This criticism is asinine and always has been. People ignore the church and have sex outside of marriage, and we're supposed to believe the reason they don't wear a condom is that they're dutifully following church teaching?

b:

Of course it makes no sense. It's really about hatred of traditional morality and Catholicism, not about rationality.

If the Church were simply teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that use of condoms in a faithful marriage is wrong, no-one would have a problem.
Even if they were simply teaching that condom use is against the religion, most would be more disgusted than outraged -- for the reason that b. just mentioned.

BUT what they are telling people is that condoms Don't Work against AIDS. Which is not a moral teaching -- they are claiming this as fact. And people who may not follow their moral teachings (even non-Catholics) believe this 'fact'. And, while condoms are not perfect, they are a good deal better than nothing.

Nicholas D. Kristof wishes the Catholic church were as progressive as the ones Nicolas Gomez Davila referred to when he wrote:

"The Church used to absolve sinners; today it has the gall to absolve sins."

Sorry, but a false sense of security and safety is not "a good deal better than nothing." For far too many people, the condom has become a talisman whose use magically makes all the other sexual risks being taken inconsequential.

Kathy:

No. Nothing works best.
`

OJ:

Tending to confirm your general stereotype about how hyper-rationalists are the worst sorts of raving loonies...

phenotype

OJ,

"The best is the enemy of the sufficient". While its true that if everyone was perfectly celibate there would be no problem with AIDS or any other STD. Needless to say, this situation will never exist outside ofthe fantasy world inhabited by the Vatican. Given human nature, real people with noirmal sexual urges are going to get laid. Having a role in the hay is normal and natural especially for younger people with hormones rushing through their brains. Those who do not are by definition abnormal as their behavior (or lack of behavior) lies outside the statistical norms of human sexual behavior.

Given that pure celibacy is a straw man, an unrealistic and unachievable goal, the next best thing is to minimize the potential bad effects of what is admittedly sinful behavior. Condoms aren't perfect, but certain RCC officals are lying through their teeth when they state that they are unsafe and ineffective. They are sufficient to minimize the chances for disease transmission and pregnancy.

Those priests and nuns on the front lines of the battle with Third World poverty who are in favor of condom use know more than those ivory tower idiots in the Vatican (these missionaries are one of the reasons I'm still proud to say I'm Catholic). The Vatican reminds me of an incompetent general staff who has never visited the front lines and is totally clueless as to the situation on the ground and the condition of their troops.

Not that the Vatican's stance matters all that much in places like Africa. There condom use is shunned for cultural reasons. Men don't use them because they will seem less manly, the RCC's opposition isn't even a factor. So in fairness I must say that to accuse the Church of "spreading AIDS" is in this case simply wrong.

However, there seems to be an implied belief by you and others that people (gay or straight) who fornicate somehow "deserve" to get AIDS. Well if AIDS is God's punishment it is apparent that He must love Lesbians and hate hemophiliacs. And where is the disease for concentration camp guards? For those who carry out ethnic cleansing? For those who abuse their spouse? For those who rob their company's pension funds of millions of dollars? God is missing out on a lot of people who "deserve" to be punished by some sort of disease.

Given what Jesus said and did, I doubt that will ever happen. You see he forgave the woman caught in adultery, the one that "deserved" to be stoned. He also did not condemn the Samaritan woman at the well who had five husbands and was currently shacked up with a man she hadn't married. She was the village bicycle, everyone took a ride on her. And without hesitation, He offered her His gift of Living Water.

As CS Lewis wisely pointed out, sexual issues are not at the heart of Christian morality. That place is taken by pride, the kind of pride that expresses itself in judgemental legalisms at the expense of loving compassion. CS Lewis concluded that:

"A prostitute is closer to God than a self righteous prig who attends church each Sunday".

That sums it up for me rather nicely.

Why? Sin has consequences.

As a follow up, here is the actual quote from CS Lewis:

"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither." (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Lewis was lucky enough to live in a time when the kind of degradation around us was unimaginable. It is a spiritual matter, not sexual.

Why? Sin has consequences.

Not in this life. Jesus made that very clear:

Luke
13-1 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

13-2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?

13-3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

13-4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?

13-5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Tell it to the moneylenders.

Daniel,

How interesting that you failed to include Jesus's last words to the woman caught in adultery:

10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]

Sin no more....not well you are young, your hormones must be raging.

He said sin no more......hardly a glowing recommendation to commit adultery 'eh?

Jesus is not a fluffy bunny you can pet, nor can you twist Him like taffy into your own vision. Yes he offers forgiveness, but first you must recognize you need forgiveness. After all, if you think you aren't a sinner, what do you need a forgiving God for? After all your own Lewis quote sums it up nicely, a prostitute who recognizes she is a sinner, is closer to God than a self-righeous prig, who sins but denies he is a sinner. Even worse is a sinner who denies what he is doing is sin.

The very thing that Jesus condemns the Pharisees for, you advocate:

Hypocrisy, After all did not the Pharisees sin but trumpet their righteousness? They were teachers of the law, but did not practice what they taught.

Jesus treats tenderly and forgiveningly those who admit their sin, not those who try to dismiss or rationlize it away. Even those continue to sin but admit what they are doing is wrong and seek forgiveness. For those who will not acknowledge their sin, see how vehmently he condemns them:

Matthew 23:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore do and observe whatever they tell you. But don't do what they do, because they don't do what they say

Notice he did not say the Pharisees are wrong in what they say, he said they were wrong in not living out those teachings.

Again, hardly a wink at adultery, or looking the other way.

Here is another instance of Jesus forgiving sin, not and commanding "Sin no more"

John 5:13 The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.

John 5:14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."

"this situation will never exist outside ofthe fantasy world inhabited by the Vatican"

Well, the Vatican is quite clearly located here on Earth, but methinks there's a word for the "fantasy world" that the Vatican is trying to help us all get into. And things there don't quite follow the same "do whatever feels good" rules as they do here...

JR,

Where did I ever say that Jesus recommended adultery?

JR,

The Pharisees were the epitome of what Lewis described as those who enjoy the

"...pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred."

Not unlike many a judgemental, legalistic, right wing Catholic.

Let me make it crystal clear: advocating the use of condoms in no way advocates or condones sinful sex. These sins have always existed and will happen whether condoms exited or not. In a perfect world a simple admonishment to stop having sex would be sufficient. But we live in a fallen world, not a perfect one. While you would rather pursue the impossible goal of general celibacy, I'll accept the fact that we live in a fallen world and try to minimize the damage - like those priests and nuns quoted by Kristof who are actually trying to help the poor. While it would be nice that nobody would ever sin, I'll settle for minimizing the chances of anyone (including sinners) dying a horrible death.

b,

Those who did "whatever feels good" would include St. Augustine. Before his conversion he knew every prostitute and concubine in North Africa. Repeatedly.

Would you have preferred that Augustine had died of an STD before he repented his sins, reformed his life and became one of the greatest of saints?

Jesus is not a fluffy bunny you can pet

I never said he was, only that He is less vindictive and more compassionate than many of his followers.

Jesus is not a fluffy bunny you can pet

I never said he was, only that He is less vindictive and more compassionate than many of his followers.

This criticism of the Catholic Church leaves me cold.

I disagree with the Catholic Church's position on this, but then I'm not Catholic. It seems to me that if one does not approve of the positions taken by the hierarchy on important matters that one should join another denomination. If you have difficulty with its positions on sexual matters, on church/state relations, on economics, on science, on whether clergy should be allowed to marry, then maybe your problem is with the Church as a whole.

Abstinence strikes me as wishful thinking at best. Sex with assorted partners without the benefit of a condom strikes me as Russian roulette. If you aren't going to use a condom, you should opt for lots of cold showers or for holding your own.

It seems to me that if one does not approve of the positions taken by the hierarchy on important matters that one should join another denomination.

See the "Primacy of the Informed Conscience" from St. Thomas Aquinas.

If you have difficulty with its positions on sexual matters, on church/state relations, on economics, on science, on whether clergy should be allowed to marry, then maybe your problem is with the Church as a whole.

Everybody, Right or Left, has a problem with some part of RCC teaching. For example, American conservatives (while praising the RCC's teachings on sex and morality) can't swallow the RCC's stands on the death penalty, the Iraqi war, or economic "justice"/social welfare spending.

It's a rare Catholic that isn't a "Cafeteria Catholic" in one way or another.

daniel:

I still don't get why you think the Chrurch's pedophile scandal is a bad thing? By what right can you judge them?

Augustine stopped.

daniel:

The only reason to use condoms is for the purpose of sin.

daniel:

Nor can the Church, note that it doesn't consider the death penalty or the Iraq War to be sinful.

daniel: I've read innumerable posts by you arguing that the Church "must" loosen its teachings on sexual morality. I have never before read a single one that says that those who ignore those teachings should "repent of their sins" or "reform their lives". So either your post above is a true breakthrough, or you're deeply unserious.

PS: I give this thread another 2 hours before daniel accuses oj of being a Hitler-loving homophobe who wants to force all women to be barefoot and perpetually pregnant. Maybe even illiterate...

gotta read the recipes.

I still don't get why you think the Chrurch's pedophile scandal is a bad thing? By what right can you judge them?

Mark
9-42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

You do understand that an act involving a defenseless minor is a different kettle of fish? Or is such thinking too subtle for you?

Augustine stopped.

And who are you to say that these condom wearing fornicators won't stop if they were just given a chance to live?

The only reason to use condoms is for the purpose of sin.

The purpose of wearing a condom is to break the uniative and procreative aspects of sex. So how is this different from Church sanctioned Natural Family Planning?

Nor can the Church, note that it doesn't consider the death penalty or the Iraq War to be sinful.

The RCC has repeatedly stated that the liberation of Iraq violated its principles of a "just war". Participation in and promotion of an unjust war is by its very nature sinful. Every Catholic politician who supported the Iraq War should be denied communion.

As for the death penalty, the RCC is moving towards outright condemnation of the practice. Which is not too surprising since in the past it has altered its stands on such things as slavery, selling indulgences, democracy, persecuting Jews, charging of interest on loans and religious freedom. You see, that's the trouble with the Eternal Unchanging Truths of the Catholic Faith...

... they keep changing.

PS: I give this thread another 2 hours before daniel accuses oj of being a Hitler-loving homophobe who wants to force all women to be barefoot and perpetually pregnant. Maybe even illiterate...

Nah, he'll just take that as a complement. However, if you take his past responses seriously, then he really is a Hitler-loving homophobe who wants to force all women to be barefoot and perpetually pregnant. Unless of course, he is being deeply unserious.

No, I don't understand. I understand that the things you like you insist are unjudgeable and the things you don't are too vile to be tolerated. It's simple hypocrisy.

You can't love Nazis and hate homosexuality.

daniel:

Despite your obvious compassion for the afflicted, it is hard not to conclude you want the Church to be a modern, Oprah-certified parent who says: "Be good, and if you can't be good, be careful."

Loving, perhaps, in an endlessly tolerant kind of way, but not much of a rock.

daniel duffy:

Saying politicians who supported the war should be denied communion is simply silly. This was hardly a major doctrinal issue: even the pope's good friend and personally chosen biographer, George Weigel, supported the war. My brother recently spent a year in a seminary and told me plenty of the folks there -- including most of the students from dictatorial nations -- were either supportive of the war or didn't find it worthy of outright condemnation. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly said that the war was an issue on which good Catholics could differ, and that abortion and euthanasia were in an entirely different moral league and should be treated much more seriously.

The postings above are a reflection of the societial dogmas imposed on the modern day public by science & the church, very much akin to the dogmas imposed by the church in medival times. There were laws imposed without reason. The RCC admonishes the use of contraceptions, and although not catholic, I am in agreement with the RCC, but not for the same reason. Does anyone know the real reason why condoms..etc should not be in circulation?? The deeper spiritual reasons??

You can't love Nazis and hate homosexuality.

OJ,

Aside from Ernst Roehm and his pals in the SA (who were killed on Hitler's orders during the Night of the Long Knives) the Nazi leadership - Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Borman - were all straight. And the Nazis killed thousands of gays in the concentration camps, which is what you said you'd like to do.

No, I don't understand.

You don't understand that there is a difference between child rape and a married couple using a condom? How pathetic and sad.