throdgrain
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,197
Very likely right too Mabs.
as an aside, i was commenting on the church in general, not the AIDS thing per se
and this is going to sound harsh, but there we go :
if the third world was fixed by tomorrow afternoon, there would not be enough petrol for cars, food for people, jobs, etc, to keep everyone in the luxury they are accustomed to. so it is in the interests of "the west" for people in places like africa to go on dying of nasty diseases, cos it stops us having to compete with them . so its not likely that this will ever be fixed. if it wasnt the catholic church,it would be Nestle or someone else
On the other hand the countries with the highest number of catholics also appear to be the one with the lowest number of HIV positive people, so the issue isn't that clear-cut.Strange that new AIDS infections are falling massively where programs that challenge the catholic churches views have been put into place then eh?
That's not the church's message. I know of a controversy a while ago after the pope said that prevention programmes which focus solely on condom distribution don't help and may increase the problem, but that's hardly the same thing as saying 'condoms cause AIDS'. However: if anyone were to make the claim that condoms cause AIDs, that would obviously be wrong (scientifically and moral).Either way noblok - how is the church's message that condoms cause AIDS "positive"?
Not really, I think the church has made mistakes in the past and still makes mistakes (the recent comparison of atheism with nazism was pretty bad). I also know the pope is not infallible.Another christian who refuses to believe that his church can do any bad, perchance?
I do believe that if you're not sticking to the other rules regarding sex, you might as well use a condom too.
I'm not sure, because as I've said: I think there are other reasons why men don't want to use a condom and that they use the standpoint of the church only as an excuse to make it more acceptable. It would probably have an effect, but I'm unsure whether it would be positive or negative for HIV infections (because condoms are far too often used incorrectly and people could make of this statement that 'screwing around isn't that bad').Question: Do you honestly think that if the church reversed its position on condoms and said "no sex before marriage, but practice safe sex" there would be no reduction in AIDS?
Yes, I do. The reason for this is that I understand why the church would choose not to speak of how to perform certain immoral acts. This is not the function of the pope: he focuses on the ideals. The more pragmatic ethics is a pastoral affair, a matter for priests who are faced with concrete cases. (This does mean that in most cases I'd think a priest should give the advise you prescribed: "no sex before marriage, but practice safe sex.")If you think there would be, do you think it's ethically sound for them to continue to come out against condoms*?
I'm not entirely sure on the biblical aspects of the whole contraception thing, so I'd just like to make a more general point: catholicism is about more than the bible. It's protestantism which focuses on sola scriptura. For catholicism the tradition is also very important.
The attitude towards condoms is because of the traditional view that the strong connection between children and sex is valuable and must be preserved. This can also be seen in the fact that you can't marry for the church if you don't want children. This connection doesn't mean that you can only have sex for the express purpose of having kids (natural family planning is accepted), but condoms are simply a step too far for the catholic church.That's all well and good but Catholicism pre-dates rubbers, if not birth control. The attitude to condoms must have come in later and as such it's reasonable to attack it as a ridiculous and dangerous stance given the current situation in parts of Africa.
'screwing around isn't that bad'
(natural family planning is accepted), but condoms are simply a step too far for the catholic church.
(And as I said: I'm not convinced it's that ridiculous and dangerous a stance.)
Because condoms are seen as a more active intervention. It actively stops the reproduction which would otherwise have happened. This isn't (so much) the case with natural family planning. I know you could argue that this is only a gradual difference, but it's where the church draws the line.So why is "natural family planning" accept and not condoms, and why is that not a ridiculous and dangerous stance? Care to elaborate on your position?
A recent trade union report said a child was being raped in South Africa every three minutes with the vast majority of those cases going unreported.
I must add though that the pope probably doesn't approach this issue with the best communicative strategy. I think it would be wiser to focus more on the positive value: sex in a married relationship, than on the negative: condemnation of condoms. Here is a shared responsibility between pope and media, though, because when the pope says "We think the approach of the HIV problem can't be solved without a thorough look at sexual behaviour (meaning prositution, premartial sex, etc.)," the papers would write "Pope says condoms are not the answer."
I don't think anyone is suggesting that AIDS would simply cease to be if the pope said "rubber up folks!" just that cases would potentially drop.
Speaking of child abuse in SA - if you want to watch one of the most painful/uplifting/distressing/horrific/powerful documentaries in quite some time - check out "Rough Aunties". It's about a group that looks after kids who've suffered abuse and tries to prosecute the offenders. Pretty shocking stuff.
The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.Why? Where's the moral argument that sex in a married relationship is more acceptable than outside marriage?
Lots of stuff
The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.
Another argument is based on the link with reproduction. In a catholic view having sex with someone means that in principle you're prepared to have children with them. This asks some kind of long-term commitment to one another, as you'll have to raise your children together.
The argument is that there's a certain value in sharing this kind of intimacy with only one person. Marriage is the promise of this exclusivity forever. I believe the idea is that this intimacy becomes somewhat less intimate in a way when it's experienced with many different people.
Another argument is based on the link with reproduction. In a catholic view having sex with someone means that in principle you're prepared to have children with them. This asks some kind of long-term commitment to one another, as you'll have to raise your children together.
Apparently it's bullshit for you, but I also know of some people - not all catholics - who regret having had sex with a certain partner in their past. Not because they were coerced, but because the relationship didn't last. Some people don't like the idea that they have given their virginity to someone who they now no longer love. Even though this is an artificial construction, it doesn't change that some people do feel this way.For a start, I've had a few long term relationships (I'm a serial monogamist) and I've been increasingly intimate with each subsequent partner. I used to feel (in my christian past) the same way - but experience has taught me that that christian ideal is bullshit.
I find this a hard one, but as you'd really like me to answer it, I'll try to formulate an answer. So: I think that ideally in any sexual relationship there's at least an openness for children. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people should want children right now, but at least that they don't in principle object it.Also, I've never wanted kids. Ever. Not sure that I ever will. Am I supposed to never have sex because of this? << I'd really like you to answer this noblok.
We had much the same conversation on the subject of capital punishment - people just couldnt accept that there are people who will kill for rage, or just because they dont care, and will feel little remorse and barely any guilt at all. They must be ill! etc etc.
Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children.
Of course it's a value judgement, you asked me for a moral argument. I can't do that without appealing to values. I also disagree that it has nothing to do with God and the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the ten commandments. It makes sense to deduce from this that exclusivity is valuable for sexuality. Also, as I've said to nath: Catholicism is about more than just the Bible.A value judgement (and a pretty poor one) that has nothing to do with God or the Bible.
I don't think it's wrong. You may not experience it that way, but Catholics do experience an intimate connection between those two things and they feel something is lost if you disconnect them. On your second point: I agree.I know what the argument is, but its flat wrong isn't it? Why should having sex with someone imply you're prepared to have children with them? Its a bizarre argument that's at the root of all catholic-fucked-upness about sex. And secondly, you don't need a piece of paper to have long-term commitment or raise children.
Apparently it's bullshit for you, but I also know of some people - not all catholics - who regret having had sex with a certain partner in their past. Not because they were coerced, but because the relationship didn't last. Some people don't like the idea that they have given their virginity to someone who they now no longer love. Even though this is an artificial construction, it doesn't change that some people do feel this way.
I find this a hard one, but as you'd really like me to answer it, I'll try to formulate an answer. So: I think that ideally in any sexual relationship there's at least an openness for children. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people should want children right now, but at least that they don't in principle object it.
However, that's the ideal. This might not be attainable for everyone. Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children. Here comes in the pragmatical approach of pastoral ethics. I don't know your specific situation well enough to talk about it, but in general I'd say that people can have meaningful sex without wanting children, even if it's not ideal.
A general remark to go with all of this, though: I think it's really counterproductive of Catholics to try and enforce their morals on non-catholics. I think it's better to try and show why Catholics think something is valuable and maybe then someone else might see the same thing. I don't wish to pass judgement over you. To me it only makes sense to explain to someone how they should act according to catholic doctrine if there's a certain openness for it.
Of course it's a value judgement, you asked me for a moral argument. I can't do that without appealing to values. I also disagree that it has nothing to do with God and the Bible. Adultery is condemned in the ten commandments. It makes sense to deduce from this that exclusivity is valuable for sexuality. Also, as I've said to nath: Catholicism is about more than just the Bible.
I don't think it's wrong. You may not experience it that way, but Catholics do experience an intimate connection between those two things and they feel something is lost if you disconnect them. On your second point: I agree.
I'm afraid that's a problem of forum-based-communication in a language which isn't my mother tongue. I can see why you'd think I'm taking the 'holier-than-thou' approach, but I really don't feel holier than anyone. Obviously it's up to you to decide whether you believe this or not.Look at the language you use, "the ideal", "not attainable for everyone". Never has the phrase "holier-than-thou" been more apposite. When in reality, you're displaying unthinking adherence to your religion or a more deep-seated psychological dislike of sex itself. There's nothing morally superior about celibacy.
No, it isn't OK to enforce them on fellow Catholics either. I think it only makes sense to follow moral rules if you really believe they're right. Adhering to rules you don't actually value, just because 'they're the rules' is - in my opinion - meaningless.But its OK for catholics to enforce their morals on other catholics? Catholics who usually had no choice in the matter about being catholic in the first place? Catholics think "something is valuable" because that's what they've been indoctrinated to think.
I realise it doesn't follow from it stricto sensu, but I think it makes sense to interpret it that way (especially considering the writings of Paul).* It's also how it has been interpreted in the tradition for a long time. About the Bible offering a bad set of standards: that's a completely different kettle of fish. You said it had nothing to do with the Bible or God: I simply showed you it has.DaGaffer said:Adultery isn't the same thing as sex outside marriage. Therefore your deduction is in error.