Spain's Catholic Church backs Condoms

[Said1]

hehehehe...It's all good... By the way, the point being made was in reference to the example of the woman from Africa who is being denied the use of condoms because she is Catholic, her husband is HIV positive, whereas she is not. He is insisting upon having sex with her still. Perhaps the Church should be teaching them more about fidelity, that could be said for both sides of the globe.....I am all for any help the Church gives them, however I don't think it needs to be the Church's place to hand out rubbers to people....That woman needs an annulment not a condom....

Why didn't you make you point the way you did above in the first place? You sounded as though you were condemning all of them, instead of those who REFUSE to practice safe sex despite their knowledge of the dangers they are inflicting on others by spreading HIV. You also sounded as though the Catholic church shouldn't be helping period. If that's not what you meant, you certainly came off that way.

 

[greeneyez1029]

Why didn't you make you point the way you did above in the first place? You sounded as though you were condemning all of them, instead of those who REFUSE to practice safe sex despite their knowledge of the dangers they are inflicting on others by spreading HIV. You also sounded as though the Catholic church shouldn't be helping period. If that's not what you meant, you certainly came off that way.

In the first place, I wasn't having the conversation with you initially so therefore you were taking what I said and attacking me instead of just asking me to clarify my position further. And no, I did not say in any of my posts that the Church should not help people with this disease, what I said was that the Catholic Church should not be expected to hand out condoms. That hardly qualifies as denying people help in all ways...Me thinks you read too much into what I was saying...Nato was using this woman's plight as an example of the suffering aids is causing, a condom isn't going to fix this woman's problem with her husband fooling around on her. It wouldn't matter a lick if the Church said "Yep, go ahead and use them", that does not necessarily mean that people are going to use them. They obviously didn't before they contracted AIDS.

 

[Said1]

.

In the first place, I wasn't having the conversation with you initially so therefore you were taking what I said and attacking me instead of just asking me to clarify my position further.

I don't know if you knew this or not, but it's a public message board. If you wanted to keep your opinions free from comment, you should have kept your "conversation" private. Secondly by "attacking you", you could have clarified what you meant instead of using derogatory terms like "FLATBACKER" to get your point across in the first place.

Me thinks you read too much into what I was saying.

First you said:

Church is not there to keep them physically healthy, that's a doctors job, the Church's job is to keep them spiritually healthy

Then you said:

And no, I did not say in any of my posts that the Church should not help people with this disease, what I said was that the Catholic Church should not be expected to hand out condoms. That hardly qualifies as denying people help in all ways...

I don't know, it's a tough call. Me still thinks your full of crap.

Nato was using this woman's plight as an example of the suffering aids is causing, a condom isn't going to fix this woman's problem with her husband fooling around on her. It wouldn't matter a lick if the Church said "Yep, go ahead and use them", that does not necessarily mean that people are going to use them. They obviously didn't before they contracted AIDS.

I've never taken issues with the fact that the Catholic church is not willing to approve the use of condoms or your agreement with that.

 

[greeneyez1029]

.

I don't know if you knew this or not, but it's a public message board. If you wanted to keep your opinions free from comment, you should have kept your "conversation" private. Secondly by "attacking you", you could have clarified what you meant instead of using derogatory terms like "FLATBACKER" to get your point across in the first place.



First you said:


Then you said:


I don't know, it's a tough call. Me still thinks your full of crap.



I've never taken issues with the fact that the Catholic church is not willing to approve the use of condoms or your agreement with that.

I am well aware of the fact that this is a public message board, what you didn't seem to be aware of is that you could ask me a question to clairify something without having to resorting to attacking in the first place...

I wasn't aware I had to be politically correct on this board...You'll forgive me for using the term "flatbacker" on a group of people who have been sexually irresponsible to the point they now have a deadly disease.

I don't see what you are getting at by quoting what I said about the Church not being there for the physical help...All I meant by it is that it is not a free clinic....
Nor should it be expected to function like one. Or be sexually permissive in it's teachings. My stance is simple if you don't like the rules you will have to follow, then don't be a member..But don't jump up and down because the Church refuses to concede to the demands of group who are not looking to curb the sexual activity, just the chances of not contracting the disease..


You may think whatever you want, just as I do...
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one...

Well, at least we agree on your last point. Perhaps we could also agree that just perhaps we both got a little too aggressive??

 

[Said1]

Perhaps we could also agree that just perhaps we both got a little too aggressive??

I don't think so. You're full of shit, and using the fact that you feel attacked to get out of the things you said. That's my take. I'll let Nato pick up from here.

 

[greeneyez1029]

I don't think so. You're full of shit, and using the fact that you feel attacked to get out of the things you said. That's my take. I'll let Nato pick up from here.

You can think whatever you like, nor do I care whether you agree with what I said or not...Yes, I am still waiting for Nato to tell me why he thinks the Church should feel compelled to hand out condoms to people???? Nato's post covered everything from the abuse scandal to what the Catholics were doing during the war...NONE of these things make a valid arguement in why the Church should allow this. And that is what I was questioning...I was already aware of the fact that the Church works to help people with this disease e.g. financially, community support, etc..

Oh and just so you know, my best friend died of Aids 2 years ago. And I have another friend who is dying of it now. Both from fooling around too much unprotected..And no, they weren't pissy with the Church for not handing out rubbers to them...So don't give me your self rightous crap about my insensitivity, it's more a reality than anything else. No point in sugar coating what that disease does, and to say that condoms is the answer all for it is lunacy at it's best.

I found Nato's post to be more of an attack on the Church for the sake of attacking than it was for the purpose of making people aware of the AIDS crisis in Africa...Who knows I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not.

 

[Said1]

You can think whatever you like, nor do I care whether you agree with what I said or not...Yes, I am still waiting for Nato to tell me why he thinks the Church should feel compelled to hand out condoms to people???? Nato's post covered everything from the abuse scandal to what the Catholics were doing during the war...NONE of these things make a valid arguement in why the Church should allow this. And that is what I was questioning...I was already aware of the fact that the Church works to help people with this disease e.g. financially, community support, etc......

Oh and just so you know, my best friend died of Aids 2 years ago. And I have another friend who is dying of it now. Both from fooling around too much unprotected..And no, they weren't pissy with the Church for not handing out rubbers to them...So don't give me your self rightous crap about my insensitivity, it's more a reality than anything else. No point in sugar coating what that disease does, and to say that condoms is the answer all for it is lunacy at it's best.

I found Nato's post to be more of an attack on the Church for the sake of attacking than it was for the purpose of making people aware of the AIDS crisis in Africa...Who knows I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not.

Too bad about your friends, but YOUR transparent, and self-righteous attitude still come through loud and clear. Straight talk, back track and cry about being attacked all you want, your original posts speak for themselves. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Actually, I think your just mad, but you'll get over it.

 

[greeneyez1029]

Too bad about your friends, but YOUR transparent, and self-righteous attitude still come through loud and clear. Straight talk, back track and cry about being attacked all you want, your original posts speak for themselves. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Actually, I think your just mad, but you'll get over it.

Yes it is too bad for them..It's got nothing to do with self righteousness, what it's got to do with is self responsibility and left getting pissed off because the Church will not bend to what they want when it comes to sexual permissiveness...I haven't back tracked at all, you asked me to elaborate on my statements and I did, if it wasn't to your satisfaction, that isn't my problem. I think you're just mad, but you'll get over it right?

 

[Said1]

Yes it is too bad for them..It's got nothing to do with self righteousness, what it's got to do with is self responsibility and left getting pissed off because the Church will not bend to what they want when it comes to sexual permissiveness...I haven't back tracked at all, you asked me to elaborate on my statements and I did, if it wasn't to your satisfaction, that isn't my problem. I think you're just mad, but you'll get over it right?

Sure, if you say so.

 

[greeneyez1029]

Sure, if you say so.

Look, at the end of the day, the problem with AIDS in Africa now is due to no more than the husbands are screwing around on the wives, the wives are being infected and it's being passed to the children through pregnancy. How will the Church handing out condoms combat these problems? It won't. These problems run much deeper than just handing out a rubber and "voila" the problem is solved. Nato is correct when he described how the women are treated there, it's atrocious. All the Church can do is care and give comfort these people, but they certainly can't condone these behaviours that are leading to the necessity of condoms for disease protection instead of birth control. Human rights is something that is sorely lacking in that country and the women and children are dying because of it. Do you or Nato really think simply handing out a condom is going to solve all these issues? I know I don't.

 

[Said1]

Look, at the end of the day, the problem with AIDS in Africa now is due to no more than the husbands are screwing around on the wives, the wives are being infected and it's being passed to the children through pregnancy. How will the Church handing out condoms combat these problems? It won't. These problems run much deeper than just handing out a rubber and "voila" the problem is solved. Nato is correct when he described how the women are treated there, it's atrocious. All the Church can do is care and give comfort these people, but they certainly can't condone these behaviours that are leading to the necessity of condoms for disease protection instead of birth control. Human rights is something that is sorely lacking in that country and the women and children are dying because of it. Do you or Nato really think simply handing out a condom is going to solve all these issues? I know I don't.

Did I say anything contrary to what you posted above? I think you will find Nato feels condoms aren't the only answer either.

And why are you still explaining yourself anyway?

 

[IControlThePast]

I have found that when it comes to human instinct vs. church, the church can't win all the time. 1/3 of Puritan women were even pregnant before their marriage. Assuming everyone will stop premarital sex is a bit idealist. What is it, like 68% of graduating high school seniors have had sex? The effectiveness of telling someone to abstain is about 30%. The effectiveness of using condoms is about 90%. Allowing people in the church to use birth control might help some here. It would reduce the amount of those Catholic Welfare Moms with 10 kids that we have to send tax dollars to.

 

[MissileMan]

You know what Missile Man, it is VERY apparrent that you cannot have a logical discussion regarding faith church or otherwise as you OBVIOUSLY have a deep seeded hatred of all that is religion, specifically Christian, and or Catholic which renders you incapable of having anything worthy to say on the topic. Why don't you just get over yourself!!

Whether you agree with it or not, my statement hit the common sense bullseye...but perhaps you can provide a different, logical reason for the ban on birth control.

 

[Avatar4321]

Whether you agree with it or not, my statement hit the common sense bullseye...but perhaps you can provide a different, logical reason for the ban on birth control.

Perhaps because they are trying to teach people to be responsible the only real responsible way by being chaste before marriage and faithful afterwards. Maybe because they dont believe in giving people a false sense of security. maybe because there is nothing wrong with having children and parents should be responsible for the children they are blessed with instead of selfishly thinking of only themselves.

The problem with your logic is that having children doesnt insure that those children remain catholic. not in modern society when religions can be changed very easily.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

a- the husband would either beat the wife or cast her out in 99% of the cases, with the church taking the husband's side, not the wive's.
b- at least if the church would say the woman had the right to demand he wear a rubber, at least it would be supporting her in her struggle for something close to equal rights. there will always be adultery, but there doesn't always have to be AIDS.

And if the Church supports rubbers, it appears to be supporting adultery. If there were no adultery, there would be no need for rubbers. The Church does not support the man committing adultery nor beating his wife.

A few????? Right there I know you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Nearly 11,000 cases, according to the church itself, which is probably low-balling it. Its so fitting the Catholic Church is going to go out of business because of this and all the rightful lawsuits heading its way. .

4% of the priests? That leaves 96% good priests. However, to listen to the biased anti-Christian liberal media frenzy every single priest in the Catholic Church is a homosexual pedophile.

About good behavior really? Its nice to know the same priests who moralize about good behavior were helping to cover up the disgusting behavior of their brother priests.

Like I said before, those priests are a small minority. Stop attacking the whole Church for the actions of a few.

If the Church took the woman's side in the argument, told the man he should (a) stop cheating and (b) wear a condom until he can be tested (and oh by the way, AIDS doesn't show up in all cases until up to 7 years after infection), maybe the man would listen to reason, and at least the church would be taking the right side, standing up for the wives and the children.

Who says the Church is not taking the side of the woman in such a situation? There also is nothing stopping the woman from telling her husband to a) stop cheating and b) get tested before she has sex with him again. This would be an excellent start from a physical standpoint. From an emotional standpoint, however, there is a lot more to be done. A priest, being a spiritual healer (not a medical one) can help the most in assisting them in improving the marriage from the standpoint of spirituality.

btw, another thing. what kind of moral church refuses to realize that birth control is a neccessity for many in the world, especially husbands and wives who already have enough kids and don't want anymore, but don't want to give up the most enjoyable experience in life (sex with love)?

Because the act of love IS connected with procreation. This is exactly what the homosexual lobby is trying to separate. If they can separate procreation from sex, then the argument of marriage of two people who have whatever kind of kinky sex makes a lot more sense. For them Creation of a child should be handled in a kinky test tube with a biological parent picked from a kinky advertisement. However, Christians believe marriage is not only love and sex between a man and a woman but also the God-connected act of proCreation.

Fuck the Vatican, Fuck the Pope, Fuck the people who bitch about this and don't realize the fact that lives are on the line everyday in Africa and around the world with AIDS, and that condoms, in addition to education (about abstinence and birth control), treatment and leadership from high up, save lives.

You're playing the angry blame game. Just how many boxes of condoms does it take to give them enough condoms over there? Any sensible person who is having adulterous sex should be wearing a condom. If he didn't get permission from the Church to have adulterous sex, he obviously doesn't need permission to wear a condom either! And if he thinks he is at risk then he also knows he should not put his wife at risk either. He should : 1) not have sex with her 2)get a test and 3) wear a condom with his wife just like he would with his adulterous girlfriend. I doubt this guy listens to anything the Church says anyway, so why bitch at the Church?

By refusing to admit condoms can save lives in places like Africa, you're condemning people to die. There is no excuse for that kind of ignorance.

There is no reason that the medical people and the political people can't promote condoms for risky sexual behavior.

Many within the Church favor the use of a condom in certain cases: At a forum sponsored this past summer by the AIDS Society of the Philippines, Jesuit James Keenan, a theologian at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, MA, said it is “morally acceptable” for sexual partners to use condoms to prevent HIV infection because of the principle of “lesser evil.” Keenan said, “Condoms for HIV are the same [as] condoms for contraception. Here we can see the principle of double effect. If a husband violates his marital vows and sleeps with other women he must make sure that he does not transmit the virus to his wife, else he would be violating the principle of justice. This is where the principle of lesser evil comes in.”55 http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/lesserEvil.htm

BTW, I don't think American school students should be getting condoms from school nurses and teachers. In the end though, by trying to link this with American students and kids, you're making a dreadful, deadly misjudgement.

No, the real poor judgement comes initially from those who engage in risky premarital or adulterous sex. If they actually followed the teachings of the Church they wouldn't be in this pickle in the first place.

Why is it you attack just the Catholic Church as though it is the only reason for the spread of AIDS in South Africa?
1) First of all Catholics only account for only about 3 million of the 43 million people in South Africa. Are you implying that all the AIDS cases are only Catholic? I surely doubt that. And if the other Christian religions DO allow condoms, why is it that hasn't stopped the spread of most of the AIDS within the country?
http://www.cmu.org.uk/religions/12catholics/cat_pg05.htm
2) Second, South Africa has been in denial and thus slow about the problem of AIDS within its own country. A good example of this was when the South African Health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang in 2000 refused to say whether or not she believed HIV causes AIDS.
http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2000/000028.html
3) Third, the Catholic Church is providing about 25% of the help for the AIDS victims. This certainly points to the concern the Church has about the AIDS epidemic.
"One of the most startling ironies of AIDS in Africa is that despite the Catholic church’s ban on the key element of comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention strategies, the Catholic church is a major provider of AIDS care and services on the continent and in other parts of the world. Approximately 12% of all AIDS care worldwide is provided by Catholic church organizations, while 13% is provided by Catholic nongovernmental organizations, meaning that Catholic church-related organizations are providing some 25% of the AIDS care worldwide-making it the largest institution in the world providing direct AIDS care.29, 30The South African Catholic Bishops Conference’s AIDS Office supports 85 projects and programs in Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and South Africa, making it one of the largest anti-HIV/AIDS programs in southern Africa and active in many of the countries with the world’s highest rate of HIV infection.31"
http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/lesserEvil.htm

 

[MissileMan]

Perhaps because they are trying to teach people to be responsible the only real responsible way by being chaste before marriage and faithful afterwards. Maybe because they dont believe in giving people a false sense of security. maybe because there is nothing wrong with having children and parents should be responsible for the children they are blessed with instead of selfishly thinking of only themselves.

The problem with your logic is that having children doesnt insure that those children remain catholic. not in modern society when religions can be changed very easily.

I'm talking about two happily married people who want to share the pleasures of sex with each other, but for any myriad of reasons do not want to produce a child. Why is this couple prohibited from choosing whether to have a baby?

And I would hazard a guess that a vast majority of people remain in the religion they are born into.

 

[Bonnie]

Whether you agree with it or not, my statement hit the common sense bullseye...but perhaps you can provide a different, logical reason for the ban on birth control.

Because God wants us to procreate so there are souls for heaven............The point is when you practice unatural birth control you are stopping God's will unaturally, in not trusting him.

There are other forms of birth control that the church recognizes that are maybe just a little more inconvenient, but many practice with great success.

But your missing the point of the church AGAIN!! The church represents Christs words, it's not for the church to change the bible or it's teachings to suit the wishes of those that attend mass or those that disagree with Gods laws. The church is not supposed to "change with the times" They are RESPONSIBLE for teaching Christians and Catholics the right way to live your life IF YOU CHOOSE to follow Christianity. If people find the teachings of the church offensive or unrealisitc they can leave the church and pick another religion that suits their morality, or they can CHOOSE to participate to the very best of their ability which includes going to confession when they do stumble.

The church is the church, this is the package and the rules that go with the church and it's following of Gods teachings!

It's really very simple. There are many other beleifs systems that tell people do whatever you want, we will never tell you you are wrong, much like many parents who do their children no favors by being permissive out of a fear of rejection by their kids.

I don't expect you to understand anything spiritual and IM SURE this argument is way over your head in it's simplicity as you keep harkening back to your disdain for religion which you disguise as common sense or logical.

If you want to use condoms then use them no one cares, but stop insulting the church because you in your "infinate secular wisdom" disagree with the church.

The church and it's followers do many things to comfort and help those suffering from AIDS, poverty, and many other of societies woes here and abroad, they don't need to condone the use of condoms to please those that don't believe...........There are LOTS of secularists out there handing out condoms everywhere, no need for the church to do that as well.

 

[dilloduck]

Because God wants us to procreate so there are souls for heaven............The point is when you practice unatural birth control you are stopping God's will unaturally, in not trusting him.

There are other forms of birth control that the church recognizes that are maybe just a little more inconvenient, but many practice with great success.

But your missing the point of the church AGAIN!! The church represents Christs words, it's not for the church to change the bible or it's teachings to suit the wishes of those that attend mass or those that disagree with Gods laws. The church is not supposed to "change with the times" They are RESPONSIBLE for teaching Christians and Catholics the right way to live your life IF YOU CHOOSE to follow Christianity. If people find the teachings of the church offensive or unrealisitc they can leave the church and pick another religion that suits their morality, or they can CHOOSE to participate to the very best of their ability which includes going to confession when they do stumble.

The church is the church, this is the package and the rules that go with the church and it's following of Gods teachings!

It's really very simple. There are many other beleifs systems that tell people do whatever you want, we will never tell you you are wrong, much like many parents who do their children no favors by being permissive out of a fear of rejection by their kids.

I don't expect you to understand anything spiritual and IM SURE this argument is way over your head in it's simplicity as you keep harkening back to your disdain for religion which you disguise as common sense or logical.

If you want to use condoms then use them no one cares, but stop insulting the church because you in your "infinate secular wisdom" disagree with the church.

The church and it's followers do many things to comfort and help those suffering from AIDS, poverty, and many other of societies woes here and abroad, they don't need to condone the use of condoms to please those that don't believe...........There are LOTS of secularists out there handing out condoms everywhere, no need for the church to do that as well.

The benefits of humility, self-discipline and personal sacrifice are hard concepts to teach to "rational" people .

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm talking about two happily married people who want to share the pleasures of sex with each other, but for any myriad of reasons do not want to produce a child. Why is this couple prohibited from choosing whether to have a baby?

And I would hazard a guess that a vast majority of people remain in the religion they are born into.

No one is preventing married people from using birth control. However, as its a commandment of God to multiply and replenish the earth and the Church is supposed to be teaching God's commandments why would you think they would teach or should be obligated to teach because of social pressures to use a condom?

BTW regardless of the reasons they might come up with, they is selfishness involved another attribute the Church is supposed to teach about.

And if a majority of people remain in the religion they were born into its only because the world is full of oppressive regimes that do not permit people to change their religion. China for example. Tell me do you follow the faith you were born into?

 

[Avatar4321]

The benefits of humility, self-discipline and personal sacrifice are hard concepts to teach to "rational" people .

Not sure i agree with that.

A rational person would realize that humility is key to teachability. That if you arent humble you cant learn anything and refusing to learn is not rational.

A rational person would realize that without self discipline there would be total anarchy. That only freedom only exists through self discipline.

A rational person would realize that sacrificing yourself or possessions for something greater adds value to whatever is sacrificed and builds character.

The benefits of these are all obvious to the rational mind. The problem is you usually arent explaining these things to the rational mind. Its hard to teach someone who is not humble the value of humility because they are not teachable.

All of these attributes are contrary to our natural urges and dispositions. and its difficult to teach exalting principles to the natural man because they have a natural tendency to resist such things and are most of the time blinded from the benefit until they actually live the principles firsthand.