Reverse cowboy?
So, what was the Papal stance before this approval? Was the use of condoms condoned in all but this situation, or not? If not, then it is a reversal.
Pope Reverses Position on Condoms
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
Reverse cowboy?
So, what was the Papal stance before this approval? Was the use of condoms condoned in all but this situation, or not? If not, then it is a reversal.
The two years in my Bachelor of Arts, I studied one of the versions of the Periodic Table of Sex. That was probably the closest I came to studying Chemistry until I went for my BSc. Though I got plenty of anatomy tutorials
And this is where he's not making sense. Are we referring to male prostitutes who are members of the Catholic Church or other male prostitutes? If the former, then you'd think he would have stuck to the abstinence line, and rightfully so. If the latter, well then they're free not to listen to him anyway.
It would be nice if everyone possessed enough common sense to avoid these religious phonies. Unfortunately there are many who take them so seriously they are ready to engage in mass suicide at their command. Sadly, in many parts of the world not using condoms will have exactly that effect.
and, of course, taking the Catholic Church's position of abstention would just create RAMPANT AIDS epidemic.:roll:
Well, if they're so obedient, they won't have extra-marital sex either will they.
Honestly, I can't see this having much of an impact. Those who do obey his decree over not using condoms are likely going to obey his decree concerngin extra-maritcal sex too. And those who don't obey his decree concerning extramaritcal sex are not likely to be so obedient over condoms either. So it really does become a non-issue.
Nobody's suggested any such thing, but there IS a rampant AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa partly because the Church discourages the use of condoms, and has in fact promoted the claim that condoms increase the risk of infection. Really Gerry, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular, but your response to such criticism is usually a drive-by shouting, "Morons! Bigots! Christian bashers!" If that's all you have to contribute, don't bother, no thinking person's going to take that response seriously. The Catholic Church has covered up the rape of children by its priests, and people like you offer the defense "That's not the real church." That's like a burglar claiming in his defense, "Well, you WOULD bring up that particular burglary, that's not really who I am, I'm a nice guy, I send Christmas cards to my family and throw birthday parties for my children... " Like the Church isn't responsible for the behaviour of people acting in its name. Well, it is, and it has a lot to answer for.
I am not a Catholic, so I apologise to any here if I get this incorrect, but I believe Papal infallibility is the concept that certain decrees of His Holiness the Pope cannot be contradicted at a later time by the Catholic Church, even by another infallible decree; that is, that any such teaching of the Pope cannot be considered incorrect. However, not everything that His Holiness says or does is infallible; according to the deliberations of the First Vatican Council, there are five conditions for Papal infallibility to be invoked. (1) The teaching or decree must be made by His Holiness the Pope; (2) the decree or teaching must be made in his capacity as the Pope, the leader of Catholics, and not as a private citizen; (3) His Holiness must be defining something; (4) it must be an issue that relates to morality or faith; and (5) His Holiness must state that the teaching applies to the whole of the Church, or, alternatively, that a breach of that teaching would result in excommunication from the Catholic Church. (You may see Papal infallibility referred to, sometimes, as "teachings ex cathedra.")
There are very few cases in living memory that I can recall, that have invoked Papal infallibility.
I hope you are not advocating sexual abstinence as a solution to the problem. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church can't even get its priests to do that. As a matter of fact, in many countries the policies of the Church have had promoted the spread of STDs. Asking people not to engage in a basic human activity like sex will have as much success as asking them to stop breathing.
The fact of the matter is that along with everything else, God gave us brains. So if you're going to follow dogma, follow dogma. It's usually pretty healthy to follow it, physically speaking. If you have sex only with a spouse, who has sex only with you, all goes well.
But, if you decide that you want to (or have to for that matter) live outside of dogma, that comes with an intellectual responsibility. If you choose to act counter to the church's stance, then for crying out loud, do what you need to, to stay healthy.... ie., if you're going to have sex outside of a committed disease free relationship, fer crying out loud, use condoms! God gave you a brain for a reason, not to sit and watch you die of AIDS.
But, if you decide that you want to (or have to for that matter) live outside of dogma, that comes with an intellectual responsibility. If you choose to act counter to the church's stance, then for crying out loud, do what you need to, to stay healthy.... ie., if you're going to have sex outside of a committed disease free relationship, fer crying out loud, use condoms! God gave you a brain for a reason, not to sit and watch you die of AIDS.
hmm... while I'm not a fan of our current Pope, he is the first to change the way the church looks on condom usage in any way.
I've said it before, and Karrie reiterated it above. The Churches stance on condoms does NOT effect the AIDS epidemic in Africa in a negative way at all. IF people were following the Churches edicts condoms would not be nesasary as they wouldn't be having premarital and extra marital sex. Since they have no problem with breaking those particular "rules" I don't see how they would have a problem "breaking" the condom "rule". Put the blame where it belongs, on the individual. I know that is a problem for some as personal responsibility is a foreign concept and they need someone else to blame.,
Great answer. If you start voicing opinions and condemning (non harmful/illegal)portions of religions you do not belong to it renders hypocritical any future requests not to have someone else's religion pushed on you
Maybe it doesn't effect it, but it does affect it. The Church's official position is that contraception is immoral, women are not good enough to be priests, and suffering is good for you, and it blames the rape of children by its priests on the devil. That's just stupid. The institution is completely out of touch with reality. As an individual you may be a highly moral and righteous person, and in fact I'm sure you are, but the institution itself is morally bankrupt, I have nothing but contempt for it.
