Prophecy of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae
Quote: Humanae Vitae17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Yeah, those poor women, too bad they can't enjoy sex too.
What a bunch of malarky. Spoken like a man who's never
had sex with an insatiable wowam, or any woman at all.
Its been proven with brain scans that women actually enjoy
sex more than men do. At orgasm, a woman's brain lights
up like a Christmas tree. In a man, only a small part lights
up. So when a man is satisfying his evil desires, he's also
satisfying hers. The Church should really wander out of the
15th century and look around once in awhile.
Look. Women and men really enjoy sex, especially together. In a married relationship, I'd like to have sex over and over again without thinking about having children. The rhythm method and the withdrawal method are both very unreliable. My 14 year old daughter is a result of the rhythm method, as my now-ex wife didn't want to take the pill because of bloating. Now, don't get me wrong, she's a beautiful thing, mind you (my daughter) but was completely unintentional.
In an relationship outside of marriage, of course, the pill and other contraceptive methods I am sure has made intercourse outside of marriage more prolific. And maybe that's your point. But the cat has been let out of the bag now -- the pill's been available for over 50 years (40 years if you were unmarried). And condoms have been around for hundreds of years.
Let it go already.
Quote: FrGambleGave a talk recently on Humanae Vitae, the last encyclical of Paul VI written in 1968 when he laid out the reasons behind the Church's oppostion to artificial contraception. I found these paragraphs prophetic and thought I would share them:
When the pill was first marketed in 1960, all advertising was aimed purely at married couples who wanted to control their fertility. From antiquity, the plant Sikphium (which no longer exists) which functioned as a contraceptive was one of the world's most valuable commodities. So valuable that it's likeness was put on a coin.
I would like to momentarily set aside the issues of infidelity and pre-marital sex. clearly unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease, and many other issues are combined into those questions.
A half century after the introduction of the pill, it seems dated to tell married couples to rely solely on the rhythm method as contraceptive given the extreme life altering consequences of unplanned pregnancy. As I am not Catholic, I don't know the position on Vasectomy or other surgery.
Quote: boymimbo
Look. Women and men really enjoy sex, especially together. In a married relationship, I'd like to have sex over and over again without thinking about having children. The rhythm method and the withdrawal method are both very unreliable. My 14 year old daughter is a result of the rhythm method, as my now-ex wife didn't want to take the pill because of bloating. Now, don't get me wrong, she's a beautiful thing, mind you (my daughter) but was completely unintentional.
In an relationship outside of marriage, of course, the pill and other contraceptive methods I am sure has made intercourse outside of marriage more prolific. And maybe that's your point. But the cat has been let out of the bag now -- the pill's been available for over 50 years (40 years if you were unmarried). And condoms have been around for hundreds of years.
Let it go already.
Congratualtions on your daughter, intentional or not what a precious gift. The science of Natural Family Planning is such that today if you do not want to conceive a child it is every bit as effective as any artificial means of brith control and still respects the natural and healthy fertility of a woman (and in doing so respects the woman herself).
I agree the cat is out of the bag and it has caused devasting consequences. Hopefully by having the topic of contraceptives in the news lately many people will honestly look at the issue and see that the Church has been 100% correct about this all along.
Quote: pacomartin
A half century after the introduction of the pill, it seems dated to tell married couples to rely solely on the rhythm method as contraceptive given the extreme life altering consequences of unplanned pregnancy. As I am not Catholic, I don't know the position on Vasectomy or other surgery.
The rhythm method is not taught anymore. Science has progressed and given a very reliable way to avoid pregnancy if for good reasons a married couple determines they should not have children at this time. This is called Natural Family Planning or NFP and it is not only as effective as artifical birth control but much better in many ways. Any sterlization procedure for man or woman would be an artifical means (and sometimes permanent) of birth control and therefore rejected by the Church.
Quote: FrGambleThis is called Natural Family Planning .
The reason NFP only works for the most fanatical religious
zealots is most people want to have sex spontaneously.
The whole charting, checking your mucous, checking your
temperature, and scheduling when you can have sex is
way too much work for most people and definitely kills
the mood. And at its very best, NFP is effective about 90%
of the time, and thats if you follow it to the letter, which
hardly anybody does. Thats like buying a box of condoms
where every 10th one has a hole in it. Whats the point..
Its the height of irony and hypocrisy that people who never
have sex, take it upon themselves to preach to others how
they should handle their sex lives. Thats like people who've
never driven or ridden in a car, trying to lecture others on
how to drive. Its ridiculous.
Quote: FrGambleThe rhythm method is not taught anymore. Science has progressed and given a very reliable way to avoid pregnancy if for good reasons a married couple determines they should not have children at this time. This is called Natural Family Planning or NFP and it is not only as effective as artifical birth control but much better in many ways. Any sterlization procedure for man or woman would be an artifical means (and sometimes permanent) of birth control and therefore rejected by the Church.
So NFP tracks a woman's fertility cycle and you adjust accordingly? What is the percentage of accuracy there? A good JOB machine can give me 99.7% or better. I would walk past a JOB paying 97%. My wife according to God's plan has MS. Fortunately God found it apt to give her a "benign" case (benign in MS means you are not F'ed up now but every morning is a Come Out roll.) however if we were to have children there is a good chance they would end up with MS. Tell me how it is more of a sin to have a vasectomy than to give birth to a child who may have a short life of pain? Slippery slope to Christian Scientists. Methods of birth control were used in Biblical times however they don't feature prominently in the Bible.
I mean no disrespect to you Father but as the old saying goes "Walk a mile in my shoes" or perhaps "judge not lest ye be judged thy self". If my admission to Heaven comes down to a 1/16th of an inch of my vas deferentia I might not want to come in anyway.
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Quote: EvenBobThe reason NFP only works for the most fanatical religious
zealots is most people want to have sex spontaneously.
The whole charting, checking your mucous, checking your
temperature, and scheduling when you can have sex is
way too much work for most people and definitely kills
the mood. And at its very best, NFP is effective about 90%
of the time, and thats if you follow it to the letter, which
hardly anybody does. Thats like buying a box of condoms
where every 10th one has a hole in it. Whats the point..
Its the height of irony and hypocrisy that people who never
have sex, take it upon themselves to preach to others how
they should handle their sex lives. Thats like people who've
never driven or ridden in a car, trying to lecture others on
how to drive. Its ridiculous.
See even me and Evenbob agree. The world is comming to the end!
Quote: Wavy70See even me and Evenbob agree. The world is comming to the end!
90% is far worse odds than a slot machine offers. You
will get pregnant, its just a matter of time. All NFP does
slows down the chances, it doesn't prevent anything.
Quote: Wavy70See even me and Evenbob agree. The world is comming to the end!
As usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. I also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?
Anyway, your particular situation is obviously difficult. If for good reason you did not want to have children you are correct NFP will give you only a 99% chance of avoiding pregnancy. With that 1% chance of getting pregnant I don't know what the chances would be of having a child with MS, but from your thoughtful post I imagine the chances would be excellent that any child of yours would be special, wonderful, beautiful, and loved just like how you see your wife.
Quote: FrGambleAs usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. I also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?
Anyway, your particular situation is obviously difficult. If for good reason you did not want to have children you are correct NFP will give you only a 99% chance of avoiding pregnancy. With that 1% chance of getting pregnant I don't know what the chances would be of having a child with MS, but from your thoughtful post I imagine the chances would be excellent that any child of yours would be special, wonderful, beautiful, and loved just like how you see your wife.
Do you have any studies to back that up? Here's a snippet from a study I found:
Quote:Of the 900 women, 322 used only STM and 509 women used STM with occasional barriers during the fertile time. Sixty-nine women did not document their sexual behaviour. Out of the women who documented their sexual behaviour and abstained from sex during their fertile period ("perfect use") the unintended pregnancy rate was 0.4 per 100 women and 13 cycles [2], and 0.6 for women who used STM plus a barrier if they had sex during their fertile period. For cycles in which couples had unprotected sex during the fertile phase, the pregnancy rates rose to 7.5 per 100 women and 13 cycles. The drop-out rate from using STM for reasons such as dissatisfaction or difficulties with the method was 9.2 per 100 women and 13 cycles, and compared well with the drop-out rates from other methods of family planning, which can be as high as 30%, although direct comparisons are difficult due to methodological problems. "This demonstrates a fairly good acceptability for this particular FAB method," said Prof Frank-Herrmann.
Ok, so there were 322 of women who used only NFP (called STM in the study) without another means of birth control. Of the 900 in the study, total, about 8% didn't report in. Those 8% may have been women who had an unplanned pregnancy and then chose to not finish the study. So they gave a rate 0.4/100 with a sample size of only 300? And it wasn't really 300 since they only selected the women who had a "perfect use" of the system. That study seems a bit flawed to me.
Also, and damn I have to agree with EvenBob too, it's not crazy to say that someone that utterly lacks experience on a topic may not provide the best prospective.
A few more things:
-NFP means to use sex for other than a procreative purpose. If it's "unitive" sex, then why is one form of birth control allowed (NFP) and another is not? Is St. Peter making a list of all the angels wiping their cervical mucus across their fingers versus the demons that use an artificial method?
-With NFP a woman can't have sex during the time she craves it and would enjoy it the most. You Catholics really have it out for women.
-What's with the Big Brother argument in Humanae Vitae? What does that have to do with an individual's right to choose a family planning method? Why does one potential use of artificial contraceptives make them wrong for the individual?
-"human beings...need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law." Yet you support the casino industry by frequenting them?
-If NFP works so well, isn't it also contributing to the moral decline by making sex less risky? A woman who knows when she is not fertile can cheat like any other, or any man with her.
Quote: FrGambleI agree the cat is out of the bag and it has caused devasting consequences. Hopefully by having the topic of contraceptives in the news lately many people will honestly look at the issue and see that the Church has been 100% correct about this all along.
What contraceptive news? What devastating consequences? Also, the Catholic Church should be wary of the glass house they live in when it comes to reading the news. Hell, an objective outsider who read a few history books would be disgusted by the horrors inflicted upon people and the wars due to the Catholic religion.
That's not relevant. How can you compare a Doctor who is a Hands-On specialist with some man in a dress who quite literally pontificates about something he has no experience at? Actually, I know the answer. It's because you have dedicated your career path to fostering a belief in a bronze age invisible friend, on people who are pre-disposed to believe it. More and more people are realizing that the Catholic church and all of its popes are 100% wrong on the issue of contraception. And that's a blessed thing.Quote: FrGambleI also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?
Here is a link to a study. I'll quote from it! Link
Quote: study
• Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%).
• Some 68% of Catholic women use a highly effective method (pill, sterilization, IUD) , compared with 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals.
• Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; this is true even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more.
Of course, the Catholic Church feels the way it does. It's the way that they belittle women.
I'm sorry, but I strongly feel that given that the church is still covering up its sex scandal (it took a few courageous priests and bishops to expose the truth) and I think its position on contraception is very outdated and needs an overhaul.
Overpopulation and poverty is a very real problem in this world, and no natural planning method is going to resolve this issue. It is much, much, better to increase the standard of living overall in the 3rd world and provide free contraception in order to curb population growth and ensure that fewer people have access to a decreasing pool resources.
I totally agree that the advent of easy to obtain contraception, be it the pill, condoms, IUDs, the rate of intercourse has gone through the roof, and that the rate of adultery has also increased, significantly.
The church should rightly focus on adultery and extramarital affairs, not the "tool". If all of the contraception in the world all of a sudden didn't work, you'd see some people choose to focus on abstinence and some focusing on NFP. But the abortion rate probably would go through the roof.
Quote: FrGambleAs usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. .
UhHuh. Here's an article from the American Pregnancy Association that explains NFP in great detail.
Quote:
"When fertility awareness is used correctly and consistently, it may reach effective rates around 90%. The effectiveness depends on your diligence to track and record your fertility pattern and your commitment to abstaining from sexual intercourse or using a barrier form of birth control during your fertility window. Typical use, which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate of approximately 25%."
All the studies that say its 99% effective were put
out by (wait for it) the Church! Or they were paid
for and endorsed by the Church. The average
failure rate is 75%! Thats why couples who use NFP
tend to have much larger families (look it up) than
people who use more effective methods. The biggest
drawback to NFB is the average woman has to abstain
from sex 10 days out off the month, or 33% of the year.
And its non effective against STD's, unlike condoms.
Why does the Church endorse such a complicated and
ineffective method? They believe and always have
believed that sex is the root of all evil. Its for hetero's
only and never for recreational purposes, only for
when a couple wants a baby. NFP slows everything
down. How can you have sex with a stranger, or even
with your girlfriend without jumping thru all these hoops
to prevent pregnancy? This isn't about preventing
babies as much as it is to stop people from having sex
as much as possible. Catholics have been utterly obsessed
with sex for the last 1000 years, much to their detriment.
Anybody watch 60 Minutes yesterday?
The Archbishop of Dublin turned over 65,000 pages
of documents detailing what goes on inside the Church
when grown men are forced to abstain from a completely
natural act. All hell is unleashed, apparently.
Folks like to fuck. I'd say "have sex", but you know me: when a word fits, I'm going to use it. Because the debate isn't about "sex". It's about FUCKING. Because it's fucking that we like. Sex is laboratory stuff, sex is biology. Fucking, that's oil and scents and sweat and sleaze and moaning and all that good stuff. That's what we want, a good fuck. It feels good. It's satisfying. And THAT is what the morality police are after. Not sex. They're after our fucks.
It's also a drive, an urge, a need. We use a lot of energy figuring out ways to do it. We spend a lot of money on it. We spend a lot of emotion on it, and we spend a lot of time thinking about it.
It leads to babies. And that's a good thing, because it's our primal, #1 drive. If ever there was an argument to be made about intelligent design, I'd start with that one (although I wouldn't agree with it personally): the urge we have the most is what propagates the species.
From here, there are a lot of good arguments to be made for artificial contraception. The first one is that humans are a species that controls its environment. Recent studies show that that control is most likely the reason we won the evolutionary sweepstakes against the Neanderthal, Denisovan, "hobbits", and others. (Further reading: How We Won the Hominid Wars.) We control weather, we control water, we control elevation, speed, we fit the world to us. As rational thinkers, and as feeling, emotional beings who like to fuck, it only makes sense for us to want to control our families, our futures, and our pleasure. Simply put, we want to be able to fuck without consequence. So, being who we are, we figured out a way to do that. Science is wonderful!
All the other reasons, they'll all lead the same direction: we want to be able to fuck without consequence. Me, I really don't see a problem with that.
Here's the next thing.
This is being framed as a women's issue. But it isn't. It's a men's issue, too. Because the fucking that you need the pills for, you need a man in there somewhere. And if it's an issue for both men and women, then that means it's a societal issue.
As a societal issue, we can look at it a few different ways, but for the current discussion, people are framing it mostly as either an economic argument or as a moral argument.
As an economic argument, any attempt to pose discounted or free access to birth control as fiscally irresponsible is ridiculous on its face. Unwanted children are immeasurably more costly than contraception pills, in so many ways that I could write a book. (Let's put aside the contradiction that it is almost absurd to oppose abortion on one hand, and to also oppose artificial contraception on the other.) Insurance companies would much rather pay for pills than child birth; ask them.
As a moral argument, it still fails. There is no sane reason for a government to control fucking. Childbirth, perhaps.... maybe by ensuring that health insurance pays for contraception. But fucking itself? WHY? The people like it, it's free, there's no harm in it (other than unwanted pregnancy, and there's a solution for that.) Trying to control fucking is way, way more insane than trying to control alcohol consumption, and we all know how that worked out. There's nothing morally wrong with fucking.
People are people. Folks is folks. Folks want to fuck. I say, let 'em.
Quote: MoscaThere's nothing morally wrong with fucking.
I remember when I first heard the Church
wouldn't let girls wear patent leather shoes
because they were so shiny a boy could
possibly see up a girls skirt. Do you realize
how utterly obsessed with sex you have
to be to come up something so ridiculous?
It's even weirder that the catholic church is still hypocritical enough to be discussing sexual taboos.
Last I checked having homosexual relations with preadolescents was both a sin and a crime.
In my opinion the catholic church should be prosecuted under RICO statutes and Interpol statutes
And the pope should barred from the US and the EU.
But I guess when you are running the worlds most successful 2000 year old pyramid scheme,
You will do or say whatever it takes to keep the gold flowing in....
Quote: EvenBobI remember when I first heard the Church
wouldn't let girls wear patent leather shoes
because they were so shiny a boy could
possibly see up a girls skirt. Do you realize
how utterly obsessed with sex you have
to be to come up something so ridiculous?
And can you see how close that is to demanding that women wear burkas?
Quote: MoscaAnd can you see how close that is to demanding that women wear burkas?
Of course, its all about control. The Church has always
been about total control of peoples lives, and they've
lost so much of that in the last 75 years and have never
gotten over it. They even control the lives of the men
who come forward and say they were abused. The Church
pays for treatment and is very nice to them, until the statute
of limitations runs out and they can't be sued. Then they kick
the poor guy to the curb, another fortune saved.
Natural Family Planning is a natural way to conceive or to responsibly plan your family. Since it uses our knowledge of biology and the human body it is completely healthy. In a day and age when everything is organic and natural and we are all realizing how much harm artificial hormones and chemicals can do, it is by far the safest choice for women. When used correctly it is 99% effective. study It encourages regular conversation about the decision to have or not have children, the feelings and emotions of both partners in regards to sex. It engages the reason and the will in control of our desires so we don't run roughshod over our partners for our own pleasure. For all of these reasons and more the divorce rate of couples who practice NFP is around a staggering 0.2%. study It heightens the glorious gift of making love between couples, especially after days in which they abstain, and helps foster other spiritual ways in which couples show love for each other. It is just good all around.
Contraception and abortion inducing drugs have led to an ever increasing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions. It has contributed to looking at women as nothing more than objects for sexual pleasure and led to an explosion in the making and distribution of pornography and sexual abuse, including slavery, of women. As people have already mentioned the rates of infidelity and cheating on the marriage vows has increased. It is just bad all around.
As far as unplanned pregnancy and abortion go .. do you understand how female contraception works? Because those are the very things it prevents. Certainly prevents it better thannatural family planning. Further, natural family planning doesn't prevent any more diseases than the pill and in fact, it's quite a bit less effective than condoms. Referring continually to women as objects of sexual pleasure says more about you than about men in general.Quote: FrGambleContraception and abortion inducing drugs have led to an ever increasing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions.
Regarding infidelity and sexually transmitted disease:
Those things have been around a pretty long time. Pre-contraception.
Regarding looking at women as an nothing more than objects of pleasure:
Wow, FrG. I give you a lot of leeway on stuff. But now you're simplifying things a bit, aren't you? Women and men as objects of each others' desire, for pleasure, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. That woman walking down the street, whom I don't know: she's going to be looked at as an object of pleasure. Birth control isn't an issue. And at the same time, that thought is going to flit through my mind and be gone, as I look back to see if the light has changed. My wife: she'd be pretty damn pissed off if, when the doors close, I didn't think of her as an object of pleasure. We're capable of holding both thoughts in our heads at the same time, after all. What contraception does is gives women sexual equality. A woman is now free to explore her sexuality in whatever way she wants. If that means more spontaneity, that's awesome. If it means she wants multiple partners, who cares? And why should they?
Regarding unplanned pregnancies and abortions: I think this is a bit of a stretch, saying that contraception leads to unplanned pregnancy and abortion. Common sense says that it prevents unplanned pregnancy and abortion.
Regarding pornography, sexual abuse, and slavery of women: I'd say that these are all independent of contraception. All have been around a long time. Again, I think you're stretching here.
People haven't changed. All these things that you bring up, they were issues before contraception. They are still issues. Folks have screwed around since before history. The one thing that has changed, and the one thing that has made a difference in UNENSLAVING women, and in FREEING them from being solely objects of desire, is contraception. Because contraception gives them freedom. It gives them freedom to compete equally in the workplace. It frees them from the responsibility of child bearing, while indulging their need to be sexual. It frees them to be EQUALS of men sexually.
By the way, I have 4 sisters. I absolutely remember them being told in Sunday School not to wear shiny patent leather shoes, for that very reason. Of course then we boys went out and put mirrors on our shoes. But we couldn't get our foot underneath the skirts. With most of the girls, anyhow. Some of them let us. I don't think anyone was thinking about birth control, we were just being humans.
The second study is clearly publicized by a biased group (physiciansforlife.org) and should be discarded.
As for your other point, yeah, sure. The catholic church's ideal is abstinence during the fertile period. We get that. Every sperm is sacred. However, this practice is not being followed (at all!) by your own community. Why? Because couples like to have sex between days more than 11 days out of each cycle (Days 1 to 5 are often bloody, and days 6 to 17 of each menstrual cycle are considered to be the dangerous zone according to NFP).
Therefore, you have a choice: drive people away from the catholic church because of this (as you are driving me away right now) or accept contraception as a fact of life, get more people in the pews, and move on.
of course their divorce rate is lower, their CATHOLICS.
Again, this is all about control, how much control a Church
can have over its members. Islamists do the same thing
to the women in their church, try and control them as much
as possible. The Church used to have almost as much control
over women as the modern Muslims do. All they have left
is birth control and keeping them out of the priesthood and
those will drop away sooner rather than later if the Church
is to survive. Want to stop the rogue priests from having
their way with boys? Put a few women in high ranking positions
and you'll see those priests swinging in the courtyard, twirling
in the breeze. Women loathe men who mess with their
children, and thats putting it mildly.
It is so sad to hear people talk about contraception as a "women's issue". Men are the main proponents of contraception so they can continue to have lots of sex and have no consequences. You have to remember that women have a lot more invested into every sexual act than men do. Wouldn't it be better if instead of trying to always look at sex through a man's eyes we actually look at it as a beautiful and intimate act done with a person that we are committed to completely so that if new life results from this union it is not a disaster or a problem but the fruit of a healthy relationship?
In regards to the frequency of making love using NFP the truth is that using all of the indicators our body naturally gives us you will be able to have sex at nearly twice the average rate of couples. Once more a few of those romps in the hay are more intense and powerful because you have abstained and anticipated the moment. You also learn that our relationship is not made up only of great sex. You learn to love each other in different ways that will always be there for you when for other reasons or just because you grow old together can no longer be physically intimate.
I am reminded of a point in the Gospels where Jesus' difficult teaching on the Eucharist was being rejecting (read John chap. 6). he turns to his disciples and he asks them, "are you going to leave me too?" Notice he is not changing his teaching or skimping on the truth even if it is hard for people to hear. They say, "To whom could we go Lord? You have the words of everlasting life." I'm very sorry people, even Catholics, have a hard time with the very real and difficult challenge of sexual morality (thank God for Confession, huh?). However, I have seen and have come to believe that this teaching transforms lives and saves marriages. You indeed Lord have the words of truth and everlasting life.
If you knew anything about it, you would know that many men do not use condoms at all,
And of those who do, a large number use the pill in the context of their marriage but may not use condoms during extramarital relations.
Most single men do not use condoms at all.
The Catholic Church has played a roll in the spread of Hiv by its refusal to acknowledge that barrier contraception slows HIV infection rates.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2619600.html
Quote: FrGambleOnce more a few of those romps in the hay are more intense and powerful because you have abstained and anticipated the moment.
Sex isn't 'intense and powerful' because you abstained for a few
days, we aren't animals. Abstaining for 3 months, yeah, but a
few days or a week is nothing. How often do you think married
people have sex. Studies show that 65% of married couples don't
have any, so does that make them better Christians?
Where do you get that men want contraception more than women?
This is just not true. Women don't want to get pregnant, thats whats
behind contraception. "look at it as a beautiful and intimate act done
with a person that we are committed to"... Did you get that off of a
Hallmark card, Padre? Sugary platitudes aren't what sex is about,
except in romance novels written in the 50's by women authors.
Quote: FrGambleWhat we should be doing instead of teaching people about condoms is teaching them about the beauty, power, and sacredness of sex. We also need to educate people on how to use their reason and their will power to be in control of their passions and not let their passions control them.
This is what kills me about, for lack of a better term, "extremists". Why can't we change instead of into in addition to?
If you think condoms and pills are all you need and throw your piece into anything that moves, that hurts the body and soul. If you keep sex under such strict rules and regs you can't enjoy it, it hurts the heart and mind.
In the words of the little girl in the taco shell commercials, "Why not have both?"
Quote: FrGambleWe have all been sold the myth of "safe sex". Put on a condom or use the pill and your sexual exploits are invincible. In Zimbabwae I have unfortunately seen the consequences of this first hand. Some missionaries told me entire generations were simply lost to AIDS and some of the places I visited had infection rates as high as 90%. Why? Because someone said don't control your desires instead use this condom and do whatever you want.
Please. let's keep it real.
1) The pill won't protect anyone from STDs, or the common cold for that matter.
2) The AIDS problem in Africa comes from men not wanting to use condoms, not becasue they use them. This is well documented. In the West, the rate fo new infectiosn ash fallen for at-risk populations where condoms are used.
3) If your spouse has AIDS and he has sex with you without a condom, even if keep to all the holy rules you want and intend it for procreation, etc etc, chances are sky-high you'll catch AIDS.
4) I know lots of Catholics. The only ones from small families, or who have small families, either have fertility problems or rightly ignore the Church and go on the pill, get IUDs, or use condoms.
Quote:Contraception gives people a false sense of security not only towards avoiding pregnancy but also towards not contracting disease.
That depends. Contraceptives are neither 100% effective nor foolproof. Of course pregnancy can result (and the pill, I reiterate, is as much protection against infections as a clover leaf is against rain). But that's true regardless of what method you choose. Be it a sensible, rational one, or whatever the Church peddles these days.
Quote:I am reminded of a point in the Gospels where Jesus' difficult teaching on the Eucharist was being rejecting (read John chap. 6).
That's where Jesus propposed canibalism and drinking blood as holy acts? Oh, the dirty, disgusting jokes that come to mind coupling (no pun intended) that with sex!
Quote: FrGambleWhat we should be doing instead of teaching people about condoms is teaching them about the beauty, power, and sacredness of sex.
I love talk like that. There are lots of words to describe
sex, beautiful and sacred don't exactly come to mind.
Especially married sex. Now, sex with Jennifer Lopez,
that might be a different story. But probably not.
A wise person once said, somewhere is the worlds
most beautiful woman. And the man who is tired
of having sex with her.
Quote: WongBoIt is despicable to say that the use of condoms in Zimbabwe increased the rate of STD infection.
If you knew anything about it, you would know that many men do not use condoms at all,
And of those who do, a large number use the pill in the context of their marriage but may not use condoms during extramarital relations.
Most single men do not use condoms at all.
The Catholic Church has played a roll in the spread of Hiv by its refusal to acknowledge that barrier contraception slows HIV infection rates.
Guttmacher
Thank you, WongBo. You beat me to it.
Freeing women from unplanned pregnancy frees them economically and socially. It gives them equality. It gives them the right to determine their future. Although the transformation isn't complete, someday it will be. And that day cannot come soon enough.
And FrG, frankly you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to sex, love, marriage, and human sexual relationships. You are reading from a script. Until you've been there the words don't have meaning. Sometimes it's transcendent, and sometimes it's filthy. And I'll be damned if I can tell the two apart.
The story's headline: Vatican - condoms don't stop AIDS.
Quote: theGuardian
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
...
The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."
The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".
The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."
Your claim that condoms in Zimbabwe increases the incidence of AIDS is ignorant. FRGamble, in my opinion you and your church are absolutely ignorant on this issue.
I don't need 8 children in my house. I don't need to worry about what day of the month is a good day for sex. Take a pill, get sterilized, use a condom, so what!
Condoms and birth control reduce overpopulation, which is absolutely necessary in resource-poor Africa. Condoms reduce the incidence of AIDS, not increase it.
A lifetime of restraint by priests has led to a rate of sexual abuse on boys of AT least 4% and probably much, much higher than that.
Today's Catholic Church needs a different direction. It needs some progressive leaders who can say, "you know what... we believe that contraception leads to more sex, which we think is wrong, but we think that to resolve the issues of disease and overpopulation in the world, we can allow it".
Even Pope Benedict in November 2010 opened the door a bit when he advocated condom use for male prostitutes to reduce disease.
Quote: MoscaFreeing women from unplanned pregnancy frees them economically and socially. It gives them equality. It gives them the right to determine their future. .
Thats the sentiment I've been searching for. Its not
hard to connect the dots. A Church run by all men for
1500 years has an agenda concerning women. It used
to be keeping them barefoot and pregnant at home,
breeding a lot of future contributors to the Churches
coffers. Its agenda now is to keep them married and
at home, taking their temps and having accidental
babies (oops), anything to keep them from competing
with men in the marketplace. And especially to keep
them out of the Church hierarchy.
Quote: FDA.govWill a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?
No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.
In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.
Again it is crystal clear that if you pass out condoms without being honest with people and educating them on the risk of multiple partners and promiscuity it leads to a higher incidence of STDs and pregnancies. Condoms are not 100% effective. Again I have seen it first hand, husbands leaving the villages with bags full of free condoms for the prostitutes they would meet in the city where they had to work. Do you think they wanted to catch AIDS? The African men knew the risks and wouldn't think of having unprotected sex, the problem was they thought (and were told) that nothing could happen if they used a condom. They brought the disease back to their villages and had unprotected sex with their wives spreading the disease. I really don't know what is so hard about understanding this?!? Don't be so ignorant yourselves.
Maybe I should try to put it in gambling terms, sex with multiple partners even with condoms is a negative expectation game - you will lose eventually. Why don't we encourage people to be advantage players by waiting to be with one person and being committed to that one and only person for their lives? I know you are going to say that is unreasonable and hard, but I thought card counting was the same way. A little discipline and sacrifice can change the odds in your favor and enjoy the game like never before.
Stop the madness about claiming that contraception is the only way for women to claim sexual equality with men. What I hear you saying is that you want women to look at sex the same way you do. Women have the upper hand when it comes to sex because of their natural gift of fertility. Men used to respect that and honor that - now we put on barriers to protect us or demand women to take a pill to destroy a healthy and natural part of a woman. Why? So we can have more sex. When you say give woman equality what you really men is knock women down to our level by robbing them of fertility and enabling all of us all to have lots of "safe sex". What a joke, what a lie, and what dire consequences that causes in society. Wake up people!
Quote: FrGamble
Stop the madness about claiming that contraception is the only way for women to claim sexual equality with men. What I hear you saying is that you want women to look at sex the same way you do. Women have the upper hand when it comes to sex because of their natural gift of fertility. Men used to respect that and honor that - now we put on barriers to protect us or demand women to take a pill to destroy a healthy and natural part of a woman. Why? So we can have more sex. When you say give woman equality what you really men is knock women down to our level by robbing them of fertility and enabling all of us all to have lots of "safe sex". What a joke, what a lie, and what dire consequences that causes in society. Wake up people!
No, I want them to have the right to determine for themselves their status, rather than have it forced on them.
Are you trying to tell me that I won't respect and honor a woman because she is proud, powerful, and sexually active? You are wrong.
The pill has been around since what, 1960? My mother was born in '27, she used it. Are you impugning my mother's virtue? My wife, a woman who goes to church EVERY SINGLE DAY, she used it; are you impugning her virtue? All those 60-70-80 year old women you see, really virtually all the women in America; do you REALLY think there's a problem here? Because I could line up women of all ages from here to as far as you can see, women from all walks of life, bankers and housewives and clerks and saleswomen and doctors and nurses, all good American women, further than you can see, enough so that you would be hearing confessions for the rest of your life, and all of whom would be confessing to using birth control pills.
Except that none of them really think they've sinned. Not even my wife.
Quote: FrGambleAgain it is crystal clear that if you pass out condoms without being honest with people and educating them on the risk of multiple partners and promiscuity it leads to a higher incidence of STDs and pregnancies.
In one word: No.
In two words: hell, no!
If you buy an umbrella to keep dry when it rains, you'll find out there's a small chance it may have holes and leak some water anyway. By your thinking, umbrellas insure you'll get wet in the rain.
Quote:Maybe I should try to put it in gambling terms, sex with multiple partners even with condoms is a negative expectation game - you will lose eventually.
Maybe. But I find it highly improable thet the Roman Catholic Church is saying, as you seem to be, that when having sex with multiple partners men should not use condoms.
Trying to discredit condom usage as a means to reduce HIV is just a sick joke.
I loathe the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and it is not hateful or bigoted to say so.
was 12 or 13, in the early 60's, I'd leaf thru risque fiction
books looking for the 'sex' parts. They usually described
sex with lofty platitudes like the padre uses here. Beautiful and
sacred and a glorious gift are all the things it usually isn't. For years I thought
thats what sex was, and I was real disappointed when I found
out it wasn't. Its a lot of things, but beautiful and sacred it ain't.
Padre, do you really believe all that nonsense or does the Church
make you describe sex that way. Cause you've been bamboozled,
son, its none of the lofty idealistic things you've been told it is.
Sex is usually fun or boring, with very little in between. And when its
over you're either sleepy or hungry. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.
Often its both fun and boring. It starts off fun and gets boring along
the way. Somewhat like watching porn when they stay in one position
too long. Boring.
Quote: FrGambleMen used to respect that and honor that - now we put on barriers to protect us or demand women to take a pill to destroy a healthy and natural part of a woman. Why? So we can have more sex.
We demand? Really, Father? Do you speak to women at all, ever? I've never demanded a single woman take the pill, I don't know a single one whose done it due to a patriarchal demand.
Quote:When you say give woman equality what you really men is knock women down to our level by robbing them of fertility and enabling all of us all to have lots of "safe sex". What a joke, what a lie, and what dire consequences that causes in society. Wake up people!
Yep, what a joke, what a lie.
Celibacy clouds your judgement. Would eating a meal once a week be more enjoyable ? I think not.
Quote: WongBoTrying to discredit condom usage as a means to reduce HIV is just a sick joke.
I'm afraid the sick joke is that we think the answer to stop the spread of STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and the denegration of women is to have more sex, albeit "protected". The answer to gun violence is not to give everyone a gun with a trigger lock on it. We need to change our minds and hearts about our sexual morality so we can recover what apparently has been lost - it's beauty, power, and sacredness. No one is immune to the problems caused when we allow our sexual desires to control us rather than us controlling them - this obviously includes of course some priests of the Catholic Church.
I admit it seems everyone is using contraception and I am a little taken a back at the vitriol and condescending tone of many when you dare to question the prevelant untruth that contraception is our savior. It is no fault of the many women who follow their conscience and use or have used contraception. I imagine the pressure to use these artificial means of birth control on the part of society and the men they know and love is fairly strong. If anything it might be the Church's fault for not more clearly articulating the consistent and liberating truth and not proclaiming the dire prophetic words of Paul VI that have unfortunately come true.
No, the Catholic church has been quite clear about their "liberating truth" and it turns out that rational people reject it as bronze age ooga-booga. Paul VI is no prophet, judging from the tripe you posted originally, he wasn't even very bright. I understand that part of your career path is to unquestionably accept the infallibility of these popes but rational free-thinking people don't and thankfully the world is a much better place for it.Quote: FrGambleIf anything it might be the Church's fault for not more clearly articulating the consistent and liberating truth and not proclaiming the dire prophetic words of Paul VI that have unfortunately come true.
Quote: FrGambleIt is no fault of the many women who follow their conscience and use or have used contraception. I imagine the pressure to use these artificial means of birth control on the part of society and the men they know and love is fairly strong..
I'm starting to catch on to what you're saying.
For some reason, you think women don't want
to have recreational sex and they're forced
into it by those wascally men, who pressure them
to use birth control against their better judgment.
Holy cow, you couldn't further from the truth if
you tried. I hate to break it to you padre, but
women enjoy and want sex at least as much as
men, perhaps more. They want sex without
having to worry about a baby. They get the
pills and devices on their own, men have very
little to do with it. 1965 is long gone, ever hear
of womens lib?
