Prophecy of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae

Boymimbo, I think I see your point and it is a good one. Contraception is only part of a much larger battle. I also thought after reading your post and some of the other posts on this thread that if contraception went away tommorrow too many people would be unable to control their sexual desires even without their safety blanket. While I believe that the common use of contraception is what began and is what continues to fuel the disordered view of sex in the world, I guess we have to work backwards. Before tackling contraception we need to try to change people's minds and hearts. I also thought in reading your post that all this negativity towards contraception, which many people don't understand, could turn them off to the positive and healthy message of sex the Church has to offer. Thanks.

Quote: Mosca

+1. I don't understand the term "sexual immorality". It's a non-sequitur, an oxymoron. What is immoral about sex?
.

Sex is where we all come from, even FrG. How can it be
immoral. How can watching consenting adults have sex
be immoral. Please explain.

Watching porn is immoral as you are demeaning the parties involved. The woman and the man are receiving payment for your pleasure, and that's what is immoral. Those are my words. Here is the Assembly of God's View.

Quote: Assembly of God

Why does the Assemblies of God stand so strongly against pornography

The Assemblies of God is strongly opposed to all forms of pornography so freely available today. The 1987 Statement on Pornography expresses distress and outrage at "the encroachment of pornographic materials and establishments in America." All around us we see the insidious consequence of pornography on social values, on moral behavior, and on family life.

We believe pornography violates the sexual and moral integrity of human beings. God created human beings as male and female to consummate their sexual union within the security of marriage for the purposes of procreation and mutual intimacy. Pornography encourages sexually immoral thoughts (Matthew 5:28) and actions (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19) and is thus destructive to marital and family relationships.

Though some defenders of pornography dispute the claim, there is no question about the fact pornography is linked with such immoral behavior as promiscuity, sexual abuse, adultery, rape, violence, child abuse, degrading human dignity, sexual dominance, and discrimination. The indirect but real devastation of families and marriages is a high price to pay for this vice which fills the pockets of unprincipled members of organized crime. Pornography is now available at local movie theaters, neighborhood video shops, and on home television and computer software. The Assemblies of God is particularly disturbed at the availability of this diabolical material to children and young people.
...
We also express concern over the so-called sex therapists who advise married couples to view pornography in order to add excitement to their marriage relationship. We believe this activity to be wrong for Christian couples because it (1) reduces married love to the level of an animal act, (2) encourages lust rather than true love, and (3) portrays infidelity in a positive light.

google
porn = 1,830,000,000 hits

google
jesus christ = 129,000,000 hits

PORN is winning!

Quote: boymimbo

Watching porn is immoral as you are demeaning the parties involved. The woman and the man are receiving payment for your pleasure, and that's what is immoral.

If they agree to do it of their own free will,
how is that demeaning? By your definition,
actors in a play or a movie are immoral
because they're being paid to give us pleasure.

" The woman and the man are receiving payment for your pleasure, and that's what is immoral. Those are my words."

So if they aren't paid, it's OK. Really ??

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe its the vantage point I have, but I wish you would come on up here and see how scary ridiculous you look.

If I decided to see things from your ivory tower, what would scare me that I can't see from here?

Quote: FrGamble

While I believe that the common use of contraception is what began and is what continues to fuel the disordered view of sex in the world, I guess we have to work backwards.

But condoms do prevent abortion right? The fewer abortions, the better. Right?

Once upon a time there was a lunatic dentist who hated hated hated cavities. But he also thought that toothbrushes and dental floss were evil. So he tried to persuade his patients to stop eating sugar. A few of his patients gave up the sugar, but most just didn't have the will power. Some of us can control our sugar cravings, and some of us can't, so let's use some simple technology to reduce the damage that these cravings cause our body.

Control our sexual desire?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. To what degree is this control a big deal, and to what degree is this ability a function of morality?

Obviously, sex needs to be between consenting adults, people with the ability to form consent.

Obviously, where sex happens has to conform to socially accepted places; on the bus is the wrong place to fellate, or masturbate.

Beyond that, why would someone need to control desire? If my lady and I want to screw morning, noon, and night, why shouldn't we? What is morally wrong with that?

i would guess that most men who become priests have either:

abnormally low sex drives
abnormally low opportunity with the opposite sex
self dystonic homosexual desires

you can hardly expect them to have a normal view about human sexuality.
and you can hardly respect anything they have to say on the matter.

Quote: WongBo

abnormally low opportunity with the opposite sex

I've never seen a good looking priest. They're
always homely guys with black rimmed glasses,
it seems. I take that back, there's the priest
you see on FOX all the time. He's the exception,
and look at him, he's a TV star.

Quote: WongBo

i would guess that most men who become priests have either:

abnormally low sex drives
abnormally low opportunity with the opposite sex
self dystonic homosexual desires

you can hardly expect them to have a normal view about human sexuality.
and you can hardly respect anything they have to say on the matter.

WongBo that is an uneducated guess. A big part of discernment for the priesthood revolves around the possibility of a life of celibacy. I remember early on thinking and praying about the possibility of living without my own family and yes without sex. The problem might be that our culture wants you to believe you will explode without sex and without it you will become strange, unhealthy, or a pedophile. This is obviously not true. If I don't have anything to say about human sexuality because I'm celibate than maybe you shouldn't have anything to say about celibacy because I hardly respect anything you say on the matter.


Someone else mentioned an interesting example of a dentist who thought the answer to no cavaties was for everyone to avoid sugar and some couldn't do it. Two quick things. First, the answer to people's lack of will power is not to coat their teeth in plastic and tell them they can go eat all the sugar they want. The plastic coverings won't all be perfect and then desire for sugar will lead to more and more risky sugar eating behavior that the plastic won't protect against and you know what will happen - more cavitites. This is what we have seen, not a decrease in STDs or Abortion since contraception began but just the opposite a huge increase. How do we explain that when we have contraception so readily available?
Secondly, like sex sugar can be good for you and pleasurable when used correctly. By helping people to control their sexual desires we are also helping people to enter into marriage when they are free to eat as much sugar as they both want.

Quote: FrGamble

If I don't have anything to say about human sexuality because I'm celibate than maybe you shouldn't have anything to say about celibacy because I hardly respect anything you say on the matter.

I'll just go ahead and quote you on this every time a catholic priest starts pontificating about who should put what naughty bits where and when.

The increase in pregnancy and STD is among people not using contraception.
It is difficult to take you seriously.

Like your logic, contraceptions do fail. With all the stats flying around before about how almost everyone and their grandmother is using some type of artifical birth control do you really want to say the increase in pregnancy and STDs are only from those not using contraception? I too find it difficult to take you seriously.

s2dbaker remember the "If" at the beginning of that quote. I actually do believe intellegent people can contribute to the conversation about sexuality even if they are not having sex. Financial advisors don't have to have billions of dollars to know how to invest it wisely.

Its a proven fact the best drug counselors are former
addicts, same with alcoholism. If you haven't been
there and done that which you're counseling about,
you just sound silly and nobody takes you seriously.

Quote: FrGamble

While I believe that the common use of contraception is what began and is what continues to fuel the disordered view of sex in the world, I guess we have to work backwards. Before tackling contraception we need to try to change people's minds and hearts. I also thought in reading your post that all this negativity towards contraception, which many people don't understand, could turn them off to the positive and healthy message of sex the Church has to offer. Thanks.

I agree with you here. The way to win new souls I don't think is to first try to convert them to the Catholic lifestyle. I would start with the bigger message.

Rick Santorum clearly agrees with your position on contraception, and is correctly avoiding the topic before the general electorate, because he knows how ridiculous the position sounds to the average person.

By the way, whatever happened to the homilies?

This is going to be my last contribution to this topic. I'm not upset, but it's been wrung dry. I've said my piece, and I have nothing to add.

Yes, the pill changed things. But it didn't change people. No one wants sex more or less than they did before. Men and women still feel. They still laugh, they still cry, they still have pure thoughts and they still have carnal thoughts, and they still have pure carnal thoughts. They always have.

They still go to work. They still reach great heights. They still get drivers licenses, they cook meals, they have families (yes, couples on the pill sometimes decide to have children).

Look around. People are still people. Society is still functioning. Nobody's fucking in the alleyway. Your co worker isn't covered with venereal sores.

Men and women look at each other with mutual respect (sometimes), and as sex objects (sometimes) and with mutual respect as sex objects (sometimes); they always have.


Here is what HAS changed: In 1967, 53% of families had single income; in 2002, 67% of families have both spouses working full time. But in the early '70s, a single income family had $19560 in discretionary income (over fixed expenses) out of $44000; in the early 2000s, a dual income family had only $18110 in discretionary income, out of $74000. source

Economics is a MUCH stronger force in the move toward universal acceptance of contraception among Americans than uncontrolled libido. An unplanned pregnancy can shatter a family's finances. An unplanned pregnancy can destroy a single woman, and a single man, by limiting potential and future earnings. A child can doom a young woman to a life of poverty. (Often this choice becomes poverty or abortion.)

For almost 100% of Americans, artificial contraception is a gift from science, a gift that allows them to compete and survive in an increasingly difficult environment. Forget about the idea that it allows them to indulge their libido freely; that's your dirty mind projecting your filthy id. People didn't change, it still takes a lot of emotional risk to get naked and close and ask for and grant and share indulgence. Contraception didn't change that.

Just say no? Huh. Maybe for a 14 year old. How about a 34 year old divorced professional woman? How about a single 28 year old salesman, who coaches his nephew's Little League team, who is well regarded and seen as future management? Are you really suggesting celibacy until marriage for consenting adults?

Yeah, I know you are. I'm just pointing out how unrealistic that is. Go ahead. Swim against the tide if you want to. Accept the ridicule, if doing so makes you feel Christ-like. The rest of us have more important things to do, and we're more than a little pissed off that we have to go back and re-fight this battle that we thought was put to rest 50 years ago, but that has now reappeared like a forgotten wart. Because frankly, this freedom is really, really important to us to keep.

Quote: FrGamble

With all the stats flying around before about how almost everyone and their grandmother is using some type of artifical birth control do you really want to say the increase in pregnancy and STDs are only from those not using contraception?

You may have part of a point.

I've heard there's a study that people who wear bycicle helmets tend to take mroe chances because they feel safer, and therefore end up in more accidents than epople not wearing bycicle helmets.

Naturally we should ban bycicle helmets, right? They cause more accidents.

Ridiculous, no? of course. But the same thing may happen with contraceptives. First, women on the pill may feel safe regarding conception, so they may expose themselves to more chances at pregnancy, and the odds catch upw ith some of them. Second, some stupid women (sorry for the term, but it does fit) may think the pill protects them from STDs and AIDS. They englect finding out their partner's sexual history and making use of condoms. So they actually put themselves at higher risk of cathing something.

So natrually the answer is to do away with protections altogether, right?

Does that not strike you as ridiculous?

I didn't think it would. Because you're not concerned about the practical effects of contraception, but with Catholic dictates of morality. If god says "jump" Man is supposed to say "How high?" We're not supposed to ask "Why?"

Quote:

I too find it difficult to take you seriously.

Glass houses, remember?

There's a relatively well known effect where a user feels more confident with a safety system in place, so they take more risks.

With bike helmets, there's also an documented effect where the helmet's weight and shape can cause more damage to the neck and spine in a minor fall (whiplash, etc). But having gone over the top of car without a helmet, and missing being brained by about 2 inches, I'll take the helmet every time.

Following Mosca's lead I'd like to make some closing statements about this thread as well.

Many people speculate as to why I participate in this forum. Some think I am trying to evangelize or spread the Gospel and while I hope to do that in everything I do that is not the main reason. The main reason is that I am intrigued by gambling and like to hear ways and stratagies to be as close to an advantage player as possible. Not to make money but to have more fun when the few times I have to make it to a casino happen. Another reason I participate on this forum is that I have come to discover that there are some very different opinions here that I am not used to hearing in my world. Many of them are often reasonably presented and thoughtful. So besides learning more about smart gambling, a secondary reason I post here is to hear what others might be saying about certain topics that I don't get a chance to often hear. In every case I am more and more convinced of my position, but I also hear the reasonable and sometimes not reasonable objections. This forum tempers me and reminds me that life is messy. These teachings of the Church, while true in my opinion, are not always welcome and represent a challenge and a change of life or conversion of mind. The pastoral approach (and forgive me for not always being so pastoral on these threads all the time) is not to go about proclaiming this stuff like there is no problem or difficulties assoicated with them.

This thread on contraception is a good example of this. It boils down to a new found and enjoyable freedom that has been discovered through artificial birth control. It is a freedom that peolple have probably longed for through the centuries because we have always been and always will be sexual beings with a healthy and natural desire for sex. Nevermind, that this has allowed a radical change in how we view sex and introduced us to casual sex or sex for recreation or sex for entertainment. We also are convinced that there are no consequences to this change regarding sex, from something done between two people who are exclusively committed to each other in a loving and faithful communion to now something that can be done for fun between relative strangers. Even though there are huge consequences to this mindset, and more than ample evidence to prove it (things we have already talked about such as the alarming spread of STDs and the increase in worldwide abortions) I understand why people don't want to think about that. They enjoy their freedom and naturally do not want to give it up. Maybe some think they would not be strong enough to give up their sexual exploits now that they can finally freely act on them.

The Church knows that huamanity can do better and that we all can control our desires. The Church also knows that this so called freedom is enslaving us and greatly harming us. The Church wants desperately to protect the beauty and awesomeness of the marriage act. However, the first step of changing this culture is not to break the chains and shackels of contraception, but to change the mind and heart. I think this way about abortion. There are over one million abortions a year in the United States. If somehow the law is changed tommorrow to stop abortions, what would happen? The minds and hearts of people aren't ready. I am convinced they won't be ready until we wake up reject artificial contraceptions and recover the God given meaning and beauty of sex, which is really making love.

Quote: FrGamble

It boils down to a new found and enjoyable freedom that has been discovered through artificial birth control. It is a freedom that peolple have probably longed for through the centuries because we have always been and always will be sexual beings with a healthy and natural desire for sex. Nevermind, that this has allowed a radical change in how we view sex and introduced us to casual sex or sex for recreation or sex for entertainment.

This reminds me of something Asimov once said "The closer to the truth, the better the lie." You're very close.

the thing is you also oppose birth control within a marriage. Now, since a man wearing a condom when having sex with his wife, or a woman on the pill having sex with her husband, don't engage in the type of casual sex you deplore, why is it wrong for them to use whatever contraception works best?

Quote: Nareed

why is it wrong for them to use whatever contraception works best?

The real reason is, the more babies a Catholic family has, the
better off the Church is. In the old days there were no hedge
funds to invest in, all the Church had was passing the plate and
all the property the could steal in their many Inquisitions. The
more Catholic kids, the more money coming in when they grew
up. Always follow the money when dealing with religion, its never lies.

I think I'll let my last words on this thread to be those of the current Pope, Benedict XVI who spoke these words to some American bishops on Thursday. It looks like we weren't the only ones thinking and talking about these issues this past week, thanks again everyone for your contributions:

Quote: Benedict XVI

It is in fact increasingly evident that a weakened appreciation of the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, and the widespread rejection of a responsible, mature sexual ethic grounded in the practice of chastity, have led to grave societal problems bearing an immense human and economic cost.
...
In this great pastoral effort there is an urgent need for the entire Christian community to recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. The integrating and liberating function of this virtue (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2338-2343) should be emphasized by a formation of the heart, which presents the Christian understanding of sexuality as a source of genuine freedom, happiness and the fulfillment of our fundamental and innate human vocation to love. It is not merely a question of presenting arguments, but of appealing to an integrated, consistent and uplifting vision of human sexuality. The richness of this vision is more sound and appealing than the permissive ideologies exalted in some quarters; these in fact constitute a powerful and destructive form of counter-catechesis for the young.

Young people need to encounter the Church’s teaching in its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly, they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to its truth. They also need to be supported as they struggle to make wise choices at a difficult and confusing time in their lives. Chastity, as the Catechism reminds us, involves an ongoing "apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom" (2339). In a society which increasingly tends to misunderstand and even ridicule this essential dimension of Christian teaching, young people need to be reassured that "if we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, absolutely nothing, of what makes life free, beautiful and great" (Homily, Inaugural Mass of the Pontificate, 24 April 2005).

I know it is not funny at all but how can the spread of HIV go from 8 million to over 34 million in twenty years during this era of contraception? It is obvious that no one seems to be listening to the Church, just making fun of her, while the world continues to be ravaged by the lie of "safe sex".

8 million to over 34 million in twenty years during this era of contraception?

That because contraception is not used. DUH !

Hooray for making correlation arguments!

Quote: progrocker

Hooray for making correlation arguments!

I might not know Shakespeare but I remember reading somewhere there are 3 categories of liars.

Liars, damn liars, and statisticians. LOL

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Damn, there goes my plan to stop global warming by attacking container ships.

I was looking at the CIA fact book for AIDS prevalence rates and it was pretty interesting. Africa is at the top of course, but some Latin American countries aren't too far behind. The USA was in the middle of the pack. At the very bottom was mostly Muslim countries...but also some very notable secular European countries such as Sweden (which has the highest estimated percentage of atheist/agnostics according to the Council for Secular Humanism). Interesting. Anyways, if preventing AIDS is the number 1 goal, looks like you should be preaching Islam.

Here is a study on contraception use in America: Study . The same study in detail can be found on the CDC's website. It clearly states what we already know, that in America 99% of women ages 15-44 who were sexually active used some form of contraception. At the same time the rates of HIV infection in America continue to increase; in 2009 some 54,000 new cases. Again I ask you to recognize that contraception, even when it is universally used, is not some type of magic that stops the spread of AIDs in our own country or worldwide (or for that matter even pregnancies, 50% of which were unintended last year according to the Guttmacher Inst.). We have to wake up and realize that its not working and the facts show we are moving in the wrong direction. The only way to reverse these trends is a revolution in how we look at sex. This will take a change of hearts and minds and will also take some degree of self-control and will power, but we can and we need to make this change soon!

Quote: FrGamble

Here is a study on contraception use in America: Study . The same study in detail can be found on the CDC's website. It clearly states what we already know, that in America 99% of women ages 15-44 who were sexually active used some form of contraception. At the same time the rates of HIV infection in America continue to increase; in 2009 some 54,000 new cases.

You are misleading, and I fear you are doing so intentionally. Here's the truth:
CDC statistics on HIV prevalence, 2006-2009
The conclusions are twofold:
1) The overall HIV rates are stable -- not increasing -- and
2) Only young MSM showed a meaningful increase in prevalence. (MSM = "Men who have sex with men").

According to that data, women did *not* experience an increase in HIV prevalence. If anything, it stands to reason that since overall HIV rates were stable and rates in MSM increased, then rates in females decreased. Furthermore, given that 99% of those women were using contraception, it is reasonable to conclude that such contraception does in fact reduce the prevalence of HIV in women.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is this:
Do not attempt to misuse statistics in a forum dedicated to the study of mathematics.

Thanks ME, but the moral or message I'm trying to make clear with the stats about HIV prevalence is that throwing condoms at this problem is not making it go away. We could use other stats about all the other STDs that are increasing or the fact that we still see so many unintended pregnancies and abortions - all of it is clearly showing that contraception is NOT the answer. What contraception has done is create a contraceptive mentality in our view of sex. A mentality that falsely believes contraception will protect me from the consequences if I indulge in this new found freedom for my sexual desires. We have not mentioned anything yet on this thread about the emotional consequences of sex on the different partners which obviously contraception does nothing for. We also could talk about how this contraceptive mentality makes us look at sex. Contraception teaches us that sex is dangerous and dirty, you need to protect yourself from your partner whose fertility or infections can harm you. That is crazy and completely opposite of what the Church teaches. I find it hard for anyone to argue that contraception has helped us respect each other more sexually, that it has brought the rates of unintended pregnancies or abortions way down, that it has stopped the spread of STDs, it is a failed mentality and we need to try something different.

Quote: FrGamble

The only way to reverse these trends is a revolution in how we look at sex. This will take a change of hearts and minds and will also take some degree of self-control and will power, but we can and we need to make this change soon!

The revolution took place in the 60s. You're too late for one.

BTW, you won't ever get people to listen when your message is "don't have sex, unless you're willing to jump through hoops as god intended you to."

I thought we were done here, but instead, we're going to drag this on?

See, the problem here is hypocrisy and the fact that observation differs from fact. The fact is, sex is dangerous and dirty. The only thing that contraception is intended to do in its primary form is to prevent pregnancy. Only the condom is designed to slow STDs -- everybody knows that, but the condom is probably the least desirable choice as couples as a form of contraception. Society, as a whole, including most of of the members of your congregation, has accepted that it is a couple's right to choose when to get pregnant. Having children is very expensive and very time consuming. The workplace is such that women are now expected to contribute to the household income with a full-time job. In the United States, you do not get paid by the government (like every other western country) for having a child and therefore, there is an extreme financial burden to having a child and choosing to stay home with the baby to raise them. This effect is magnified with the poverished. It is often the best chioce to have children later in life when one's career is stable and there is more than enough money to have a parent stay home temporarily with the child.

This is why you see that generally the choice of contraception changes from the pill for well-to-do, educated, white people to tubal ligation for impoverished uneducated black people (I am just repeating statistics and not being racial). Tubal ligation is cheaper and permanent; the pill offers a temporary solution and allows couples to have children later in life. This is why the government is attempting to put contraception on the health care coverage list -- if it is covered, it will be a way for those who cannot afford the pill to go on it. It will allow those who are impoverished the choice of when to have children rather than using another less reliable and cheaper method (such as withdrawal or the rhythm method, which is free). All that unintended pregancies do when you are poor is make you more poor, and it gives the child a slow start on live. Financial burdens lead to more divorces, which leads to single parenting and more poverty and emotional problems with the children. The way I see it, contraception for all will lead to a better society, not a worse one.

The solution is attitudes towards sex, FrGamble, not contraception. Of course your church believes abstinenance would be the best option for people who don't want babies. This is what you have to preach.

However, showing a trending pattern and then linking it to something is not true. Saying that condoms have little holes in it is not true. Saying there there is nothing good about contraception is not true either. All it makes people do is dislike the Catholic church and drives people away from it.

Quote: boymimbo

The fact is, sex is dangerous and dirty.

That is not a fact! It is a sad distortion and is more proof of what contraception teaches us. Sex is a beautiful and natural thing meant to express and strengthen love in the most intimate of acts and at the same time lead to more children who can be raised by loving parents. It is only dangerous and dirty when it is misused.

Quote: boymimbo

The only thing that contraception is intended to do in its primary form is to prevent pregnancy. Only the condom is designed to slow STDs -- everybody knows that, but the condom is probably the least desirable choice as couples as a form of contraception. Society, as a whole, including most of of the members of your congregation, has accepted that it is a couple's right to choose when to get pregnant.

If you are listening, I have said that it is indeed the couple's right to plan their pregnancies. This is responsible parenting and if for good reasons they cannot or do not want children they can naturally plan their families with a success rate equivalent to forms of artificial birth control. No one teaches withdrawal or the rhythm method you are just being ignorant there. Instead of using barriers or hormones in a pill with a little work, sacrifice, self-control, and good communication (all important for any successful marriage) couples can and should responsibly exercise their right to plan their pregnancies.

Quote: boymimbo

All that unintended pregancies do when you are poor is make you more poor, and it gives the child a slow start on live. Financial burdens lead to more divorces, which leads to single parenting and more poverty and emotional problems with the children. The way I see it, contraception for all will lead to a better society, not a worse one.

How is contraception doing so far? We've had it for a while. Is society doing so much better? Are divorce rates going down? How about poverty, the rates of single parenthood, abortions, prevalence of STDs? Do people seem more in control of their sexual desires and treating each other with great respect and the dignity they deserve? I'm not pinning all this on contraception. However I am trying to show you that if we depend on contraception it leads to an epic fail. I'm not saying lets get rid of all contraception, but I am begging us to see that the only way to really change and solve these problems is to change our views on sex.

Quote: boymimbo

Saying that condoms have little holes in it is not true. Saying there there is nothing good about contraception is not true either. All it makes people do is dislike the Catholic church and drives people away from it.

I am so upset about these last couple of sentences that I will take the Nareed approach and try to say nothing because if I did it would only get me in trouble. Let me say that speaking such awful lies and attributing them to me or even worse the Catholic Church makes me have to fight against disliking you.

Catholic Church claims condoms have holes

Your attitude by flogging this thread is that contraception is a bad thing.

I still don't see anything wrong at all with contraception use within a marriage or long term relationship to avoid children. It's been revealed quite recently that women can and do enjoy sex as much as men do. They can have orgasms, just like men. They can have pleasure, just like men. Women love sex, and the belief that their bodies are just for baby-making are long gone. Natural family planning is a pain. It forces you away from sex from day 6 to the 3rd day after ovulation, leaving a very short period during the menses (days 1-5) and days 17 - 28 for sexual activity. Why not use a contraceptive? Why should you resort to thermometers and looking at your vaginal discharge when you can take a pill every day, get a shot every three months, or have a vasectomy or tubal ligation? It doesn't cheapen sex at all, and it doesn't take away from the quality of the marriage, at all.

There is NO link between contraception and divorce rates, poverty, rates of single parenthood, and abortions. These are all driven by societal factors beyond contraception. When it comes to prevalance of STDs, only condoms slows the spread of STDs, and I'll accept the scientists at the WHO over the statements of a church any day.

Outside of marriage, the church could and should advocate celibacy. The church can rightfully state that outside of marriage, contraceptives only increase the incidence of sexual activity. Absolutely. The church will use moral arguments from the Bible that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing. Fine.

Of issue then is the morality of sex outside of marriage, and here, FrGamble, your opinion is clear, and so is mine. Many will argue that sex is a natural act between two willing partners. Many will argue that anthropologically, us males are designed to procreate. Many will argue that it's best to try out your partner sexually for compatibility before marriage. These arguments have been going on long before the prevalence of contraception.

Quote: boymimbo

When it comes to prevalance of STDs, only condoms slows the spread of STDs, and I'll accept the scientists at the WHO over the statements of a church any day.

I'm sorry I just have to add another post to say that an almost decade old quote from the Guardian from one Cardinal in Africa does not amount to the Church denying the effectiveness of condoms. See the much more recent controversial quotes from Pope Benedict himself on this issue.
Also you make the mistake above in saying that "only condoms" slow the spread of STDs. That is of course not true. Not only would pouring our resources into encouraging chastity slow the spread of diseases like AIDS it could eventually stop it. As the study you quoted points out condoms seem to be only around 80% effective in stopping the transmission of HIV. Why don't we try for 100%? Many will argue that human beings cannot control themselves when it comes to sex. What a pessimistic and degrading view of the human person that is. I happen to believe that we are indeed capable with some help, both divine and secular, of recovering a healthy view of sex and truly addressing this issue that is either a symptom or the cause of so many social problems.

Chastity is a moronic solution for any mass
sexual problem, be it AIDS or population
control. Obviously even priests can't
control their libidos, as is apparent in the
constant scandal's that have plagued the
Church. Chastity looks great on paper and fails
miserably in practice.

I will give the overwhelming and one reason for using contraception. Overpopulation. It's that simple. Western countries' birth rates are so low that population growth is through immigration. if China did not use contraception, their population would be what - 1.6 billion now or something like that?

The world does not have the resources to support a world without contraception, plain and simple. Central African countries are warring constantly over resources. Our oil prices and commodity prices are so high because China and India are coming to age and are requiring the same resources we use. Birth rates have to come down in order to support these trends. That means less babies in the world. That means contraception.

The WHO study goes on to say:

Quote: World Health Organization

2. RELEVANCE TO UNDER-RESOURCED SETTINGS
2.1. Magnitude of the problem

This review is of high relevance to under-resourced settings. The very high rates of HIV infection, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that contribute to HIV transmission, have been well documented in much of sub-Saharan Africa (levels of HIV around 30% in some parts), Asia and the rest of the developing world. Another related problem is the low and inconsistent use of condoms in most of the affected areas.

2.2. Feasibility of the intervention

The widespread, correct and consistent use of male condoms is probably the most feasible HIV prevention strategy available. Compared with other health strategies that require doctors, nurses, health workers, clinics, fridges, needles and so on, condoms can be safely and effectively promoted, distributed and used. Yes, there are barriers—including cultural and social ones—but there can be no denying the ready availability of an intervention that provides substantial protection.

2.3. Applicability of the results of the Cochrane Review

The cost of condoms is low, and various social marketing projects and programmes have shown widespread distribution to be feasible. Without doubt different difficulties will be faced in different locations, but local expertise and interest will overcome these.

2.4. Implementation of the intervention

Condom distribution already occurs in many different ways through most of the developing world, using a wide range of networks ranging from formal health sectors, through social marketing efforts, and also the private sector. These efforts need to be redoubled.

2.5. Research

Perhaps the key focus for future research needs to be on how best to increase distribution and uptake of condoms in as many different locations as possible, rather than on further refinement of knowledge of the actual effectiveness of condoms.

The World Health Organization's strategy to reduce overpopulation and AIDS - contraception. It's worked here in America.

The prevalence of AIDS in the United States has not changed much according the the study that MathExtremist posted. The demographics have not changed significantly. 32% of new HIV cases are between heterosexual couples. 10-12% is through intravenous drug use, and 56-58% is through male-male contact.

You know, FR, the more "loving" message should be that abstinence should be practiced, but if you go out and have sex, don't kill yourself. Here's a condom. Missionary groups in Africa teach both.

Quote: FrGamble

Also you make the mistake above in saying that "only condoms" slow the spread of STDs. That is of course not true. Not only would pouring our resources into encouraging chastity slow the spread of diseases like AIDS it could eventually stop it.

But then only people who already have AIDS should need to abstain, not the rest of humanity. Get, oh, six million adults and test them for AIDS. Keep those who test negative. Let them have sex every way they want as often as they want, so long as its consensual. How many cases of AIDS will there be every year?

But this isn't about pregnancies, wanted or not, nor about AIDS or STDs. It's about abolishing birth control you disapprove of, simply because the Church disapproves of it.

Quote:

As the study you quoted points out condoms seem to be only around 80% effective in stopping the transmission of HIV.

There are many factors involved in how often condoms fail. The more important ones are quality and proper use and handling. Using good quality ones and handling them properly, the chances of failure are much lower than 20%

Quote:

Many will argue that human beings cannot control themselves when it comes to sex. What a pessimistic and degrading view of the human person that is. I happen to believe that we are indeed capable with some help, both divine and secular, of recovering a healthy view of sex and truly addressing this issue that is either a symptom or the cause of so many social problems.

You may as well reach against eating. You're bound to achieve more success.

What all this is really REALLY about is, the Church thinks
sex is a sin, even marital sex. Its for having children only
and should never be used for recreation. Ever. Anything
that feels good is a sin, basically. So they torment themselves
over it, they abstain and are miserable. And because
misery loves company, they try and drag us down there
with them. Good luck with that...

As much as I HATE to say it, Bob, I agree with you.

Quote: EvenBob

What all this is really REALLY about is, the Church thinks
sex is a sin, even marital sex. Its for having children only
and should never be used for recreation. Ever. Anything
that feels good is a sin, basically. So they torment themselves
over it, they abstain and are miserable. And because
misery loves company, they try and drag us down there
with them. Good luck with that...

Okay now I am done, this is pure crap. Just go back a few posts and you will see clearly that the Church sees sex as a beautiful thing. It is the secular world and a contraceptive mentality that have made it seem ugly, dirty, and dangerous. Sex can result in the gift of children that is obvious just by looking at nature. It is just as obvious that sex is fun, enjoyable, intimate, beautiful, and it expresses and strengthens the love of husband and wife in a sublime way. As usual you could not be more wrong about what the Church thinks or teaches and I really wish you would stop spouting such ignorance and lies.

Quote: FrGamble

Okay now I am done,

Promise?