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
