex his idol.
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
What the Pope has done is effectively to support the Bishop of Rustenburg, Kevin Dowling who has promoted the use of condoms where prevention of disease is a priority eg between husband and wife where one is HIV positive, by prostitutes etc.
Rather, that the pope used a male prostitute as an example (likely with homosexual activity in mind) is easily understandable given precisely this background: he clearly did not want to enter here the debate about "condoms in marriage for disease prevention" with papal authority.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Ex Ingob.... Rather, that the pope used a male prostitute as an example (likely with homosexual activity in mind) is easily understandable given precisely this background: he clearly did not want to enter here the debate about "condoms in marriage for disease prevention" with papal authority.
That is surmise, of course. What the pope seems to be pointing out (my surmise) is that the use of prophylactics is permissible when they assist in the prevention of transmission of disease. Isn't that why they are called prophylactics?
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Ex Ingob.... Rather, that the pope used a male prostitute as an example (likely with homosexual activity in mind) is easily understandable given precisely this background: he clearly did not want to enter here the debate about "condoms in marriage for disease prevention" with papal authority.
That is surmise, of course. What the pope seems to be pointing out (my surmise) is that the use of prophylactics is permissible when they assist in the prevention of transmission of disease. Isn't that why they are called prophylactics?
And this makes my point exactly. Benedict fucked up here. His comments act as a de facto encyclical of sorts with none of the clarity or care involved in it.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Forgive me, but:
IngoB quote:
the pope used a male prostitute
You heard it here first folks!
(I will now go and do penance.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
And this makes my point exactly. Benedict fucked up here. His comments act as a de facto encyclical of sorts with none of the clarity or care involved in it.
I can see you are aching for the Pope to have made a major face-egging blunder here. But he has hasn't done anything of the sort.
There are no "de facto" encyclicals: all official doctrine is officially promulgated in official documents precisely so that the faithful will not be misled. This was not an offcial document, or an endorsed finding of a commission, or a sermon or even a lecture to a group of moral theologians: it was an opinion expressed in the course of a biographical interview. Anyone who knows anything at all about the excercise of the magisterium knows imagines that this sort of thing carries the official weight of teaching. It just doesn't. Really. If he wants sunsequently to teach it formally you'll hear about it.
The Pope's completely unofficial speculation here comes in the context of a book in which he explicitly says, at least TWICE, that "it goes without saying that" the Pope can have personal opinions that are wrong. And this is scarcely news.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it did that for me either. The point was whether there was any meaningful difference between using a pill or condom to avoid pregnancy or timing sex to avoid pregnancy. Your answer was that the latter was not having sex in a way that was designed to avoid procreation (presumably timing doesn't count as design in that) and thus we got to go to analogies with cars and engines running.
Hmm. Ok, lets' take this to a more basic level.
- the problem is that an act of intercourse which fails to express the procreative meaning of sex is wrong
- an act of intercourse which does express the procreative nature of sex is OK (within marriage, with consent of both spouses, etc etc, just to prevent anyone thinking that's a blanket approval).
- if you use a condom or a pill, you are still engaging in an act of intercourse which is not open to the procreative meaning.
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
Does that make it clear? The point is that each individual act of intercourse matters; it's not some sort of fuzzy 'overall group of all acts of intercourse'.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
This is the arbitrary bit. You define "open to the procreative meaning" in such a way that it includes altering the timing of sex to avoid procreation, but excludes altering the mechanics of sex to avoid procreation.
It's not a question of clarity, it's about a disagreement.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Coniunx, as a teacher of NFP this might be outside your field, however give it a try:
What about sexual intercourse(inside of respectable marriage) when the female is either post-menopausal (or premenopausally incapable for a variety of reasons which I will leave to your imagination). Just for simplicity's sake I'll exclude the instances of male infertility) .
Just tell us all what is the fudge factor which justifies this ( and no doubt there is one).
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
Then why does it work?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Surely, to be logical, that has to be an intention for a sexual act to be procreative for it to be licit. If anyone has sexual intercourse with the intention to avoid pregnancy then that must be illicit. Naturally anyone having sexual intercourse where there is no possibility of pregnancy must be indulging in an illicit act.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
If that were true, then guilty as charged.
Seems to me that +++Benny is thinking his way through this without resorting to the blanket "every sperm is sacred" theme so beloved of his predecessors.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
