Vatican and Condoms - clarity at last

robindch

There was a lot of chatter last year when Ratzinger appeared to announce that the Vatican would endorse the use of condoms in strictly limited circumstances, for example by HIV-infected male prostitutes, to help reduce the spread of disease. Contemporary news on that here.

However, Ratzinger seems now to have changed his mind. Two weeks ago, the Vatican announced to the UN that it does not support the use of condoms for any reason, under any circumstances:

http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=341

Vatican to the UN wrote:

The Holy See reaffirms its reservations with the Resolution, especially regarding its references to “sexual and reproductive health” since the Holy See does not consider abortion or abortion services to be a dimension of such terms and regarding the term “family planning” as the Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

While the position, to say the very least, violates basic medical advice, at least the Vatican has finally come out and stated its position clearly and unambiguously.

eyescreamcone

Anyone who listens to what these muppets have to say is taking advice from the wrong source and WILL be badly misguided.
These people are not qualified intellectually or morally to give anyone advice on such matters.
They should stick to what they are best at:
Obtaining money for telling fairy stories and doing crap magic tricks!!!

token56

This actually makes me pretty angry when I think about it. Just looking at figures from 2009, roughly 33 million people were estimated to be HIV positive and two thirds of these live in sub-saharan Africa. An area in which the catholic church's influence is growing rapidly. Based on this the catholic church is likely to have if it doesn't already, influence on the greatest percentage of HIV positive people in the world. It has a responsibility to act in the best interests for these people who follow it blindly in many cases. Telling people that using methods like condoms which we all know help in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is simply put gross neglect of their responsibilities to these people. Preaching about family planning and abstinence is all well and good and may indeed help but there will still be many instances where abiding to these condoms can help in preventing the spread of HIV and telling people to do otherwise is criminal in my opinion.

Fuzzytrooper

I have no problem at all with condoms and agree that they should be used especially in cases like this. However, I don't think people can blame the Catholic Church fully in this case - If people listened to them and didn't just cherry pick the bits they want to hear then they would be abstaining from sex outside marriage and hence reduce the spread of HIV.

Its a bit like wearing a seatbelt but driving at 80mph in a 30 zone and then having an accident because you're driving too fast...yes you followed the law by wearing a seatbelt, but you didn't listen to the part about staying within the speed limit.

token - I do agree with your point that they have a responsibility to people that follow them..maybe they are focussing too much on the "condoms are bad" message and not giving enough weight to the "stop having sex outside marriage" message. I'm guessing that you don't agree with the last point, which is totally your right but if the Catholic Church claims to have a set of beliefs, then they need to make sure that they are fully clear and unambiguous about what they are saying.

Penn

It's almost like they want to kill off people in countries where many of the people actually do pay heed to what they say.

Dades

Penn wrote: »

It's almost like they want to kill off people in countries where many of the people actually do pay heed to what they say.

What, and spoil their richest hunting ground? No way. It's all about souls.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

What, and spoil their richest hunting ground? No way. It's all about souls. money, power and influence

Yup yup.

smcgiff

Fuzzytroooper,

What about the wife of a person she knows is having affairs - for her to practice her faith she has the obey the guy in a white dress and put herself at risk.

She could of course leave the person, but this is not always practical and the church has thoughts on this too

Fuzzytrooper

Fair point smcgiff - I'm not a Catholic and don't claim to have an indepth knowledge of their doctrine. I'd be wondering why she is still sleeping with her husband if she knows he is having an affair...hiv isn't the only issue here.

I disagree with many things in the Catholic church (including the condom issue) but my only point is that if people were lisening to them fully, then there would not be as much extra-marital sex which could help to slow the spread of hiv. People listen to the no-condom piece and ignore the "don't sleep around" piece.

I'm not sure about the Catholic Church's views on divorce, it does say in the Bible that there is grounds for divorce if the other partner is having an affair (Matt 19v9). Having to stay in the marriage/relationship due to practical/financial necessity is a tough one and I wish I had an answer to that as the mother of someone very close to me is in that exact situation...

P.s. They're not dresses, the robes conceal swords...didn't you know that 99% of people that wear robes and trenchcoats secretly want to be the Highlander

Sonics2k

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Fair point smcgiff - I'm not a Catholic and don't claim to have an indepth knowledge of their doctrine. I'd be wondering why she is still sleeping with her husband if she knows he is having an affair...hiv isn't the only issue here.

Because the RCC doesn't like Divorce either, so shes basically stuck with him

the_syco

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

marriage

How is marriage seen in countries where the spread of HIV is high? Does it happen as much as in European countries?

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because the RCC doesn't like Divorce either, so shes basically stuck with him

She can ask him for a divorce, or leave him.

Newsite

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Anyone who listens to what these muppets have to say is taking advice from the wrong source and WILL be badly misguided.
These people are not qualified intellectually or morally to give anyone advice on such matters.
They should stick to what they are best at:
Obtaining money for telling fairy stories and doing crap magic tricks!!!

As opposed to the right source? Which is what - the media, society?

Funny how the latter two are where people get their morality - wonder if there's a connection between that and the rate of AIDS in the world today? Hmm...

Sarky

Church in saying something retarded which will result in a truckload of despair and many preventable deaths shocker.

I wish I could be surprised, but the sheer number of idiotic statements made by the church which fly in the face of reality tend to result in a certain numb disgust from anyone who stops to think about it.

Fuzzytrooper

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because the RCC doesn't like Divorce either, so shes basically stuck with him

Accidents can and do happen

robindch

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

People listen to the no-condom piece and ignore the "don't sleep around" piece.

This topic does come up from time to time and I think most people here, even the most hard-skinned, militant atheist will agree that it's quite hard to transmit HIV sexually if you restrict yourself to having sex with at most one, uninfected, person.

The problem is, of course, that people rarely do this, choosing instead to avoid their vows (if they've made any), choose to sleep around and engage in all kinds of illicit and immoral behaviour.

The church should be aware of this more than most institutions.

eyescreamcone

Newsite wrote: »

As opposed to the right source? Which is what - the media, society?

Funny how the latter two are where people get their morality - wonder if there's a connection between that and the rate of AIDS in the world today? Hmm...

The church lost all credibility when they raped and abused children and covered up these crimes wholesale.
Nothing but rapists and rapist sympathisers in my mind.
In my opinion I can make up my own mind as to what is right or wrong.
I certainly won't be looking for moral guidance from this outdated group of fairytale-ists and paedophiles.

Their plan:
To join their hands together and mumble words under their breath in the hope that their imaginary friend will hear them, and come back from the land of makey-uppy and save the world from REAL diseases.
And you wan't me to take these fairytale-ists seriously?!!!

REAL ADVICE!
If you have sex with someone outside of a longterm monogamous relationship ALWAYS use a condom - even (or especially) if you are a priest!!!

END OF!!!

Corkfeen

Newsite wrote: »

As opposed to the right source? Which is what - the media, society?

Funny how the latter two are where people get their morality - wonder if there's a connection between that and the rate of AIDS in the world today? Hmm...

Well, people from a healthcare background might be a better source. You'll find that STDs have been around for a couple of centuries. In fact, there's probably less around now than there was in the 15th century. The higher prevalence of aids tends to be in African nations where the use of contraceptives would be far less common. Swaziland tops the statistics apparently with the vast majority of their population being Christian, wouldn't a recommendation to use condoms by the church be far more effective as a preventative measure from passing on HIV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate#HIV.2FAIDS_prevalence_estimates

Gregor Samsa

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

I have no problem at all with condoms and agree that they should be used especially in cases like this. However, I don't think people can blame the Catholic Church fully in this case - If people listened to them and didn't just cherry pick the bits they want to hear then they would be abstaining from sex outside marriage and hence reduce the spread of HIV.

I remember reading an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the Bishop Casey scandal. It commented that to Casey, as a member of the hierarchy, the idea of using contraception - even though he was breaking his priestly vows by having sex - would have been unconscionable. Basically to him, the sin of contraception would have been worse than the sin of fornication.

I think we all agree that abstinence and fidelity would significantly reduce the instances sexual transmission of HIV, but that advice is an uphill battle against human nature. Condoms are a pretty good attempt at some providing protection while taking human nature into account.

The sensible advice is "Don't do it, but if you do do it, use a condom". The Catholic church is standing in the way of that good advice on a point of dubious ideology, and in the meantime, too many people are dying.

eyescreamcone

Why is the church so set against contraception???
What is its thinking on this officially and unofficially??

Newaglish

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why is the church so set against contraception???
What is its thinking on this officially and unofficially??

More babies => more children in catholic schools => more catholics => mo' money, mo' power (mo' problems?)

MrPudding

Does it not come from the story where god order some guy to have sex with his recently widowed sister in law, which he dutifully did. However, when it came to magic time he went porn star and did a money shot rather finishing inside, as it where. God was upset and smote him.

I think that has something to do with it.

MrP

eyescreamcone

No money shots either?

kylith

Newaglish wrote: »

More babies => more children in catholic schools => more catholics => mo' money, mo' power (mo' problems?)

I think it boils down to that, but they like to claim it's because since every sperm is a potential person, then it's sinful to cause a potential person not to be conceived.

Gregor Samsa

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why is the church so set against contraception???
What is its thinking on this officially and unofficially??

As with many things in life, Monty Python sum it up nicely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Sarky

kylith wrote: »

I think it boils down to that, but they like to claim it's because since every sperm is a potential person, then it's sinful to cause a potential person not to be conceived.

They must hate menstruating women.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

They must hate menstruating women.

APPARENTLY a woman is supposed to bring two turtles and two pigeons to her local priest upon finishing her period...

The Quadratic Equation

Not the annual rehashed "Condoms and Catholics" misrepresentations and misquotes yet again. :rolleyes:

Sarky

Maybe if the pope stopped saying retarded things you'd be spared this terrible burden?

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Not the annual rehashed "Condoms and Catholics" misrepresentations and misquotes yet again.

Given that it's the Vatican speaking and full references to Vatican-approved sources have been provided, I'm intrigued to hear you believe the Vatican's opinions are being either misrepresented and misquoted.

Care to enlighten us?

The Quadratic Equation

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe if the pope stopped saying retarded things you'd be spared this terrible burden?

Rather if you read his, and the Church's full and actual teachings on the issue rather than the selective media misquotes, you'd be spared, but then again I suppose, how on earth would you fill your days and define yourself without that.

ShooterSF

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Rather if you read his, and the Church's full and actual teachings on the issue rather than the selective media misquotes, you'd be spared, but then again I suppose, how on earth would you fill your days and define yourself without that.

Good christian would you be so kind as to tell us when the pope and the church permits the use of condoms so? I might not agree with your religion but I'd like to dislike it factually...

Gregor Samsa

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Rather if you read his, and the Church's full and actual teachings on the issue rather than the selective media misquotes, you'd be spared, but then again I suppose, how on earth would you fill your days and define yourself without that.

I'd be interested in hearing how a direct and unambiguous quote from an official statement on the official Holy See Diplomacy website, with no filtering through any other media organisation, somehow becomes media spin.

Is it some kind of linguistic transubstantiation, where the meaning of words can become something entirely different, even though the actual words and the context remain completely unchanged?

MrPudding

phutyle wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing how a direct and unambiguous quote from an official statement on the official Holy See Diplomacy website, with no filtering through any other media organisation, somehow becomes media spin.

Is it some kind of linguistic transubstantiation, where the meaning of words can become something entirely different, even though the actual words and the context remain completely unchanged?

Meh. He is just spinning out the usual rcc apologist crap. Probably didn't read and OP and therefore did not realise it was actually a quote directly from that abomination of an organisation.

Actually, if we wait we will probably be told by him that, whilst the quote came form the vatican, it was from the masonic / communist / atheist (delete as appropriate) cabal that operates inside the vatican with the purpose of destroying it from within.

MrP
MrP

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

selective media misquotes

The quote above, which you appear not to have read, is the last paragraph of an unedited official submission from the Vatican to the UN. The full text was presumably approved by the Vatican, it was delivered to the UN by an authorized representative of the Vatican, and appears on a Vatican-controlled website.

Can you tell us exactly how this constitutes "selective media misquotes"?

Or does one have to read it with an "open heart" in order to understand that the Vatican's just another evil atheist-controlled conspiracy? :rolleyes:

eyescreamcone

But why exactly is the church against all forms of contraception??
I'm struggling to understand this part.

pH

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But why exactly is the church against all forms of contraception??
I'm struggling to understand this part.

It was explained pretty clearly above, but if you insist:

The "power" of a religious institution comes primarily from the number of its adherents.

A combination of brainwashing parents to impose the religion on their own children (ad infinitum) combined with maximising the number of children produced by those parents clearly maximises the power of that religion.

Therefore "Contraception is obviously against God's plan."

eyescreamcone

pH wrote: »

It was explained pretty clearly above, but if you insist:

The "power" of a religious institution comes primarily from the number of its adherents.

A combination of brainwashing parents to impose the religion on their own children (ad infinitum) combined with maximising the number of children produced by those parents clearly maximises the power of that religion.

Therefore "Contraception is obviously against God's plan."

That's not the official line though???

Dades

eyescreamcone wrote: »

That's not the official line though???

LOL!

Just like the Scientology official line is about fleecing their 'believers'.

kylith

eyescreamcone wrote: »

That's not the official line though???

As far as I know, the official line is: Life is sacred. Sperm and eggs are potential lives. Therefore sperm and eggs are sacred and not to be 'wasted'.

eyescreamcone

That's mad Ted!

Beruthiel

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But why exactly is the church against all forms of contraception??
I'm struggling to understand this part.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Delirium

Beruthiel wrote: »

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

God should have designed a better reproduction system, the poor fecker must be constantly irate.

kylith

What happens when a guy has a wet dream? Is he supposed to go to confession and say he's very sorry, or does he go to hell? If sperm is so holy why does God kill millions of them like that?

robindch

kylith wrote: »

If sperm is so holy why does God kill millions of them like that?

I've always wondered why the christian deity wanted people dead.

Ellis Dee

And just because he prefers it bareback himself
...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Mistress 69

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But why exactly is the church against all forms of contraception??
I'm struggling to understand this part.

ANSWER: They have a rather perverted sense of ideas !



To my knowledge the Church regard sex as an act solely for the procreation of children. One is not supposed to enjoy it. If every time a woman had sex that resulted in children, it is likeley that she would stop. However, the use of condoms allows all the fun and games to continue without lifetime consequences. As the song says girls just want to have fun...:P . In some ways this all sounds a little amusing but it is far from it. There was a time not so long ago in this country that when a woman gave birth, a little issue of churching was involved. For those of you who have never heard of this: Being Churched' means the new mum effectively has to be absolved by a priest for commiting the act of sex. The Church has been even more barbaric up till recent times regarding new Mums. Resulting from investigations in a certain hospital north of Dublin the Church were advising that difficult births be treated literally by dislocating the mothers hips in order to deliver. This was done many times. Imagine those $%&* in their black robes advising the hospital authorities. The idea was that if there was a deterrent of sufficent strength that the new Mums would think twice before going again. Most of them were too physically injured to do so.

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But why exactly is the church against all forms of contraception??
I'm struggling to understand this part.

i think onan's story had a good bit to do with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Mistress 69

bluewolf wrote: »

i think onan's story had a good bit to do with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Thats a pretty good read.

ps love the horns

Galvasean

Any sign of Quadra? He's got some 'splainin' ta do!

The Quadratic Equation

robindch wrote: »

There was a lot of chatter last year when Ratzinger appeared to announce that the Vatican would endorse the use of condoms in strictly limited circumstances, for example by HIV-infected male prostitutes, to help reduce the spread of disease. Contemporary news on that here.

However, Ratzinger seems now to have changed his mind. Two weeks ago, the Vatican announced to the UN that it does not support the use of condoms for any reason, under any circumstances:

http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=341

While the position, to say the very least, violates basic medical advice, at least the Vatican has finally come out and stated its position clearly and unambiguously.

robindch wrote: »

Given that it's the Vatican speaking and full references to Vatican-approved sources have been provided, I'm intrigued to hear you believe the Vatican's opinions are being either misrepresented and misquoted.

Care to enlighten us?

And what about the other press article you quoted and used to try and claim that the Vatican / Pope does not have a clear position on the issue ? The position has always been clear, for Catholics the Church does not condone sex outside marriage or any artificial means of preventing the conception of human life.