Pope Benedict XVI

[Doc Milo]

Celibacy for priests: Remember, according to the Catholic Religion it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, in order for a priest to have sex, he must be married. Therefore, we are not just talking about celibacy, we are talking about priests getting married. The church ran into a lot of problems when it allowed priests to be married -- conflicts of interest arose between the good of the church and the good of the priest's family. Not only on a financial side -- the ownership of property and assets, etc... but also on a personal side. A priest is supposed to be there to help the parishioners of the church, be a councilor when needed, be a surrogate father when needed. This is asking a lot of another person (the spouse) to have to handle. Other denominations handle it, yes. But they also run into these conflicts as well.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
The issue with birth control and the Catholic Church is referring to married couples -- their stance on unmarried couples having sex is that it is a sin for an unmarried person to have sex, period. Therefore, the issue of disease prevention when talking about birth control is not even a part of the discussion.

Well, you might say, married people might have extra-marital sex, and therefore disease prevention becomes part of the discussion -- no. Extra-marital sex is also a sin. The Church's stance: if you are unmarried, you are not supposed to have sex; if you are married, you are only supposed to have sex with the person to whom you are married. If you follow the line of reasoning here, disease prevention when talking about birth control never even enters the discussion -- since coming into contact with a sexually transmitted disease, if you follow the behavior set forth by the Church, is next to impossible.

Remember, the Church is setting a moral code. You don't "dumb-down" a moral code because people might have trouble living by it. No one said to live a moral life would be easy. According to the Christian religions, everyone is a sinner. It would be really easy if we just "dumbed-down" all morality so that no one would be a sinner -- in the eyes of man. But the Church is not concerning itself with the "eyes of man." They are supposed to be concerned with the Eyes of God.

What I hear people saying is: "Everyone is doing it, so why doesn't the church just say it's okay to do." And: "If it doesn't it's just going to keep losing its membership." I say a smaller, purer church (not that anything is perfectly pure, except God. All humans are sinners) is preferable to a large church that has no moral compass.

Let's take the law, for example. Do we change the law and say it's okay to shop lift because a certain segment of the population has a problem and can't stop shop-lifting? Or, it's okay to infringe on an artist's copyright because a whole lot of people can't stop downloading music over the internet? We can get the crime rate down to zero if we just make everything legal, but will it make the world a better place to live?

Morality is not relative. There is a right. There is a wrong. It is the Church's job to clearly define what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God (based upon the inspired Word of God, the Bible). It is the individual's choice to follow what it teaches or not to follow what it teaches. It is not the Church's job to define right and wrong based upon the whim of the populace. Regardless of how popular it is, or how many members the Church stands to lose, or how many priests it fails to recruit. What good does it do to gain the world and lose one's soul?

Exactly. We have a failure of simply admiting reality. The reality is that people are having sex, and it's getting them killed. I guess what you're trying to say is that because they're sinning the church sees this as ok and does nothing?

That's reprehensible. So which is the greater sin? Letting hoardes of people die because of a failure to even discuss something that could save millions of lives or having sex? Because there are people that marry, have the disease, die, and the partner remaries, thus passing the disease on. I'm foggy on the stance of that but the fact of the matter is it happens.

[Shawn]

Idealism is nice and all, but refusing to accept reality is foolhardy.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

If you test positive, condom or no, why would you ever try to have sex again in the first place? That's no different in my eyes than playing around with a loaded gun.

[Morgan Evanar]

AFAIK testing in Africa pretty much doesn't happen unless it's done by the employer.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Celibacy for priests: Remember, according to the Catholic Religion it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, in order for a priest to have sex, he must be married. Therefore, we are not just talking about celibacy, we are talking about priests getting married. The church ran into a lot of problems when it allowed priests to be married -- conflicts of interest arose between the good of the church and the good of the priest's family. Not only on a financial side -- the ownership of property and assets, etc... but also on a personal side. A priest is supposed to be there to help the parishioners of the church, be a councilor when needed, be a surrogate father when needed. This is asking a lot of another person (the spouse) to have to handle. Other denominations handle it, yes. But they also run into these conflicts as well.

It was only done for fiancial reasons, the church was afraid of losing its property. It is still stupid, IMO, no other domination does it and it works fine for all of them. Besides there is a huge priest shortage as there is they have no choice within the next 50 years they will have to.

[Cat Terrist]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Exactly. We have a failure of simply admiting reality. The reality is that people are having sex, and it's getting them killed. I guess what you're trying to say is that because they're sinning the church sees this as ok and does nothing?

That's reprehensible. So which is the greater sin? Letting hoardes of people die because of a failure to even discuss something that could save millions of lives or having sex? Because there are people that marry, have the disease, die, and the partner remaries, thus passing the disease on. I'm foggy on the stance of that but the fact of the matter is it happens.

You know I agree with you - What the church has failed to realise is this is NOT a morals issue. Diseases like AIDS are a secular one and as such, cant be solved with head in the sand "MONOGOMY" head in the sand attitudes. It's these exact same failings Jesus came to rid of. AIDS is not a simple problem and simple preaching and simple solutions aint going to cut it.

Yes, I'm quite sure everyone knows AIDS could be slowed big time with a rigourous one partner or abtenance approach. But everyone knows this is the real world and people have sex. Thence, the proper approach is a call to one partner relationships - but failing that, condoms, education and even more education about the facts of the disease and how it is transmitted and exactly how deadly it is, ways to avoid, what to do if suspect you got it etc.

The other fact is the church needs to realiseJesus freed us of the requirements of rules and you cant force morals onto non believers. Instead, it's a case that we need to realise Jesus was so appealing that we WANT to live lives like He wanted. It doesnt work any other way. And, I think that the church also needs to realise when your dead, it's it. No more chances. Read that as you will.

Condom use, if it's a sin (and I very much doubt God sees it that way), can only be backed up by a passage about 'seed spilling' in one of the first books of the Bible. When in fact, it has nothing to do with 'wasting sperm'. It was about the deliberate disobeying on an obligation that when you understand the context, shoots down the 'wasted seed' argument entirely. It was never about that at all.

And personally, I'd rather see someone use a condom and maybe later come to Christ than die a truly horrid death. Ever seen what Aids does to someone?

[Doc Milo]

The other fact is the church needs to realiseJesus freed us of the requirements of rules and you cant force morals onto non believers.

First off, Jesus did not come to free us of the requirements of rules; rather, He freed us of the requirements of man-made rituals.

Second, no one is trying to force morals on non-believers. The Church's stance on things is for its membership, and anyone who wishes to be a member of the Catholic Church. I don't see why "non-believers" would care what the Church thinks about anything. I don't see why any other religions would care what the Church thinks on anything. It doesn't affect them. That's like saying the USA can't force other countries to abide by the US Constitution just because a Supreme Court decision upholds a law that some other countries disagree with. It doesn't affect them.

The Church's stance is one based in morals. It is not the Church's job to make public policy. If you are a Catholic, the Church says, this is how you are supposed to act. If you act in that manner, then you greatly decrease the possibility that you will come into contact with sexually transmitted diseases.

If you choose not to act in that manner, then you should take the precautions necessary to decrease your risk. That is common sense. But once you choose to act in a manner contradictory to what the Church teaches, you then enter the realm of secularism, and you should educate yourself on how to reduce your risk.

Yes, the reality is, people are having sex outside of marriage. But I have to ask, how many of these people having sex outside of marriage are saying to themselves: "I'm about to have sex with you even though I'm not married to you, but I can't use birth control because I'm Catholic and the Church forbids it." The Church also forbids that person from having sex outside of marriage! Yet, s/he doesn't seem to worry about that? The bottom line is, people having sex outside of marriage don't want to be judged wrong for doing so, and people using birth control don't want to be judged wrong for doing so, therefore, they think the Church needs to change it's moral stance to suit their morality.

The Church will not turn its back on you if you do get sick, it won't excommunicate you for acting in ways it doesn't condone. If you seek its help, it will help.

But don't expect it to compromise, as a matter of policy, it's stance on morality. The Church is not a government. It's realm is teaching morality. If you choose to act immorally, then you get your information from some place else. If you choose to act immorally, however, and do end up getting sick, the Church will not turn it's back on you, either.

[Cat Terrist]

Dont you think that the minor moral problem of condoms is exceeded by the bigger moral problem of millions dying needlessly? That's what this really about - condoms are such a minor problem if you compare them to the problems prevention of access gives in return. I would also think that they would realise the abortion rates would go down too - and that's an issue the church SHOULD be fighting, not whether you can or cant put a piece of rubber on your willy during sex. Technically, my wife and I were sinners until this year because we used birth control other than natural methods. This is ludrious. The Catholic church seriously suggests we'd go to hell becuase we decided to not have children until now?!?

And I can tell you it irritates my Catholic friends, who would put most Christians to shame for the strength of their beliefs and their actions, that they cant see any strong moral reason they are prevented from birth control.

And dont you think the Church opposing condoms and birth control outright for anyone rather than just its members is trying to force their values on others?

First off, Jesus did not come to free us of the requirements of rules; rather, He freed us of the requirements of man-made rituals.

Oh... so we need to go back to Levitius and stoning adulterers, cleansing rules and sacrifices? Jesus didnt free us from that?

Not like those things were man made rules, were they?

If you choose to act immorally, then you get your information from some place else. If you choose to act immorally, however, and do end up getting sick, the Church will not turn it's back on you, either.

really. They wont, hmm? Actually, they do. It's however the good people at the coalface of the AIDS tragety who would rather care like Jesus did who wont abandon the sick and dying. I dont remember Jesus saying anything to do about birth control. In fact, I straight out dont rememebr the Bible having any say on birth control, exept for the aforementioned doubtful passage.

So why are condoms a moral issue again? Oh yes, it might lead to more unmarried sex.

Might.

So does dancing apparently.

[Doc Milo]

Dont you think that the minor moral problem of condoms is exceeded by the bigger moral problem of millions dying needlessly? That's what this really about - condoms are such a minor problem if you compare them to the problems prevention of access gives in return.

And the Church prevents access how? The Church is not a government. It does not make public policy. It takes a stand on moral grounds. It tells it's members the way in which they are supposed to act in order to live a more moral life. In no way does the Church prevent people from access to any kind of birth control. It doesn't have that power. It is a Church, not a government. It does not make public -- or even social -- policy. It makes, at the most, Church policy.

Technically, my wife and I were sinners until this year because we used birth control other than natural methods. This is ludrious. The Catholic church seriously suggests we'd go to hell becuase we decided to not have children until now?!?

Well, according to Christian, and Catholic belief, everyone is a sinner. And the last I heard, the use of birth control was not a Mortal Sin.

Oh... so we need to go back to Levitius and stoning adulterers, cleansing rules and sacrifices?

Of course not. But Jesus did not support anarchy either. Jesus taught us, through his example, how to live a moral life. You don't think Christ gave us a set of moral values? Aren't moral values rules?

And dont you think the Church opposing condoms and birth control outright for anyone rather than just its members is trying to force their values on others?

No. For the simple reason that The Church is not a government and does not make public or social policy. The Church opposes outright, for anyone, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, murder, theft, a whole host of other moral issues. But if you are not a member of the Catholic Church why would you care what the Catholic Church says about anything? The Church does not make law, enforce law, or make public or social policy for any country around the world. It tells you what it's stance is on a moral issue. It is not forcing anything on anyone! So now just voicing an opinion (with the "attitude" that said opinion is fact) is the equivalent of one trying to force its values on another? Please.

[Morgan Evanar]

You're ignoring the part where if the Church decided to say "hey people down to the south of us, start using condoms" a lot of people would and, at the very least, it would save thousands?

I care what the Church says BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE THOUSANDS, POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. AND THAT HUMAN AND ECONOMIC IMPACT HAS AN EFFECT ON ME.

[Kieran Devaneaux]

See, this is why I do not consider myself a member of any of the world's organized religions. I believe there is a God, I think Jesus was more than just a prophet and teacher - which is what the Jewish faith believes, if memory serves - but all this organized religion crap, especially Catholicism, is a big turn-off.

The problem I have with Catholicism is that while some of the things they have as their doctrine is a good idea, I agree with the people who have said that a great deal of it is outdated. The Catholic Church, IMHO, is an organization still living in the Middle Ages. This is the 21st century, people. So the highups in the Church need to pull their heads out of their butts and realize that while all these rules and rituals they have are tried and true, this is the future, and all this ritual is unnecessary. In essence, I think they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Or whatever passes for coffee in Catholicism - if they're anything like the Mormons, they don't drink caffiene. (I don't know if this is true or not.)

[Doc Milo]

You're ignoring the part where if the Church decided to say "hey people down to the south of us, start using condoms" a lot of people would and, at the very least, it would save thousands?

So, let me get this straight: The Catholic Church says that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, or sex outside of marriage, and the "people down south" (to use your phrase) ignore this and behave how they want anyway. But somehow, these same people don't use birth control or condoms because the Catholic Church says not to and if the Church told them to wear them, they would do so. Is that about right?

Doesn't seem to hold up to logic, IMHO. Why ignore one moral and hold steadfast to the other?

Another "Let me get this straight": It seems to be your contention that because the Catholic Church is against the use of any unnatural means of birth control, that it is responsible for the deaths of thousands, even millions. I'd like to know, just where does personal responsibility for ones own actions come into play? AIDS, and other STDs are behaviorly spread diseases. An individual is responsible for their own behaviors. The Church has laid down a guideline of behaviors to live a more moral life; if an individual chooses to ignore those guidelines, then that individual is responsible for the consequences of his/her actions. It's not like the Church is encouraging people to go out and have promiscuous sex and telling them not to use condoms while they do. The Church is consistant with it's stance. Don't have promiscuous sex. Have sex only with in the confines of marriage, and only with your spouse. Use only the natural means of birth control.

Now, to say that this ignores reality -- that people are going to have sex -- is ludicrous. Yes, people are going to have sex. But people choose to have sex -- it's not like human kind is no better than animals in heat, with no control over their libidos. Two things separate us from the animal kingdom: our intellect, and our self-control. If our intellect tells us that promiscuous sex is the reason for the spread of STDs and AIDS, then that intellect should also tell us that to stop the spread of these things, we halt the behavior that spreads them. We have self-control over our bodies to help us in that effort.

To say, people are going to have sex -- the church should change its moral stance on it to fit the times is ridiculous. Morals are supposed to be steadfast. They don't change because people are having trouble living up to them. People who wish to live a moral life are supposed to change their behavior to meet the moral code; the moral code is not supposed to change to incorporate immoral behavior.

[Morgan Evanar]

Doesn't seem to hold up to logic, IMHO. Why ignore one moral and hold steadfast to the other?

One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?

I'd say his argument has plenty of merit, actually. Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their own actions?

[Doc Milo]

One is a built in impulse to continue the species. The other is a completely manmade construct. Guess which one is easier to use? Guess which one saves lives? Guess which is easier to ignore? Guess which will happen anyway?

Your arguement simply fails to stand up to reality. Can't you see that?

Your argument would hold true only if mankind was no better than animals. Mankind, however, does have the power over itself to control its base instincts. We do it all the time.

[JMK]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
I'd say his argument has plenty of merit, actually. Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their own actions?

Of course Doc's argument holds logic. Our ability to think IS what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. They don't resist impulses...they pretty much can't resist impulses. We can. And we do, and I beg to differ, our ability to hold off from doing something stupid because we have an impulse has saved many more lives than reacting on gut instinct. Who here has wanted to slug their boss in the face on an impulse, but thought otherwise? Countless other instances can be listed where our ability to reason has saved us from a lot of extra trouble.

I'm not a terribly religious person, but to suggest that the church, any church should soften its stance on certain issues just because people take the quick, easy, profitable, gratifying, whatever route is just ridiculous.

[Cat Terrist]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
To say, people are going to have sex -- the church should change its moral stance on it to fit the times is ridiculous. Morals are supposed to be steadfast. They don't change because people are having trouble living up to them. People who wish to live a moral life are supposed to change their behavior to meet the moral code; the moral code is not supposed to change to incorporate immoral behavior.

Mate I'm no scholar, but that's exactly what the Church has done over issues like womens rights, Church and state etc, sometimes kicking and screaming.

In this case, the Church needs a reality check. What's morally more abhorrent, allowing millions to die or keep on going with a dodgy dogma?

No. For the simple reason that The Church is not a government and does not make public or social policy

2004 US Election begs to disagree with you. By the fact they have very powerful people sitting on their pews every week, it most certainly CAN not only influence, but also dictacte public and social policy. In fact, when you bascially have religious parties like Family Forst in Australia that are barely disguised arms of Assemblies of God and in fact are in a position of being able to tell a Govt after July 1 what it needs to do to assure of it's support in Parliment.....

Yeah, I'd say the Church can and does have the ability to remake social and public policy in it's image. To say otherwise is fallacy. The influence the Church has directly or indirectly is immense.

And, I might add that in countries where the religion is Roman Catholicism, the Pope's words have almost the force of law over the parishoners. Also, when a bull of Papal Infallacy is declared, this basically tells 1.1 billion Catholics the article in question can not be challenged by anyone.

I add a Papal Infallacy bull is NOT a decree the Pope is infallible. It is a decree that the article is totally and utterly church belief and can not be changed in any way, as it is said to be unarguable. Homosexuality is one of these Infallibility decrees. Condoms is not.

I'm not a terribly religious person, but to suggest that the church, any church should soften its stance on certain issues just because people take the quick, easy, profitable, gratifying, whatever route is just ridiculous.

There are some thigns a church should not compromise on. There are other's it should see reality. Sex has always been seen as a task, when it is in fact one hell of a lot of fun with the right person and somethign to be enjoyed and an expression of feeling and passion, not turned into an ogre.

Secular should certainly pull it's own head out of it's bum and see sex is far too cheap and offhand now in their veiw. The Church should see it's attitude isnt supported by the Bible and could do with a reality check. The two should meet somewhere in the middle.

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
I dunno what method you're referring to but the only ones that prevent disease is either condoms or a lack of sex altogether. A please, lets stop fooling ourselves about the second.

I use the Billing's Ovulation Method, along with a device called Persona that records the levels of hormones when I am ovulating and when I am not. Does this mean I have to stop having sex during the times of ovulation: yes (unless I want to become pregnant). Does this mean I have to be completely celebet during my married life: hell no. The times I have to abstain are short, and like Doc and JMK said above, what seperates us from the animal kingdom is the ability to reason and take control of our basic impulses.