Why the Catholic Church is going to Hell

[Cardinal]

Note: I'm not trying to offend anyone here with these comments.

It seems that the Catholic Church in Africa, in trying to discourage the use of contraception, is telling people that condoms can't stop AIDS. I just don't get it. Is contraception so horrible a sin that it is better to infect your partner and risk having an infected child? There does not seem to be any logic behind this sort of thing, which is the reason I long ago left the church.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_condoms_dc_1

[PlannerGirl]

they wont condone condoms becouse they cant accept that there is sex outside of a married man and woman trying to make a baby. Any use of condoms would crack their fragile world.

This is not just a teaching in Africa but in the USA too and people buy into it!

[SkeLeton]

Condoms are abortive! Condoms are the evil invention of Satan to encourage sexual promiscuity... Not!

I guess the Catholic Church is retrograde worldwide, without exceptions.. here, they're also against condoms and the emercency contraception pill and any contraception method..
And I won't even touch the subject about the endless fights about our new civil marriage law, they want to keep the unbreakable marriage, and make it an option when marrying, when even the Catholic Church declares null some marriages... Why must beliefs have to be forced by a law? If you're catholic you should marry for life, and do whatever it takes to save your marriage.

PS: I'm sorry if my post may be offensive to anybody, I did not intend to do so.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Originally posted by SkeLeton
Condoms are abortive! Condoms are the evil invention of Satan...

Damn shrinkwrap!

[jordanb]

I agree. It's totally ****ed up. My mother works at the Office of the Missions for her diocese. They send aid workers (particularly doctors) into poor catholic countries like Haiti. They're not allowed to discuss contraception at all or give out any contraceptives because it's against church teaching.

The one thing they can do that would really change the standard of living in those countries is if the Church condoned contraceptive use and allowed church workers to distribute them. Not only would AIDS rates go down, but so would unwanted pregnancy rates.

The problem is that the Church cannon holds that sex is only for procreation, and trying to have sex while not allowing for the possibility of procreation is wrong. To change the teaching on contraceptives would require that to be reversed too. The current pope has made it clear that he won't consider changing it, so nothing will happen until he dies (which should be any day now).

The church has conservitive and liberal factions and they have been fighting over this particular issue for decades. Primarily, they've been angling to have cardinals on the council who will choose a new pope that will go their way on it. I'm not sure how things are working now because I'm not really up on the politics, but last I heard the liberals had the upper hand, so there's a good chance it could be changed when John II dies.

[jordanb]

Originally posted by PlannerGirl
This is not just a teaching in Africa but in the USA too and people buy into it!

Not so much. Conservitive Catholics do, but they are just like radical Protestants, in that they're wacko.

I remember in my religion class in high school, we were studying the church cannon, and we got to the bit about sex only for procreation. Most of us couldn't believe it and thought it was absurd, so the instructer (a priest) took some time to explain the concept of "personal dissent" in which a person can privately dissent from a teaching of the church.

Unfortunatly, in many of those poor countries, the teachings of the Church are laws more powerful than anything their governments could pass, so things like condoms aren't discussed openly and are very hard to get.

[jordanb]

Originally posted by SkeLeton
Condoms are abortive! Condoms are the evil invention of Satan to encourage sexual promiscuity... Not!

I guess the Catholic Church is retrograde worldwide, without exceptions..

The church moves very slowly. It was stuck in the 15th century until Vatican II. Vatican II immediently shifted it into about the 18th century, and it's been moving forward since then. One thing people don't realize is that the power structure in the church is a lot like a government, so every official decision made by it is the end result of incredible amounts of politics.

And I won't even touch the subject about the endless fights about our new civil marriage law, they want to keep the unbreakable marriage, and make it an option when marrying, when even the Catholic Church declares null some marriages... Why must beliefs have to be forced by a law? If you're catholic you should marry for life, and do whatever it takes to save your marriage.

My guess is that your country is controlled by Catholic right-wingers. We have that here too, except that here they tend to be Protestant (ie the Christian Coalition). A lot of the backwards thinking things this country does (like support Isreal) is because of them.

By the way, a church annulment is actually fairly easy to get. My aunt got one, it was mainly a matter of paperwork. I bet that's why people aren't happy with allowing a civil divorace when an annulment has been granted, annulments are too easy to get to satisfy the conseritive nuts.

[SkeLeton]

My guess is that your country is controlled by Catholic right-wingers

Yup, lovely Spanish legacy... the Chilean government got separated from the Catholic Church in 1925, so you can expect that they still believe they can manipulated the populace, when the amount of Catholics here has been decreasing, reaching the 60-70% (But, an important percentage is catholic because it's socially acceptable to be so)

Jordanb, don't get me started on the Israel topic.. or I'll get too politically incorrect... Does Israel believe that because they suffered the Holocaust, the can do the same with Palestine?

[Seabishop]

Originally posted by jordanb

The church has conservitive and liberal factions and they have been fighting over this particular issue for decades. Primarily, they've been angling to have cardinals on the council who will choose a new pope that will go their way on it. I'm not sure how things are working now because I'm not really up on the politics, but last I heard the liberals had the upper hand, so there's a good chance it could be changed when John II dies.

I've heard that scenario but I've also read the opposite - that the Vatican is focusing more on the developing world and less on liberal Catholic areas (NA and Europe). The future of Catholicism doesn't lie in the West so the vatican cares less about Western opinion. Catholicism in the developing world tends to be more fundamentalist than here. A new pope could bring either a new liberal focus on issues like contraception, or a neo-conservative approach. Who knows, maybe kids will be memorizing latin prayers again.

BTW - I'm not really a bishop, so please hold all questions.

[Seabishop]

Originally posted by SkeLeton
Jordanb, don't get me started on the Israel topic.. or I'll get too politically incorrect... Does Israel believe that because they suffered the Holocaust, the can do the same with Palestine?

Too late on the political incorrectness. . .

Actually, its just plain incorrect. This isn't even close to the holocaust -a genocide of 6 million, concentration camps?

Who's doing the suicide bombing/terrorism and who's trying to defend itself? Israel has been in a position since its inception where the entire region around them has been dying (literally) to wipe them out. If they don't do what they can to defend themselves, they will be taken advantage of.

I don't think Israel can do no wrong - settlement in the occupied territories is a problem, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid who blows himself up in a restaurant. I also don't have much sympathy for Arafat who won't crack down on terrorism no matter how many times he shakes hands and smiles with western leaders.

You want to find a government responsible for the genocide of thousands of muslems? Try Saddam Hussein.

[biscuit]

Originally posted by jordanb
My guess is that your country is controlled by Catholic right-wingers. We have that here too, except that here they tend to be Protestant (ie the Christian Coalition). A lot of the backwards thinking things this country does (like support Isreal) is because of them.

If you'd take a little look through your history books you'll find that official American support for Isreal has little to do with the Christian Coalition and other groups.The US has in fact been a major supporter of of Isreal since that nations inception, way before conservative evangelical Christian groups gained any real kind of political power in this country.

[SkeLeton]

Originally posted by Seabishop

Who's doing the suicide bombing/terrorism and who's trying to defend itself? Israel has been in a position since its inception where the entire region around them has been dying (literally) to wipe them out. If they don't do what they can to defend themselves, they will be taken advantage of.

You want to find a government responsible for the genocide of thousands of muslems? Try Saddam Hussein.

I do not support or encourage terrorism, but Israel is not only defending themselves, but also are going a bit too far (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan) and taking an offensive position. Israel should concentrate in preventing terrorist attacks in Israel, and not attacking Palestine every time some suicide bomber blows up someting. And the lovely wall they're building, shouldn't they be dismantelling their illegal settlements in Palestine and if they want to build the wall to feel safer, don't invade Palestine's territory...

Oh and don't try to dignify bad comparing to worse (like Saddam)

On topic: Misinformation in such matters like AIDS should not be sponsored by a suposedly "good" organization. Is the Iraqui ex-Minister of (Mis)Information doing some work there?

"Those infidels! They lie! Condoms do not protect you from AIDS! They kill you! Your "member" will rot and fall off if you put on a condom!"

[Zoning Goddess]

Glad to hear all you boys are so in favor of condoms. Funny, it doesn't seem the same among the general male populace...

[Rem]

Originally posted by jordanb
Primarily, they've been angling to have cardinals on the council who will choose a new pope that will go their way on it. I'm not sure how things are working now because I'm not really up on the politics, but last I heard the liberals had the upper hand, so there's a good chance it could be changed when John II dies.

I think this may be behind the times. Bishop Pell (an Australian)was elevated to Cardinal last week. He is considered conservative and publicly supports the current Pope above and beyond the call of duty (he will not give communion to gays for example).

[Greenescapist]

Cardinal - I've argued this same thing to people before. I totally disgusts me. I grew up Catholic and went to a Jesuit university, but between their positions on family planning, their practice of shuttling child molesters across the country, their homophobic stances, etc. It's all morally reprehensible.

[jordanb]

Originally posted by Zoning Goddess
Glad to hear all you boys are so in favor of condoms. Funny, it doesn't seem the same among the general male populace...

Maybe in Flordia. :-P Good ole boys, and all that, ya know?

[The Irish One]

codoms for everybody!

[Trail Nazi]

I went to a Catholic high school and was taught by both nuns and priests. In our senior year, we all got "married" and had to carry a 5 lb bag of bird seed as our child for 2 weeks. My teacher, who was a priest, actually encouraged those who were going to engage in sexual relations to wear condoms. He said that he knew we were going to have sex outside of marriage so we might as well use protection and utilize other forms of birth control. Of course, I went to an extremely liberal Catholic school.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Trail Nazi
I went to a Catholic high school and was taught by both nuns and priests. In our senior year, we all got "married" and had to carry a 5 lb bag of bird seed as our child for 2 weeks. My teacher, who was a priest, actually encouraged those who were going to engage in sexual relations to wear condoms. He said that he knew we were going to have sex outside of marriage so we might as well use protection and utilize other forms of birth control. Of course, I went to an extremely liberal Catholic school.

You bring up a very good point. I think at the local level, the younger priests (at least while I still cared) tended to be more liberal on issues such as contraception. I also know of a couple that eventually left the priesthood.

[Seabishop]

Originally posted by SkeLeton

Oh and don't try to dignify bad comparing to worse (like Saddam)

. . . um, you just compared Israel to the Nazis.

It will probably be a matter of time before the media turns Palestinian "terrorists" into "freedom fighters," especially if Bush takes a tough stance on Arafat.

I don't see what good can come of the wall either.

[SW MI Planner]

By the way, a church annulment is actually fairly easy to get. My aunt got one, it was mainly a matter of paperwork. I bet that's why people aren't happy with allowing a civil divorace when an annulment has been granted, annulments are too easy to get to satisfy the conseritive nuts.

Isn't an annulment just a 'church' thing - you still have to get a civil divorce.

[SkeLeton]

Originally posted by SW MI Planner
Isn't an annulment just a 'church' thing - you still have to get a civil divorce.

Which in the case that the catholic church succeeds in creating an option for non divorciable marriage, you could get an annulment from the church, but not from your civil marriage, because you chose a non-divorciable marriage.. (So the State would be more saint than the church ) Ridiculous isn't it?

[Chet]

Originally posted by Greenescapist
Cardinal - I've argued this same thing to people before. I totally disgusts me. I grew up Catholic and went to a Jesuit university, but between their positions on family planning, their practice of shuttling child molesters across the country, their homophobic stances, etc. It's all morally reprehensible.

100% agree

sorry you couldnt make the Budgie ale fest BTW.

[DecaturHawk]

You all knew I would have to get into this fray. First off, I applaud Cardinal for advancing the question in a deliberative way because he has an honest disagreement with it. Others on this thread have sunk into the "slam the Catholic Church" mentality. Unfortunately, prejudice against the Church is one of the last acceptable prejudices in our society.

I'm one of those "wackos" who happen to believe in and live the Church's teaching regarding contraception. If the Church has made any mistakes regarding contraception, especially in America, it is the fact that it has done a very poor job communicating to her people her very compassionate and humanistic teachings on human sexuality. In our sexually-charged modern culture, too many bishops, priests and religious are afraid to tackle these issues. It's too bad, because I believe that many people would change their minds about the Church's teaching if they took the time to honestly understand and embrace them.

So: a couple of points. First, condoms don't stop AIDS. Condoms can help, but they don't stop AIDS. Latex is porous (albeit to a very slight degree) and the microorganism that causes AIDS has been shown to be able to penetrate the latex (it is much smaller than sperm). I have heard that there are newer kinds that prevent this, but they are more expensive and probably unlikely to be used in Third World situations. I've also heard that these are less sensitive than the older styles and men generally don't like them.

Condoms have about a 10 percent failure rate in preventing pregnancy, and statistically there have to be even more failures (i.e., breakage, slippage, etc) that don't result in pregnancy, so the actual failure rate is more than 10 percent. With each failure, there is a chance of transmitting a sexually transmitted disease. While condoms can prevent transmission in most cases, a 10+ percent chance of getting a disease with each use are not odds I would be willing to risk.

Finally, condoms are definitely the ugly stepchild of the birth control revolution. Most men don't like to use them, because they reduce sensitivity. Aesthetically, they detract from the romantic and sexual experience. Female condoms are even more despised and less used. Condoms also cannot protect against transmission of disease through oral sex (latex isn't exactly tasty, and those "dental dams" are even more disgusting, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use one).

jordanB wrote:
The problem is that the Church cannon holds that sex is only for procreation, and trying to have sex while not allowing for the possibility of procreation is wrong. To change the teaching on contraceptives would require that to be reversed too.

Not exactly. The teaching (not part of canon law, BTW) is that sexuality is reserved for marriage and that it is BOTH unitive and procreative. The union of spouses, in order to live the vows that were made in the sacrament of marriage, cannot be unitive if it is not open to life. The Church teaches that this openness to life leads to stronger union within the marriage and cooperates with God's design.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for a married couple to postpone having children. A couple that wishes to cooperate with God's design can resort to natural methods of birth regulation such as modern natural family planning and ecological breastfeeding. Modern NFP is a scientific method (not the old rhythm method, aka "Vatican Roulette") that is as effective as the Pill if used correctly. Yes, if you are trying to avoid pregnancy, you must abstain during the fertile periods. However, couples using NFP have found that this helps them to find other ways to express their love for one another and brings them closer together. It's no accident that the divorce rate among those who use NFP is under 5 percent, compared to 50 percent for the general populace.

No, the Church does not teach this because she wants you to have a whole bunch of kids so there will be more Catholics. The Church asks us to consider our family sizes prayerfully and to be open to new life. Although people who use NFP tend to have larger families, this is because of their openness to children, not because of method failure.

I agree with Seabishop, the trend in the Church is towards tradition and orthodoxy, and it's very unlikely that the next pope will reverse these teachings. I am well aware that I am alone in this forum on this issue, and I expect to be flamed, but I hope it can be done with a spirit of charity. I hope that off-topic ramblings into miscreant priests and bishops can also be avoided (yes, I believe that those men were 100 percent wrong and if they embraced Church teaching we wouldn't have had the scandal). Also, because of the sensible rules regarding religious discussions on this forum, I don't think it is appropriate to go into a lengthy discussion on sanctity of life and the spiritual dimensions of human sexuality. Anybody that wants to know about these things or about NFP can PM me.

I personally think its great that there is at least one institution in this world that doesn't feel the need to change with each cultural movement. The Church has stood for nearly 2000 years and has survived worse times than these. Perfect? Obviously not. Flawed? Sure, it's still in many ways a human institution. But Christ promised that He would protect His church, and I believe that He is doing fine. I'm sticking with the Church, as Christ founded it. Sorry for the long post

[NHPlanner]

Originally posted by SW MI Planner
Isn't an annulment just a 'church' thing - you still have to get a civil divorce.

Coming from experience (well....soon to be experience)....yes, you still need the divorce first, then you can get the annulment from the church.