Pope relaxes ban on condoms

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Pope relaxes ban on condoms

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I guess it's good

It's a start, anyway.  Let's discuss the reality of human beings.  But I find this paragraph to be - um - mealy mouthed.

Quote:

Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
So priests don't have to go

So priests don't have to go bareback with alter boys anymore?

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh poor papa fra.

                     It will also cut down on available DNA evidence often used against the RC church for million doller settlements in molesting cases.  I just wish I was joking.  I did go to [2] catholic schools  I was never molested,  apparently Tommy was cuter then me [no he wasn't].  When ever there is a major policy change from a pope you can bet $$$ is the motivation.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                     It will also cut down on available DNA evidence often used against the RC church for million doller settlements in molesting cases.  I just wish I was joking.  I did go to [2] catholic schools  I was never molested,  apparently Tommy was cuter then me [no he wasn't].  When ever there is a major policy change from a pope you can bet $$$ is the motivation.

 

So it was a revelation from the lawyers and not God that caused the change. That's why they need all this secrecy in the Vatican.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Makes sense, after all the

Makes sense, after all the pope's been wearing one on his head for years.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So priests don't

EXC wrote:

So priests don't have to go bareback with alter boys anymore?

 

Not anymore, we are now in the age of the "gentleman rapist". Gotta give kudos to our friendly Vatican, always slow on the uptake.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Makes sense,

Manageri wrote:
Makes sense, after all the pope's been wearing one on his head for years.

That is not a condom, it is a phallic symbol, symbolizing the fact he couldn't get laid. You know,  guys drive fast cars to compensate.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Good job he's infallible

 Good job he's infallible otherwise I'd be questioning the U-turn here...

 


kjdslfja324h (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Condoms in my country are

Condoms in my country are sprayed with special strong odour, so everyone knows that you have one with you.

Many people were arrested for it, because they left it on their pocket. In Hungary at some clubs or near universities, owning a condom seems to be prohibited. Or you can be suspected for planning a rape, and the policemen will hit and kick you.

 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I think this u-turn...

...is going to do some damage to Papal credibility.  Consider:

1. ...for many years the claim inside the Church was that contraception--all of it--was "unnatural."  This would be why it could never be allowed.  Furthermore, the Church taught that it is *never* acceptible to do an evil thing, in order that good may result from it.  (Contraception counts as "evil" in the eyes of the Vatican.)  Albeit only in relatively private conversations, this was used as a reason to believe that artificial birth control (including condoms) could never be morally used  by Catholics.  In a word...oops.

 

2. If this change was to be made, then why wasn't it made back in the 1980's when the AIDS crisis first appeared?  Not only does this show that Catholic doctrine can and does change, it does so in a way which makes obvious the fact that this is just such a change and not a "new answer to a new question."

 

3. There are other STIs which have been around for, oh...some time, now.  AIDS is (albeit belatedly) a reason which makes condom use acceptible, but herpes, gonnorhea, and the rest are not?  If the Pope isn't careful, he just might look like he really was "granting special rights to gays."  Or, at least, special rights for Africans.

 

4. Another painfully obvious aspect of this is that it comes on the heels of an international shitstorm which essentially accused the Pope of attempting to kill off a number of Africans through a "no condom" rule.  So...now the Vatican is telling us that massive public pressure can create changes in Catholic doctrine?  Wouldn't you just hate being a Catholic apologist trying to answer that one?

 

5. The whole intraCatholic battle over contraception goes back to the 1960's.  A number of Catholics have to be asking themselves: what took the Vatican so long?


Only willfully blind Catholics could miss this stuff. 

 

Wanderer

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 It's not the first Papal

 It's not the first Papal U-turn - from what I remember he 'got rid' of Limbo a few years ago.. Those lucky dead unbaptised babies now get to go to heaven after all.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Adapt and survive

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 It's not the first Papal U-turn - from what I remember he 'got rid' of Limbo a few years ago.. Those lucky dead unbaptised babies now get to go to heaven after all.

Not being completely literalist is an advantage for a religion, as it can just reinterpret when it suits.

The Catholics have always tweaked the rules, absorbed aspects of pagan religion into theirs and accepted bits of scientific knowledge, like evolution.

The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) in the early 60's was the biggest recent change. Since then, most liberal Catholics have used birth control.

Vatican II caused a huge fuss at the time and there are still a few old hardliners opposing it, but since most people don't study their religion's history, such changes are absorbed in a few decades.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:GodsUseForAMosquito

x wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 It's not the first Papal U-turn - from what I remember he 'got rid' of Limbo a few years ago.. Those lucky dead unbaptised babies now get to go to heaven after all.

Not being completely literalist is an advantage for a religion, as it can just reinterpret when it suits.

The Catholics have always tweaked the rules, absorbed aspects of pagan religion into theirs and accepted bits of scientific knowledge, like evolution.

The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) in the early 60's was the biggest recent change. Since then, most liberal Catholics have used birth control.

Vatican II caused a huge fuss at the time and there are still a few old hardliners opposing it, but since most people don't study their religion's history, such changes are absorbed in a few decades.

 

 

A few? Go to the official Catholic forums (forums.catholic.com). I'd say at least 50% think Vatican II was a travesty that needs to be rolled back. Granted, these are also the same folks that think America is a lost cause for Catholicism, and they need to focus on poor, third world nations where the Holy Ghost has a "clearer voice" (That's code for no education and miserable living conditions).

 

I'm on the weekly newsletter that keeps me updated on what their trending topics are, that way I'm regularly reminded about why religion is a dangerous thing.

 

That said, good for the pope. I'm glad either his conscious nagged him into reversing this, or pragmatism caused him to back down on a fight he couldn't win (that made the whole church look like a giant asshole).

Who knows, if the Catholics reverse course on claiming women don't have the same magic ju-ju as men they might stop the membership hemorrhage they've got in developed nations.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
An Australian perspective

mellestad wrote:

x wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 It's not the first Papal U-turn - from what I remember he 'got rid' of Limbo a few years ago.. Those lucky dead unbaptised babies now get to go to heaven after all.

Not being completely literalist is an advantage for a religion, as it can just reinterpret when it suits.

The Catholics have always tweaked the rules, absorbed aspects of pagan religion into theirs and accepted bits of scientific knowledge, like evolution.

The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) in the early 60's was the biggest recent change. Since then, most liberal Catholics have used birth control.

Vatican II caused a huge fuss at the time and there are still a few old hardliners opposing it, but since most people don't study their religion's history, such changes are absorbed in a few decades.

A few? Go to the official Catholic forums (forums.catholic.com). I'd say at least 50% think Vatican II was a travesty that needs to be rolled back. Granted, these are also the same folks that think America is a lost cause for Catholicism, and they need to focus on poor, third world nations where the Holy Ghost has a "clearer voice" (That's code for no education and miserable living conditions).

I'm on the weekly newsletter that keeps me updated on what their trending topics are, that way I'm regularly reminded about why religion is a dangerous thing.

That said, good for the pope. I'm glad either his conscious nagged him into reversing this, or pragmatism caused him to back down on a fight he couldn't win (that made the whole church look like a giant asshole).

Who knows, if the Catholics reverse course on claiming women don't have the same magic ju-ju as men they might stop the membership hemorrhage they've got in developed nations.

I accept that my 'a few old hardliners' was sloppy hyperbole, as I was largely extrapolating my experiences of liberal Australian Catholicism in the 1970s. This is obviously atypical worldwide, though I did expect many of these attitudes to exist in parts of Western Europe and to some extent in the US. It seems not.

Out of interest, I googled Australian Catholic forum and the first hit was this site.

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=112257#p112257

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the laity at least, seem to have gotten even more liberal.

The conservative wing, represented by Cardinal Pell, has the political power; but this forum seems to generally support gay marriage, metaphorical interpretation, the rights of women etc.

They then stick the boot into a few conservative Popes. No sign of railing against Vatican II there, but I only read a dozen or so threads.

a Catholic wrote:

I think Pell has already failed.
I do not personally know anyone who indicates any kind of respect or authority to Pell.
There does not seem to be any sense of hope, inspiration and energy coming from him.

another Catholic wrote:

I agree Jerome - Pell is a total failure & always has been" /> :cry: :embarrassed: :teeth: :sarcastic: :dontknow: :think: :brokenheart: :wilted: :gaah: He should never have been made a Cardinal.

I don't know anyone who has any respect for him. He is LAUGHING STOCK :lol2: l.gif" alt=":rofl:" /> l.gif" alt=":rofl:" /> :yes: :yes: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah:

There will probably be an Australian forum somewhere where the Pellites hang out and there will be Opus Dei types there.

This topic also reminds me of when Mary MacKillop was canonised. On a mainstream program on the national broadcaster, the ABC, two nuns were interviewed.

They effectively said that it is very nice that it happened, as she was a good woman; but the church should drop the silly requirement for miracle woo, as it was just embarrassing.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 It's not the first Papal U-turn - from what I remember he 'got rid' of Limbo a few years ago.. Those lucky dead unbaptised babies now get to go to heaven after all.

Evolution was accepted a few years ago too. The church is capable of recognising when it has to give up on something before its position costs it more than it helps.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Perhaps Papa Benedict just

 Perhaps Papa Benedict just wanted to try this out...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydTFn8QjEWU

 

To be honest, his hat is quite similar.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Just a business decision.

 Just a business decision. The threshhold was passed, more people would stay and give money than would leave and stop giving money. Cause we all know God needs his cash.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Dredging up old falsehoods again?

The Pope did nothing to reverse the Church's irreformable moral judgment on the use of contraceptions.  

He suggested that for someone unaccustomed to behaving in even remotely moral ways, the use of a barrier contraceptive in an effort to prevent STD's could represent a first step in viewing the other person as a person with dignity, rather than as a sexual object, and so in some circumstances indicate moral progress.

Hence, as he says (and as is quoted in the article), the Church "does not see it as a real and moral solution," but rather, "a first step."  Clearly the Catholic solution to the risk of STD's would be not to have extramarital relations.  And yes, in all but a few instances, that would pretty much (if practiced universally) clear up the whole problem.  But, of course, people want sex too much to consider that.

At no point does he call the use of condoms moral.  Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.  Any assertions to the contrary presented without grounds will be dismissed without grounds.

 

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:The Pope

Evangelion wrote:

The Pope did nothing to reverse the Church's irreformable moral judgment on the use of contraceptions.  

He suggested that for someone unaccustomed to behaving in even remotely moral ways, the use of a barrier contraceptive in an effort to prevent STD's could represent a first step in viewing the other person as a person with dignity, rather than as a sexual object, and so in some circumstances indicate moral progress.

Hence, as he says (and as is quoted in the article), the Church "does not see it as a real and moral solution," but rather, "a first step."  Clearly the Catholic solution to the risk of STD's would be not to have extramarital relations.  And yes, in all but a few instances, that would pretty much (if practiced universally) clear up the whole problem.  But, of course, people want sex too much to consider that.

At no point does he call the use of condoms moral.  Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.  Any assertions to the contrary presented without grounds will be dismissed without grounds.

 

 As a former Catholic, raised in that environment and having that moralist horseshit shoved upon me for years, it gives me a great sense of satisfaction to say the pope can go fuck himself, along with all the other child molestor priests that the Vatican has protected.

Luckily, that didn't happen to me, even though I was an altar boy at one time. Perhaps I just didn't have the right amount of sex appeal for those old doddery drunken priests. Could be that they imbibed in booze too much though.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:Hence, as

Evangelion wrote:


Hence, as he says (and as is quoted in the article), the Church "does not see it as a real and moral solution," but rather, "a first step."  Clearly the Catholic solution to the risk of STD's would be not to have extramarital relations.  And yes, in all but a few instances, that would pretty much (if practiced universally) clear up the whole problem.  But, of course, people want sex too much to consider that.

 

Perhaps rather than worrying about grown people fucking, he could worry about this :

http://news.yahoo.com/8-civil-suits-allege-philadelphia-priest-abuse-142721365.html

8 new civil suits allege Philadelphia priest abuse

By JOANN LOVIGLIO and MARYCLARIE DALE | Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Eight more priest-abuse lawsuits were filed Tuesday against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and its priests, including a jailed monsignor who now says he was convicted of child endangerment following a sham abuse plea by a defrocked co-defendant.

The civil lawsuits were filed by nine plaintiffs. Two spoke at a news conference, saying the abuse they suffered as children still haunts them and they wanted to go public to help other victims.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Well, anyway

I trust this audience will have no objection to my simply restating that no evidence has been leveled contrary my last post. 

The burden of proof, at least now, lies squarely with those who would allege that the Pope has reversed the ban on condoms. 

If he has not, then the Church's position, at least on this issue, remains consistent and the alleged irrationality does not obtain.

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:The Pope

Evangelion wrote:

The Pope did nothing to reverse the Church's irreformable moral judgment on the use of contraceptions.  

He suggested that for someone unaccustomed to behaving in even remotely moral ways, the use of a barrier contraceptive in an effort to prevent STD's could represent a first step in viewing the other person as a person with dignity, rather than as a sexual object, and so in some circumstances indicate moral progress.

Hence, as he says (and as is quoted in the article), the Church "does not see it as a real and moral solution," but rather, "a first step."  Clearly the Catholic solution to the risk of STD's would be not to have extramarital relations.  And yes, in all but a few instances, that would pretty much (if practiced universally) clear up the whole problem.  But, of course, people want sex too much to consider that.

At no point does he call the use of condoms moral.  Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.  Any assertions to the contrary presented without grounds will be dismissed without grounds.

Do you agree with the Catholic Church's moral judgment(s) on the use of contraception?

Also, why is wanting sex bad?

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:The Pope

Evangelion wrote:

The Pope did nothing to reverse the Church's irreformable moral judgment on the use of contraceptions.  

He suggested that for someone unaccustomed to behaving in even remotely moral ways, the use of a barrier contraceptive in an effort to prevent STD's could represent a first step in viewing the other person as a person with dignity, rather than as a sexual object, and so in some circumstances indicate moral progress.

Hence, as he says (and as is quoted in the article), the Church "does not see it as a real and moral solution," but rather, "a first step."  Clearly the Catholic solution to the risk of STD's would be not to have extramarital relations.  And yes, in all but a few instances, that would pretty much (if practiced universally) clear up the whole problem.  But, of course, people want sex too much to consider that.

At no point does he call the use of condoms moral.  Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.  Any assertions to the contrary presented without grounds will be dismissed without grounds.

 

 

Relax, not reverse. He's just admitting that telling people getting AIDS is better than using condoms means they'll lose money, and they need lots of money so they can hush up more molestation cases.

 

Sticking out tongue

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915,I do agree

blacklight915,

I do agree with the Church's stance on sexual morality.

Wanting sex is not bad.  In fact, it is natural, and therefore good.  In fact, it is a defect not to.

 

mellestad,

Ermmm...you may be the only person in the world to whom that makes any sense.

 

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion

Evangelion wrote:

blacklight915,

I do agree with the Church's stance on sexual morality.

Wanting sex is not bad.  In fact, it is natural, and therefore good.  In fact, it is a defect not to.

 

 

So it is natural to want sex, but only allowable within the confines of marriage ? So in other words, you can have sex when the church says it is ok ? Otherwise, it is a mortal sin, right ?

So why does god give us wants and then impose limitations on them ?

I'm faithful to my girlfriend, but since we have not experienced the sanctity of marriage, by the church's definition, we are committing mortal sin right ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:I do agree

Evangelion wrote:

I do agree with the Church's stance on sexual morality.

So you think condoms, sex outside of marriage, and masturbation are immoral?

 

Evangelion wrote:

Wanting sex is not bad. In fact, it is natural, and therefore good. In fact, it is a defect not to.

So "natural" things are necessarily good? What do you mean by natural?


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Responsum Duplum

Ordinem secundum quondam:

 

harleysportster,

But of course.  All desires have a proper and multiple improper expressions.  You won't find a human passion that the Church condemns roundly.  They are all good in themselves, and are only evil insofar as they are disordered, that is, not subordinated to the desire for the highest good.

It is the mind of the Church that this disorder, the irrationality of these desires that we find in ourselves, is the consequence of the introduction of moral evil into the world.  God permitted this, but did not will it antecedent to free human choice.  

Mortal sin is subjective.  Grave sin is objective.  I cannot say whether your sin (if subjective sin there be) is mortal, although I can say that your actions are gravely sinful (even absent a subjective sin).

 
Christ has lifted marriage between baptised persons to the level of a sacrament, absolutely insoluble.  In light of the Petrine and Pauline privileges, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which marriage between unbaptised persons is insoluble, and indeed trying to determine the moral character of Old Testament divorce (of which modern serial monogamy, in dating, sexual activity, as well as common law and legal marriage is the analogue) has always been somewhat of a sticky wicket.  

I can only say, with the words of Christ, "From the beginning it was not so."  Subjective sin aside, something is not right with the most broadly prevalent state of affairs (pun alert).

 

blacklight915,

Yes, I do believe that those things are immoral.  

In this case, natural means that it is something to which man inclines by nature, not necessarily what prevails in nature as we observe it (indeed, nature as we observe it is, in the mind of the Church, fallen, and not a reliable indicator of right order).  When I say that it is good, I do not mean that it is always and absolutely a moral good.  Rather this: when I say that a thing is good, I mean that it is desirable, and goodness considered in this way is a transcendental quality of being, that is to say, all things that exist are in some way desirable---as we read in Genesis, God made all things good.

By evil is to be understood a certain privation, not any real existing thing which "piggybacks" on other existing things and makes them bad.  Hunger is a "physical" evil, precisely termed, but if you can catch hunger, see it, photograph it, play with it, or talk to it, I'll eat my hat.  

Moral goodness or evil is a characteristic of the will, and so moral evil is a certain privation in the act of the will.  Most broadly, it is a privation, within the will, of the order or priority which ought to obtain amongst its desires.  Since man can only desire good, and not evil in and of itself (for evil in and of itself is literally nothing at all), we mean by moral evil the privileging of lower goods over higher goods.  

This is easily illustrated.  I cannot say that in your worldview you necessarily have good reasons for doing so, but wouldn't your human nature instinctively militate against a man who spends all of his money on alcohol whilst his family starve?  Likely so, for the good of the family is commonly held to be higher than the good which is the pleasure that we find in drink.

So for a Catholic, the highest good towards which we should strive to attain is God Himself, and to privilege any created thing over our duty towards God and, for His sake, towards our neighbour, is to be in just the same position as that alcoholic.

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion wrote:although I

Evangelion wrote:

although I can say that your actions are gravely sinful

Consensual sex is "gravely sinful"?  I cannot but laugh at such an absurd statement...

 

Evangelion wrote:

In this case, natural means that it is something to which man inclines by nature

There are many things which the vast majority of people are inclined to do that you do not consider "good". Extramarital sex and masturbation, for example.

 

Evangelion wrote:

I cannot say that in your worldview you necessarily have good reasons for doing so

Only if caring about other people doesn't count among your "good reasons".

 

Evangelion wrote:

So for a Catholic, the highest good towards which we should strive to attain is God Himself, and to privilege any created thing over our duty towards God and, for His sake, towards our neighbour, is to be in just the same position as that alcoholic.

So, you place more value on obeying God's commands than on the well-being of your fellow humans?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Evangelion

Evangelion wrote:

 

harleysportster,

But of course.  All desires have a proper and multiple improper expressions.  You won't find a human passion that the Church condemns roundly.  They are all good in themselves, and are only evil insofar as they are disordered, that is, not subordinated to the desire for the highest good.

It is the mind of the Church that this disorder, the irrationality of these desires that we find in ourselves, is the consequence of the introduction of moral evil into the world.  God permitted this, but did not will it antecedent to free human choice.  

Mortal sin is subjective.  Grave sin is objective.  I cannot say whether your sin (if subjective sin there be) is mortal, although I can say that your actions are gravely sinful (even absent a subjective sin).

 
Christ has lifted marriage between baptised persons to the level of a sacrament, absolutely insoluble.  In light of the Petrine and Pauline privileges, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which marriage between unbaptised persons is insoluble, and indeed trying to determine the moral character of Old Testament divorce (of which modern serial monogamy, in dating, sexual activity, as well as common law and legal marriage is the analogue) has always been somewhat of a sticky wicket.  

I can only say, with the words of Christ, "From the beginning it was not so."  Subjective sin aside, something is not right with the most broadly prevalent state of affairs (pun alert).

And this entire objective/subjective/ standpoint comes from where ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Evangelion wrote:You won't

 

Evangelion wrote:

You won't find a human passion that the Church condemns roundly. 

 

 

Quite, like the passion for little boys. By church law, a quick confession and a few hail marys and they are sin-free again. Hurray for sinless priests!

 

 


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Who's absurd?

 blacklight915,

Absurd?  We'll find out.

Man's natural inclination is not towards ravioli or chutney or baked beans, but the desire for food in general.  Hence, the desire for certain kinds of sexual expression is not per se the passion, but rather a consequence of it.  The desire for sex broadly considered is the passion.  

The purpose of that appetite can be discovered by reason.  The male and female parts fit together and such a consummation can lead to procreation.  This is just like the desire for food.  We know that it is for nutrition, not for the titillation of the palette, that we hunger.  At least with the desire for food, we both understand that there are abuses of this desire when it is divorced from its proper end, and which can lead to harm.  Who doesn't perceive that eating to obesity is a harmful excess?

When I say "good reasons," I mean this:  

We both know that the sex drive is for procreation.  In the blind evolutionary paradigm, that is why it was adaptive.  But a secular evolutionist must admit that the sex drive's procreative intent is an accident of his condition.  There is no reason to care about its purpose.  Thus, "caring for other people," high-minded and noble as it sounds to your emotions, really can have no intrinsic value in your thought, since blind evolution will explain away empathy as simply adaptive and conducive to survival, which is neither good nor bad, nor an end, but simply what happens to survive.   

Thus, just as you have no problem using the sex drive for purposes other than procreation and the creation of a family, since you understand (in your worldview) that these drives exist in you only because those creatures which had them happened to survive, but that you are free to exploit them for other purposes, so too you should really have no problem ignoring your instinct to empathy, at least not in theory.  Practically you probably won't, since subjectively you would likely find it highly unpleasant, since it goes against your inclination.  But I find your assertion that your own inclination to care for others is a good reason to do so, at least given the broader worldview which you seem to espouse, well, quite absurd.  Certainly it is not a good reason for anyone else to do so.

And in this reply are contained the replies to the other two objections.

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
What's a good christian to

What's a good christian to do when noone wants to marry him/her? Studies have shown that a lack of sex is unhealthy, and hypothesis explaining the deviance of celebrate priests suggest the sexual frustration they experience is what pushes them into criminal activity.

It's bad to not have sex, literally. And the mind can only take so much stress before it snaps. Some are better equipped than others, but all are subject to the same problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.