homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pope Benedict says here that allowing male prostitutes to use condoms is the first step in a "more human way of sexuality," and that this is the first step in making male prostitution moral.

Huh? For a smart guy, does he think before he opens his mouth?

[ 15. June 2016, 18:49: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

--------------------
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
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, given that gay sex does not involve procreation, Benedict's reasoning might go something like this...

It's the gay sex that's wrong, not the condom per se. So, if you're already sinning by having gay sex, there is no additional sin added on by using a condom. And if you're going to do two things both containing the same quality of sinfulness, you might as well do it in such a way so as not to add on the extra sin of spreading disease.

As a comparison, Benedict might think that reading pornography is wrong. However, if someone IS going to have pornography in his home, would it be more, less, or equally sinful to hide it from his children? I would say "less", because while you are still commiting the sin of lust, you're not compounding it with the sin of corrupting children.

[ 20. November 2010, 18:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think Benedict was saying the use of condoms would be the first step to make male prostitution moral. It's more likely he meant that as a first step in taking responsibility for such behaviour, the use of condoms is a move towards 'moralization'. I'm sure the last step of that moralization would involve not being or using a male prostitute at all. In fact, the report says Benedict said that using condoms was not a moral solution.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was rather disgusted in his theory that just because procreation wasn't involved it was ok to use a condom to prevent AIDS. This leaves the belief that if there is a chance of a baby being made wearing a condom is immoral and that it's ok to risk the life of everyone involved, including said baby. The logic of this statement is insane - as is the Pope's theology.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Anselmina and Stetson said.

I can't really see why this opinion of the Pope's is such big news - I see no change of "policy" here. It's all about minimising the bad consequences of immoral actions and beginning a moral improvement.

Whatever else Benedict is, he is not stupid. This nuanced response just emphasises that for me.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jacobsen

seeker
# 14998

 - Posted      Profile for jacobsen   Email jacobsen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just one of the reasons why I left the RC playpen to play elsewhere.

--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.

Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/20/131469670/popes-says-condoms-can-be-used-in-some-cases

Pope Benedict says that allowing male prostitutes to use condoms is the first step in a "more human way of sexuality," and that this is the first step in making male prostitution moral.

Huh? For a smart guy, does he think before he opens his mouth?

He thinks of what is logical within his system of thinking, not of what's politically expedient or palatable to people who don't operate within his own systematic ethos.

The trick to understanding him is to try to think like a doctrinaire Roman Catholic, which can be a painful process if you're not already one. But moral disgust aside, I don't think it's terribly hard.

Gay prostitution is sinful (to him,) but if you're going to do it anyway, it is certainly more humane to try to mitigate the risk of spreading STDs.

I figure it's a step in the right direction, though speaking as a socially liberal-ish protestant, I probably would. Though I wonder why the phrase "male prostitutes" was chosen.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He didn't say that the fact that contraception wasn't involved is what made it okay. He said the fact that it's a first step towards something more moral, that may make it okay:

quote:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,'' Benedict said.
Note the "may be" and "perhaps" and "can be." It's not a fully defined position. He was responding thoughtfully to a thoughtful question in an interview. And he wasn't stating it as something that might be universally applicable, but rather something that might apply "in the case of some individuals."

In Orthodoxy, that's how we approach a lot of things. There are broad general rules, but with that, we have the principal of economia -- how do we apply those rules in the case of this particular individual? What is best for their salvation? It's messy, but I think it works.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Though I wonder why the phrase "male prostitutes" was chosen.

I am guessing as male prostitutes may be in a penetrative role and have more of a volition because it is their willy.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recommend this rather good and thorough little report on the topic on the Catholic Herald website, which ends:
quote:
Leading Vatican observer John Allen commented: “Pope Benedict XVI has signaled that in some limited cases, where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease rather than to prevent pregnancy, the use of condoms might be morally justified.

While that position is hardly new, in the sense that a large number of Catholic theologians and even a special Vatican commission requested by Benedict XVI have endorsed it, this is the first time the pope himself has publicly espoused such a view.

The comments do not yet rise to the level of official Church teaching, but they do suggest that Benedict might be open to such a development.”

I think the key word here is "development": there is nothing here that is not entirely consonant with the teachings of, for example, Humanae vitae.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930

 - Posted      Profile for Orlando098   Email Orlando098   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As gay sex can't result in any procreation I guess there is no reason to consider gay men using condoms are doing an additional sinful thing due to the condoms, from an RCC POV. Has the Pope not previously claimed that condoms have holes in them and are useless for preventing STDs though? Seems like he is contradicting himself then if he says it may be a humane action to use them.
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orlando098 asked
quote:
Has the Pope not previously claimed that condoms have holes in them and are useless for preventing STDs though?
Wasn't that a Cardinal somebody-or-other rather than BXVI himself?

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930

 - Posted      Profile for Orlando098   Email Orlando098   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I guess so; too controversial for the Pope to have said it I guess. But then if he's admitting they help stop disease, then that doesn't seem helpful to his usual argument that people should not use them..

[ 20. November 2010, 22:36: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]

Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Oh, I guess so; too controversial for the Pope to have said it I guess. But then if he's admitting they help stop disease, then that doesn't seem helpful to his usual argument that people should not use them..

The disease isn't the problem. The contraception is the problem. I suspect if there were some magical way to prevent disease without preventing conception, that might be the ticket.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was Cardinal Trujillo in 2003. He was mistaken, and he shouldn't have clouded the waters with misleading misconceptions, but his broader concern was that as condoms frequently fail in other ways (breaking, slipping off, etc.)they should not be relied upon as a fail-safe as this could raise confidence to a level of recklessness. This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.

[x-p'd with Bulldog. Disease is very much the problem, but the Pope denies that reliance on condoms are the moral solution to that problem. Absent moral sexual behaviour, he speculates that they may alleviate the moral harm that would otherwise be compounded by disregard for the other's health.]

[ 20. November 2010, 22:48: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It was Cardinal Trujillo in 2003. He was mistaken, and he shouldn't have clouded the waters with misleading misconceptions, but his broader concern was that as condoms frequently fail in other ways (breaking, slipping off, etc.)they should not be relied upon as a fail-safe as this could raise confidence to a level of recklessness. This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.

[x-p'd with Bulldog. Disease is very much the problem, but the Pope denies that reliance on condoms are the moral solution to that problem. Absent moral sexual behaviour, he speculates that they may alleviate the moral harm that would otherwise be compounded by disregard for the other's health.]

I think the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholics have a major moral distinction that confuses the conversation somewhat.

Condoms are a moral solution because, practically, they reduce the risk of STD's without having to actually change people's sexual behavior. It's a lot harder, so the case goes, to prevent people from being promiscuous, so promoting condoms is more moral because it's more likely to work.

Practically, the argument goes, if condoms are suppressed, then people will have promiscuous sex anyway, with the added detriment of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.

Though I'll grant that the Pope is trying to deal with the disease, albeit by a less efficient means that is likely result in a higher infection rate. This perceived consequence makes it hard for some to believe that he's really fundamentally concerned with the disease rather than the morality of "don't have extra-marital sex," as this morality has proven to be less than effective at preventing the spread of STDs.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right. Which is why saying what he has now could be seen as a move in the direction of a welcome clarification of Catholic doctrine: don't rely on condoms to protect you from disease when intention is contraceptive and/or you should already be abstaining; but if you indulge in immoral sexual practices, you should take precautionary measures to minimise the moral offence being compounded by passing on lethal infections.

I see no contradiction between this latest speculation and his previous statements on condoms.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842

 - Posted      Profile for teddybear   Author's homepage   Email teddybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I want to know is if this is a get out of hell free card for those who used condoms in the past and were sent to hell for it? <<where oh where is a tongue in cheek smiley???>>

--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/

Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930

 - Posted      Profile for Orlando098   Email Orlando098   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bit like the "get out of Limbo" clause when he abolished it a few years back?
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.''
I can't help but notice that this first step is motivated by a desire to save the lives of men. For thousands of years countless Catholic women have died because they weren't allowed to use birth control even if they know it would be fatal if they got pregnant. Today, in Africa, women are dying because their husbands bring the Aids virus home to them. All this has been okay with the church, but now there's this concern for male prostitutes. To me it's just another example of how the Catholic church values the lives of men more than women.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.

Three points:

Firstly: yes, well it has to seem that way for you, doesn't it? If you accept the magisterium then all you can do is go with that. I'm honestly not being snitty (well, not excessively) but what does your opinion signify in a context dominated by pontifical opinion of what one should think?

Secondly: why should the Pope (if he is a caring pastor?) only be concerned with non-procreative sex? Look at, for example, these stats, and weep.

Thirdly: as a partially ironic response: a pox on the Pope's reasonableness! Without privileging either, tradition (the pontifical weapon of choice) is obviously NOT the same as reason. Sometimes they at least connect - but this time?... we have a choice.

Choose life.

[ETA: what Twilight said]

[ 20. November 2010, 23:13: Message edited by: Cadfael ]

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Bit like the "get out of Limbo" clause when he abolished it a few years back?

There was nothing to "abolish" - it was only ever a theological speculation with no bindingness whatsoever.

Twilight, he was speaking off the cuff and was admittedly only giving one example. Mutatis mutandi, what he said could apply between men and women. I can think of a possible double-effect argument that might work in that case. [It would depend very much on the good of maintining the conjugal state outweighing the harm of contracepting and the continued (if diminished) risk of disease.]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.

Firstly: yes, well it has to seem that way for you, doesn't it? If you accept the magisterium then all you can do is go with that. I'm honestly not being snitty (well, not excessively) but what does your opinion signify in a context dominated by pontifical opinion of what one should think?
Firstly, my opinion as a rational interlocutor counts for every bit as much as yours, buster. Especially when my arguments are rational and not just, "It is true cos teh Pope sez."

Second, the Pope's speculations on matters of morals if not formulated as such are not part of the magisterium.

Truly, the argument that Catholics check their brains at the church door and so can be ignored when commenting on Catholic issues does you no credit and will do you no favours. I defend my faith because it is rationally defensible and seems right to me.

[ 20. November 2010, 23:29: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.

Firstly: yes, well it has to seem that way for you, doesn't it? If you accept the magisterium then all you can do is go with that. I'm honestly not being snitty (well, not excessively) but what does your opinion signify in a context dominated by pontifical opinion of what one should think?
Firstly, my opinion as a rational interlocutor counts for every bit as much as yours, buster. Especially when my arguments are rational and not just, "It is true cos teh Pope sez."

Second, the Pope's speculations on matters of morals if not formulated as such are not part of the magisterium.

Truly, the argument that Catholics check their brains at the church door and so can be ignored when commenting on Catholic issues does you no credit and will do you no favours. I defend my faith because it is rationally defensible and seems right to me.

Well, that would be wonderfully proved by addressing the other points in my post. Go for it "buster"!
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since you asked so nicely...
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Secondly: why should the Pope (if he is a caring pastor?) only be concerned with non-procreative sex? Look at, for example, these stats, and weep.

Thirdly: as a partially ironic response: a pox on the Pope's reasonableness! Without privileging either, tradition (the pontifical weapon of choice) is obviously NOT the same as reason. Sometimes they at least connect - but this time?... we have a choice.

2. Who said that he is? One spontaneous example given in a biographical interview can hardly be considered a full account of the Pope's position in the field of sexual ethics. Brandishing statistics in people's faces is also not a good substitute for rational debate.

3. This is scarcely calculated to receive a reasoned response, Cadfael - I'm not even sure what you mean. If you are drawing a dichotomy between tradition and reason you are way off mark.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure this conversation is really being dominated by the pontiff's views, as the majority of the posters here aren't Catholic.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Pope's speculation unless drastically expanded has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic position on condoms being used for contraception. What he said was that male prostitutes using condoms might be a step towards their behavior becoming moral because it might mean they are at least taking partial responsibility for their actions. Presumably, the next steps would be not being a prostitute followed by abstaining from all sexual relations outside of marriage. Perhaps, as Chesterbelloc proposed, this line of thinking might eventually apply to contraception. I just can't see it.

Blaming AIDS in South Africa on the position of the Roman Catholic Church is absurd. Less than 10% of the population is Roman Catholic. South Africans have elected officials who have their head in the sand and themselves engage in irresponsible sexual behavior.

Besides, why would a person accept what the Roman Catholic Church says about condoms but ignore what the Church says about sex outside of marriage? I understand that AIDS is spread by rape. Do we have Roman Catholic rapists who are going to ignore what the church teaches about rape but insist on not wearing a condom because of what it teaches about contraception? AIDS is spread by marital infidelity. So, a Roman Catholic husband ignores what the Pope teaches about infidelity but for some reason accepts what the Pope says about condoms. Perhaps, a Roman Catholic wife doesn't want her husband wearing a condom because she doesn't believe in contraception. In that case, it would require a major change in church teaching for a condom to make the situation safer. A devout Roman Catholic would accept the Church's teaching that sexual intercourse is primarily for the purpose of reproduction. She, being married and in a monogamous relationship, would assume that children should be the result of sexual intercourse and not want her husband to use a condom. So, a modest change in the teaching of the Church regarding the use of condoms for disease prevention would only help Roman Catholic women married to men honest about their sexual infidelity and the possibility that they might have a sexually transmitted disease. My guess is that is a drop in the bucket.

That said, I agree vehemently disagree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception. It really is based a rather limited view of the role of sex in marriage as well as an extreme view of abortion. It's shortsightedness on this issue affects or has the potential to affect the health of millions of faithful Roman Catholic women all over the world. Doing logical contortions to allow the use of condoms for disease prevention but not for contraception will do nothing to aid those millions of women trying to be faithful to the teaching of their Church.

--------------------
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
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Since you asked so nicely...
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Secondly: why should the Pope (if he is a caring pastor?) only be concerned with non-procreative sex? Look at, for example, these stats, and weep.

Thirdly: as a partially ironic response: a pox on the Pope's reasonableness! Without privileging either, tradition (the pontifical weapon of choice) is obviously NOT the same as reason. Sometimes they at least connect - but this time?... we have a choice.

2. Who said that he is? One spontaneous example given in a biographical interview can hardly be considered a full account of the Pope's position in the field of sexual ethics. Brandishing statistics in people's faces is also not a good substitute for rational debate.

3. This is scarcely calculated to receive a reasoned response, Cadfael - I'm not even sure what you mean. If you are drawing a dichotomy between tradition and reason you are way off mark.

Your respone to point 2 says nothing more than you don't like, don't understand, or can't be bothered to engage with what the data might mean.

Your response to point 3 merely suggests that epistemology is a closed book for you - which is a terrible shame.

I do hope that more gifted educators than I will now step in...

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The statistics you gave are irrelevant. If you think they apply, perhaps you would like to share that with the rest of us.

--------------------
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
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The statistics you gave are irrelevant. If you think they apply, perhaps you would like to share that with the rest of us.

That argument cuts both ways - if it's so obvious to you, tell us all why you think the stats are irrelevant. Your post suggests that you already know why, so go ahead - educate us.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I did. See my first post.

--------------------
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
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I did. See my first post.

I saw, and see, nothing in that post that addresses the specific characteristics of the appallingly sad situation indicated in the SA statistics to which I linked.

Can you therefore be more specific (in particular, address the specific societal trends and characteristics of the situation) in a further response? At this time (maybe I am too dense?) I honestly don't get how your intervention addressed the specific example and the questions it raises...

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although I have not read the Pope's response carefully, it seems in line with the old "manualist" tradition of holding that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to counsel the lesser evil under the species of good, i.e. to prevent a greater evil when the person being counseled is bound and determined to commit the greater evil and there is no other way to avoid the greater evil. The reason why I think this is that the Pope talks about making judgments based on individual cases rather than on generalities, much less advocating condom distribution schemes and whatnot.

The entire discussion itself has little to do with contraceptive intent, so the entire discussion doesn't affect the church's teaching on contraception as such, any more than permitting nuns in danger of rape in Biafra or Bosnia to take contraceptive pill in self-defense, something which the Church has recognized as morally legitimate since the time of Paul VI. Yet, on this thread as will be elsewhere, rather than discuss the merits, the discussion will simply be an occasion for Catholophobes to vent their spleen and grind their axes, finding yet another excuse to denounce the "Nazi Pope" they luuuuuuv to hate.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, a Roman Catholic husband ignores what the Pope teaches about infidelity but for some reason accepts what the Pope says about condoms.

I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I did. See my first post.

I saw, and see, nothing in that post that addresses the specific characteristics of the appallingly sad situation indicated in the SA statistics to which I linked.

Can you therefore be more specific (in particular, address the specific societal trends and characteristics of the situation) in a further response? At this time (maybe I am too dense?) I honestly don't get how your intervention addressed the specific example and the questions it raises...

OK...

The position of the Pope on condoms has damn all to do with AIDS in South Africa. Less than 10% of South Africans are Roman Catholics. If all the Roman Catholics in South Africa had AIDS, it would account for less than a third of AIDS cases in South Africa. So, whatever the cause of the high AIDS numbers in South Africa it has next to nothing to do with the Pope being an uncaring pastor. As I suggested, it probably has more to do with denial of the problem and in some cases even supporting the behavior that leads to the problem by the last two leaders of South Africa.

quote:
orginally posted by Josephine:
I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.


I don't either. However, I don't see how the Pope is to blame for bad, in the case of AIDS, or unfortunate, in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, things that happen because Roman Catholics ignore half of what he says.

--------------------
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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
orginally posted by Josephine:
I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.


I don't either. However, I don't see how the Pope is to blame for bad, in the case of AIDS, or unfortunate, in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, things that happen because Roman Catholics ignore half of what he says.
I don't think (and didn't say, nor mean to imply) that the Pope is to blame for my friend's foolishness. If it's the case that there are a significant number of Catholics who are foolish in the same way, it might, perhaps, point to a widespread problem in catechesis. But it's more likely that she was simply ignoring the parts of the church's teaching that she particularly didn't want to hear. People do that. It's not the Pope's fault.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The statistics you gave are irrelevant. If you think they apply, perhaps you would like to share that with the rest of us.

That argument cuts both ways - if it's so obvious to you, tell us all why you think the stats are irrelevant. Your post suggests that you already know why, so go ahead - educate us.
Statistics can be a dangerous thing, particulalrly when you wield them in a partial manner as a weapon to back up an argument.

Beeswax Altar has given a response to your challenge - but there is more. In Africa, the prevalence of AIDS is highest in countries where there is a lower Catholic presence and lower where there is a Catholic majority in the population. The exception is Lesotho, which is of course landlocked by South Africa. In South Africa there has for many years been a massive campaign to condomise, with little effect on the AIDS rate. Added to that the complicating factors of a bizarre government approach to the problem, and a suspicion articulated by some that it was a white colonialist plot to prevent black people from reproducing, and you have very murky waters. And then add into the mix the fact that some South African RC bishops have advocated the use of condoms to prevent death and the statistics just do not play the game you are wanting them to play.

As has been noted, there is a longstanding debate among RC moral theologians about condoms being used to prevent death as opposed to being used to prevent life. The latter is artificial contraception, the former is not.

[ 21. November 2010, 07:57: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[QBStatistics can be a dangerous thing, particulalrly when you wield them in a partial manner as a weapon to back up an argument. [/QB]

That's one of the main things statistics are for, backing up arguments. If you aren't proposing to do anything about them, they're just mildly interesting like the reams and reams of statistics that baseball anoraks compile.

Having thus established that using statistics to back up an argument isn't a problem, what then is this "partial manner" of which you speak?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pretty much what almost everyone has posted since Cadfael, really. Especially B.A.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Having thus established that using statistics to back up an argument isn't a problem, what then is this "partial manner" of which you speak?

I can't quite understand your problem with what TT said.

The issue TT seems to have been addressing is the one B.A. has been pointing out, and which I referred to in my brief response to Cafael up-page: Cadfael didn't use these statistics to back up his argument - he just brandished them any without further comment, assuming that they would speak for themselves. There was no argument. Whilst they may speak for themselves, they certainly don't speak for Cadfael attempt to make them condemn the Pope's approach - as TT and B.A. have clearly pointed out.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps, as Chesterbelloc proposed, this line of thinking might eventually apply to contraception. I just can't see it.

I think I should clarify what I meant, since it was perhaps a bit misleading.

I entirely agree that the use of condoms with contraceptive intent is never going to be condoned by the Church. But the example I am thinking of where the health of women could be legitimately taken into account without changing an iota of existing teaching would be a married man visiting a female prostitute who was already contracepted up to the eyeballs. In this case, the husband's use of a condom in order not to contract a disease which he then passes on to his wife is in no way contraceptive in intent and seems a positive moral duty with which he burdens himself by committing adultery in this way.

As in all other matters, I could be wrong here. But this is at any rate what I was thinking of.

[ 21. November 2010, 08:43: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about a husband and wife using a condom when either knows they have AIDS?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's immoral. Or not moral. Unless it's a Wednesday.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147

 - Posted      Profile for sebby   Email sebby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course nothing ever changes it is just 'elucidated further'.

Given the embarrassment of Humanae Vitae with its faulty reasoning in confusing primary and secondary moral recepts in St Thomas Aquinas, BXVII's 'elucidation' should be welcome.

If any pope can get away with loosening things up as it were, it will be this one. In the same way that Nixon got away with some reforms in the US because of his conservative reputation.

--------------------
sebhyatt

Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps, as Chesterbelloc proposed, this line of thinking might eventually apply to contraception. I just can't see it.

I think I should clarify what I meant, since it was perhaps a bit misleading.

I entirely agree that the use of condoms with contraceptive intent is never going to be condoned by the Church. But the example I am thinking of where the health of women could be legitimately taken into account without changing an iota of existing teaching would be a married man visiting a female prostitute who was already contracepted up to the eyeballs. In this case, the husband's use of a condom in order not to contract a disease which he then passes on to his wife is in no way contraceptive in intent and seems a positive moral duty with which he burdens himself by committing adultery in this way.

As in all other matters, I could be wrong here. But this is at any rate what I was thinking of.

I think it's the sort of thing Benedict is thinking of as well: in the situation where the whole act of intercourse is utterly immoral anyway, use of a condom to reduce some of its evil effects may be indicative of a recognition that there is more to it than a physical transaction, and that it may have consequences and meanings beyond the physical act itself.

That recognition may lead to the development of a greater moral sense, which would the see both the repugnance of treating sex as a transaction, and eventually would also see the repugnance of contraception in married intercourse.

(Benedict carefully uses the case of a male prostitute to avoid any possibility of the act being open to life; your example is close, but of course no contraceptive is 100% effective so he wouldn't want to leave that loophole open to misuse).

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
....... eventually would also see the repugnance of contraception in married intercourse.


What is the basis for this repugnance?

I completely fail to see any problem, unless you are keen to keep your women busy rearing children.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
....... eventually would also see the repugnance of contraception in married intercourse.


What is the basis for this repugnance?
That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.

That's the short version. For the long version, read John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

[ 21. November 2010, 13:55: Message edited by: coniunx ]

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.


And all other sexuality is sinful?

How about when our families are complete?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure this conversation is really being dominated by the pontiff's views, as the majority of the posters here aren't Catholic.

Well, ex-cuuuuze me! [Big Grin] I have it on good authority that my humble contribution was bang on the button!

Just because we don't play in your orchestra don't mean we can't read the music!! [Razz]

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about when our families are complete?

Do you mean: is one allowed to contracept from the point when one has as many kids as one wants; or, is it permitted to carry on having a sexual relationship after one is no longer able to bear children?

The Catholic answer to the first question is no, to the second yes.

[P.S. Preach it, Anselmina! [Big Grin] ]

[ 21. November 2010, 15:50: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One wonders what explanation the RC establishment has for the decline of 10 child families.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools