Pope backtracking on condom statement

[Dick Whitman]

I find it absolutely appalling that in 2010, the Catholic church's official stance on condoms is that they are sinful. If I'm not mistaken, this also includes during sex between married couples, correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/europe/23pope.html?_r=1&hp

P.S. I'm Catholic.

 

[outofplace]

Isn't the idea that people should only have sex to procreate? If that is the rule, then it really wouldn't matter if the couple using protection is married.

Now the rule itself? Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's not one I follow and it certainly seems like attempting to live by such rules has gone very badly a time or two.

 

[bagelchick]

As someone who watched a dear friend die from AIDS over 15 years ago, I'm all for anything that will help stop the spread of the disease. People are not going to stop having sex, but I'd love to see people stop dying from having sex.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Isn't the idea that people should only have sex to procreate? If that is the rule, then it really wouldn't matter if the couple using protection is married.

You may be right. I was thinking it was more like, "You can have sex for fun, but if pregnancy is a consequence of that, then you have to deal with the consequences." I thought that the church sees birth control as a first-cousin of abortion? Of course, there are some times of the month when you know that pregnancy is an impossibility. Not sure if that counts as a sin or not?

 

[LongTimeListener]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

 

[OnTheRiver]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

 

[lisa_simpson]

Isn't the idea that people should only have sex to procreate? If that is the rule, then it really wouldn't matter if the couple using protection is married.

You may be right. I was thinking it was more like, "You can have sex for fun, but if pregnancy is a consequence of that, then you have to deal with the consequences." I thought that the church sees birth control as a first-cousin of abortion? Of course, there are some times of the month when you know that pregnancy is an impossibility.

It's actually never an impossibility.

The old joke goes, "What do you call people who practice the rhythm method? Parents." Describing the church's stance on birth control as "outmoded" is being kind.

 

[zagoshe]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

 

[zagoshe]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

What is that, a scene from the movie Backdraft?

 

[amraeder]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

Not really apples to apples. None of these have to do with the church, or any idea of a divine "truth" that, I assume, Hondo is alluding to.

That's not saying that the church hasn't changed over time, or that it hasn't made changes for the better over time, because obviously it has, just that I don't really feel like the pics make an applicable point.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

Not really apples to apples. None of these have to do with the church, or any idea of a divine "truth" that, I assume, Hondo is alluding to.

That's not saying that the church hasn't changed over time, or that it hasn't made changes for the better over time, because obviously it has, just that I don't really feel like the pics make an applicable point.

Institutions should, from time to time, re-evaluate whether their "truth" still holds up.

Hence, the photos are applicable.

 

[amraeder]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

Not really apples to apples. None of these have to do with the church, or any idea of a divine "truth" that, I assume, Hondo is alluding to.

That's not saying that the church hasn't changed over time, or that it hasn't made changes for the better over time, because obviously it has, just that I don't really feel like the pics make an applicable point.

Institutions should, from time to time, re-evaluate whether their "truth" still holds up.

Hence, the photos are applicable.

I kind of get that, but I don't think there's anything really analogous in the public sphere to the notion of truth that churches peddles. Maybe I'm wrong, just my opinion. It just seems to me that public truths are always fickle whims, while churches attempt to find one "right" answer that is by its nature, timeless. I know I'm not phrasing this in the best way possible.... oh, well....

 

[schiezainc]

The Catholic Church, like every organized religion, is an organization that preys on feeble minded people too afraid to acknowledge their life is a fluke and there is no afterlife and, as such, makes dumb rules and guidelines based on an antiquated fictional book.

To consider anything they say seriously is ridiculous, offensive and downright disgusting.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

Not really apples to apples. None of these have to do with the church, or any idea of a divine "truth" that, I assume, Hondo is alluding to.

That's not saying that the church hasn't changed over time, or that it hasn't made changes for the better over time, because obviously it has, just that I don't really feel like the pics make an applicable point.

Institutions should, from time to time, re-evaluate whether their "truth" still holds up.

Hence, the photos are applicable.

I kind of get that, but I don't think there's anything really analogous in the public sphere to the notion of truth that churches peddles. Maybe I'm wrong, just my opinion. It just seems to me that public truths are always fickle whims, while churches attempt to find one "right" answer that is by its nature, timeless. I know I'm not phrasing this in the best way possible.... oh, well....

Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying. But the thing is, the church has re-evaluated its stance on plenty of other things, based on new information and new understandings of things.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Catholic Church, like every organized religion, is an organization that preys on feeble minded people too afraid to acknowledge their life is a fluke and there is no afterlife and, as such, makes dumb rules and guidelines based on an antiquated fictional book.

To consider anything they say seriously is ridiculous, offensive and downright disgusting.

Eh, I'm not sure I'd go this far. Or even close to it. As far as moral authorities go, one could do worse than the Bible. Not that it's always right, but most of the tenets in there are those we and most human societies adopt. Or at least it serves as a decent starting point, along with the English common law, etc., etc.

 

[amraeder]

It looks like there was reason to believe the Catholic Church was finally moving into the 21st century. Alas, it was not to be.

You're being awfully ****ing generous with the 21st century designation. The church needs to crawl into the 20th century first.

Why exactly should the church "move into the 21st Century"?

Truth doesn't morph into whatever the culture decides is acceptable.

No?

Not really apples to apples. None of these have to do with the church, or any idea of a divine "truth" that, I assume, Hondo is alluding to.

That's not saying that the church hasn't changed over time, or that it hasn't made changes for the better over time, because obviously it has, just that I don't really feel like the pics make an applicable point.

Institutions should, from time to time, re-evaluate whether their "truth" still holds up.

Hence, the photos are applicable.

I kind of get that, but I don't think there's anything really analogous in the public sphere to the notion of truth that churches peddles. Maybe I'm wrong, just my opinion. It just seems to me that public truths are always fickle whims, while churches attempt to find one "right" answer that is by its nature, timeless. I know I'm not phrasing this in the best way possible.... oh, well....

Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying. But the thing is, the church has re-evaluated its stance on plenty of other things, based on new information and new understandings of things.

Very true. But most religions are naturally conservative in nature. Change generally happens slowly. It's just the nature of the beast. This is probably a step towards more acceptance of condoms by the Catholic church. But it's destined to be a slow process that happens over decades.

 

[schiezainc]

The Catholic Church, like every organized religion, is an organization that preys on feeble minded people too afraid to acknowledge their life is a fluke and there is no afterlife and, as such, makes dumb rules and guidelines based on an antiquated fictional book.

To consider anything they say seriously is ridiculous, offensive and downright disgusting.

Eh, I'm not sure I'd go this far. Or even close to it. As far as moral authorities go, one could do worse than the Bible. Not that it's always right, but most of the tenets in there are those we and most human societies adopt. Or at least it serves as a decent starting point, along with the English common law, etc., etc.

Never said it wasn't a great tool in the shaping of beliefs and ideas. The Bible is a great book. No different than fairy tales and Stephen King novels.

But to treat it like law is ridiculous and the biggest problem I have with religions as a whole is the whole "Well, either you believe what I believe or you're a sinner and going to hell."

My personal religious belief, which I would never force on anyone, is that there either isn't a God or I'm not capable of grasping the existence of one. I won't knock people for their personal beliefs, provided they keep them to themselves, but in cases like this, it's clear that there are too many people guiding their lives by people who are out of touch with the times and/or our of their mind.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Catholic Church, like every organized religion, is an organization that preys on feeble minded people too afraid to acknowledge their life is a fluke and there is no afterlife and, as such, makes dumb rules and guidelines based on an antiquated fictional book.

To consider anything they say seriously is ridiculous, offensive and downright disgusting.

Eh, I'm not sure I'd go this far. Or even close to it. As far as moral authorities go, one could do worse than the Bible. Not that it's always right, but most of the tenets in there are those we and most human societies adopt. Or at least it serves as a decent starting point, along with the English common law, etc., etc.

Never said it wasn't a great tool in the shaping of beliefs and ideas. The Bible is a great book. No different than fairy tales and Stephen King novels.

But to treat it like law is ridiculous and the biggest problem I have with religions as a whole is the whole "Well, either you believe what I believe or you're a sinner and going to hell."

My personal religious belief, which I would never force on anyone, is that there either isn't a God or I'm not capable of grasping the existence of one. I won't knock people for their personal beliefs, provided they keep them to themselves, but in cases like this, it's clear that there are too many people guiding their lives by people who are out of touch with the times and/or our of their mind.

If your view is that people shouldn't accept anything as a worthy authority without critically examining it for themselves - from the Bible to the Constitution to the sign that says "Don't Run in the Hallway" - sign me up.

 

[schiezainc]

The Catholic Church, like every organized religion, is an organization that preys on feeble minded people too afraid to acknowledge their life is a fluke and there is no afterlife and, as such, makes dumb rules and guidelines based on an antiquated fictional book.

To consider anything they say seriously is ridiculous, offensive and downright disgusting.

Eh, I'm not sure I'd go this far. Or even close to it. As far as moral authorities go, one could do worse than the Bible. Not that it's always right, but most of the tenets in there are those we and most human societies adopt. Or at least it serves as a decent starting point, along with the English common law, etc., etc.

Never said it wasn't a great tool in the shaping of beliefs and ideas. The Bible is a great book. No different than fairy tales and Stephen King novels.

But to treat it like law is ridiculous and the biggest problem I have with religions as a whole is the whole "Well, either you believe what I believe or you're a sinner and going to hell."

My personal religious belief, which I would never force on anyone, is that there either isn't a God or I'm not capable of grasping the existence of one. I won't knock people for their personal beliefs, provided they keep them to themselves, but in cases like this, it's clear that there are too many people guiding their lives by people who are out of touch with the times and/or our of their mind.

If your view is that people shouldn't accept anything as a worthy authority without critically examining it for themselves - from the Bible to the Constitution to the sign that says "Don't Run in the Hallway" - sign me up.

That's essentially it. I don't care if you believe in God, Jesus, Buddah, Steven Tyler or Satan, if you're a decent person and you live a good life that doesn't hurt/harm anyone else, then, cool, you're awesome.

But when you look at religions, especially ones that blatantly discriminate against gays, women, e.t.c., and they say you have to do "X, Y, Z" or you're going to "the bad place with fire", it makes me violently angry, especially when, in my opinion, we're all equal and, as such, shouldn't be forced to follow anyone else's rules but our own, as a culture and as a society.