But they can, however, advocate sexual intercourse lacking the openness to procreation they tout as all-important, as they do in their pre-cana teachings of the rhythm method. So in fact they are not against sex-for-fun-without-making-babies. They are merely against latex.
This is a perfect example of the gradual changes of Catholicism. Advocating the rhythm method admits that married couples engage in intercourse for fun and provides a way to do so that gels with dogma. There's nothing unnatural or artificial about timing your wife's ovulation to avoid getting pregnant. It's dumb as all hell and pretty ineffective, but there's nothing interfering with the body's functions that God created as a way to procreate. It's the pre-marital sex that's wrong.
Encourage, sure. Abstain from fvcking around on your wife. But if you do fvck around and contract HIV? To use a condom is evil and against the natural order of things. Rather, have unprotected sex with your wife, expose her as well as any children you may concieve to the AIDS virus. Truly moronic.
Like everyone abstains. Had the husband used a condom while fvcking around on the wife, the story would have ended differently. That is why the ban on condoms is killing people.
I can't believe I'm stuck in this infinite loop on this... anyways. No, not everyone will wear one - much like not everyone will abstain but some may. However, if no one is educated and you don't try any sort of preventative measure, the rates of infection increase. That's a fact.
Bravo fiddlestick... that's exactly right...Progressives such as Barbara, who contribute nothing to the faith, wish to change the religion simply because they can't handle the traditional restrictions and dogma... In the past I have tolerated their weak faith, but with all things considered, I believe the faith would be better without them and their hypocrisy. I hope Benedict XVI maintains the same traditional rites and traditions within the Catholic Church as his predecessor maintained... and leftist progressives can join the secular hoard.
I love how you ignore the fact that I am Catholic, ITN. Come one, let's see who can say a Hail Mary faster! I'll meet you behind the rectory after class!
Okay since you are the only non-retard who appears to agree with the condom issue... Could you explain the CC condom position in a coherent manner, because everyone who's outraged about this doesn't seem to have much of a clue, and the only one in favor of this is ITN, and he's just being ITN.
I'm not Barb, so I can't and won't comment about her faith, lack of it, or anything about it. Someone's faith is their own business. And if you are using "faith" to mean "Faith-capital F as in The Catholic Faith," I don't think Barb is Catholic and thus not affecting it one way or another. The Catholic Church will be better served to embrace those on all parts of the political spectrum if it's to survive and prosper. If each Pope merely held the status quo, we'd all still be reciting Latin on Sundays.
Infected husband probably shouldn't be having any kind of sex with his wife, right? I mean the risk of condom breaking/spilling/etc is still too great when you're talking about a deadly virus...
Not if you read BigSoccer frequently! Most of the House Liberals think they know it better and know who is and who isn't religious! Oh by all means...welcome them with open arms IF THEY ACCEPT THE FAITH...I speak about the secular and the secular elite (a few on this very board) who make a career oppressing Christians and are basically pagans themselves WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THE BASIC DOGMA. I use to think all members enriched the faith, but the rise of so many that want to change the Catholic Church mean that decisions need to be made... you want criteria to judge? Ask anyone on thsi board if they support the right of a woman to have an abortion? If they do, they CANNOT in good faith be a Catholic... that's a good way to check... these folks need to leave! There wasn't anything necessarily bad about that -- Mass in Latin -- prior to Vatican II. Indeed, a few Churches/diocese in rural areas still offer a Latin Mass for those still interested. By Status Quo I mean maintaining the dogma as it is currently and not caving in to the feminine/progressive wants... use of contraceptives is not compatible with the faith...support of abortion is not compatible with the faith.
This thread is worse than chicken poo. Can someone formulate the church's argument? If not, then what's the point of this..
I agree with far more liberal stances on issues than conservative. And I'm not religious. To me, "faith" is not a zero/sum game. It's as fluid, dynamic, and changing as the people who hold it. The Church is the people, not the dogma. It's about a path to salvation by living a life in Christ's example. It's ok to hold that as the ideal, but since Jesus was God, it's an unattainable goal. No. They don't. And the pervasiveness of this attitude is what is driving down the number of followers in western countries. What's better? Someone who believes a woman has the right to choose, and they continually give their time and money to charities to ease the plight of the poor? Or someone who believes that abortion is in every case evil, yet molests children in their spare time? One idea, one belief does not make a person, nor does one idea or belief define a Church. The bolded is a big, big problem because some contraceptives are able to stem the spread of a vicious, deadly epidemic. I wish there was a way to reconcile that.
Not that this is anyone's business but I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic schools for 13 years. I took a break for a few years after high school but started going again in my mid-20's. It was okay except I couldn't get my head around the whole birth control thing so I left the church. I can't belong to an organization that I disagree with so wholeheartedly. I know that some people can reconcile that. Well, I couldn't. Still can't. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in the US.