Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining - I misread that, because you said "this person is my father's wife and my step sister." I was all of a sudden thinking of Oedipal family relationships...My father's wife was married previously though her first husband died. Her first husband had a vasectomy and years after this vasectomy he had another child, my step sister. As you may know, they test after a vasectomy to make sure the man is sterile and they continue testing every year in some cases to be sure. That was their situation and the girl is his daughter. This is a miracle that my step mother recognizes in her life.
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining - I misread that, because you said "this person is my father's wife and my step sister." I was all of a sudden thinking of Oedipal family relationships...
What greater evils did he have in mind, could you give me a quote?
In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, the spokesman explained. Rather, the use of the condom to lessen the danger of contagion may be a first act of responsibility and a first step on the path toward a more human sexuality rather than acting to put anothers life at risk.
I found that statement really interesting, because in many (if not virtually all) cases, people who practice birth control are trying to take a "first act of responsibility" (not bringing children into the world whom they are unable to adequately care for) and, in cases where a woman's health is at risk, for the purpose of not putting another's (the female partner's) life at risk.
In the case of teens using condoms, is not that "first act of responsibility" a way for them to mature into a path toward a more human sexuality rather than opting for early parenthood which, statistics show, will mean that most of them will never finish high school and be poor for the rest of their lives?
I am not disputing that abstinence is a better course, but for those who are already sexually active, maybe their use of condoms is a "first act of responsibility."
I found that statement really interesting, because in many (if not virtually all) cases, people who practice birth control are trying to take a "first act of responsibility" (not bringing children into the world whom they are unable to adequately care for) and, in cases where a woman's health is at risk, for the purpose of not putting another's (the female partner's) life at risk.
In the case of teens using condoms, is not that "first act of responsibility" a way for them to mature into a path toward a more human sexuality rather than opting for early parenthood which, statistics show, will mean that most of them will never finish high school and be poor for the rest of their lives?
I am not disputing that abstinence is a better course, but for those who are already sexually active, maybe their use of condoms is a "first act of responsibility."
It may be a sign from God or it may be a medical mistake.
If you see this as a sign from God, do you see other surgeries that failed as a sign from God that the surgery was a mistake, too? And on the other hand, is a pregnancy as a result from rape a sign from God that He thinks the rape was a good idea? When is something a sign from God and when isn't it?
Yes, that's exactly what I said... rape is a good idea.
I was referring to people's motivations.
I think that most people who use condoms or practicing birth control are exercising that same sort of "responsibility" that Pope Benedict referred to in the situation of the gay prostitute.
And so if they are doing so in an effort to be "responsible" perhaps it will lead them at some point to a deeper understanding of human sexuality....
And perhaps those who never do so will have multiple children with multiple partners and complicate their lives (and their children's lives) so much that it may be several generations (if ever) for anyone in their household to develop that "deeper understanding."
If you have ever been the parent of a sexually active teen or young adult who also practiced birth control, did the fact that they were using birth control make you sleep better or worse at night? Did you feel that their misguided attempt at "responsibility" made it more likely or less likely that they would eventually have a stable lifestyle that allowed them to develop a more mature view of human sexuality?
You are missing the point. You shouldn't be sleeping good at night if your child is regularly committing a mortal sin. You don't get a more "mature" view of human sexuality by using contraceptives, you get a more perverted and egocentric view of it. And you don't get a more stable lifestyle if you don't realise that sex wasn't made for enjoyment.If you have ever been the parent of a sexually active teen or young adult who also practiced birth control, did the fact that they were using birth control make you sleep better or worse at night? Did you feel that their misguided attempt at "responsibility" made it more likely or less likely that they would eventually have a stable lifestyle that allowed them to develop a more mature view of human sexuality?
well from this POV it would seem like it would be ok to use condoms for any homosexual act, not just the example the Holy Father gave us of the male prostitute
not "ok" but it would not make the act of sodomy any more or less sinfulHe is not arguing it's okay... it is a loaded trick question... like how they use to try to trick Jesus.
A gay man using a condom is irrelevant because the act is already perverted and condemned.
You know, if we want to give it to folks straight up- and not be afraid to tell it like it is, using a condom in a marriage or between heterosexuals is rendering the act much like sodomy anyway...
The pope is saying if gay men are actually considering another person besides themselves, by using a condom, to not give them a deadly disease, then that's a start in the right direction that life is more then just themselves.
But for now, gay men and hookers of any kind and the ppl who will pay them- ain't a one of them are in for anyone other then themselves.
The pope was addressing the dehumanizing part of gay/prostitution and that them using a condom is a little shred of hope that they are actually for once, thinking of someone else besides themselves by wanting to use a condom if they know they have AIDS.
But the Pope has said that condoms are not effective in the battle against HIV. And that that hasn't been reported by the positively giddy press, is a disservice to all and leads all sorts of people (who don't seem to know the Catholic teachings) to jump to the idea that condoms are indeed effective tools in the fight against HIV.
not "ok" but it would not make the act of sodomy any more or less sinful
it is still a horrible sin that crys out for to heaven for vengeance, but the condom does not really play a factor one way or the other
Thanks for the quotes.He said: "If you expel prostitution from society you will unsettle everything on account of lusts."
Basically that without that outlet society may spiral to deeper levels to satisfy their desires.
Not a Church approved view, but then again St. Augustine is not infallible.
Incidentally Aquinas (even though he held prostitution to be evil) also advocated the social tolerance of prostitution to avoid greater evils. Quotes below from here: link
Given this strong condemnation of fornication and prostitution, it would seem obvious that Aquinas would want to engage every force against them, especially civil law. Oddly enough he does not. Instead he notes that the state should allow fornication and prostitution to exist for the sake of the common good.To be clear, I and many others disagree with the above, but two great theologians do make the argument. Now many others oppose it as contrary to human dignity in a way that can not be justified by common good.
Relying on the well-known passage from Augustine's De ordine, Aquinas advocates tolerance of prostitution by noting: "Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust."
If these social practices were to be suppressed, the public reaction might be such as to threaten the peace of society. Remember, Aquinas already maintains (1) that prostitution is a species of lust that is one of the capital vices that wreak the greatest havoc on the human soul and leads to other sins; (2) that it is a mortal sin that threatens the proper rearing of children and by extension threatens the common good of society; and (3) that it violates the natural law and matrimonial union. How then could one tolerate such an evil, particularly a natural law thinker such as Aquinas? Is Aquinas compromising on his principles or playing utilitarian?
Thanks for the quotes.
I disagree with Aquinas and Augustine, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?