What's so bad about condoms?

[JoabAnias]

PS: The whole birth control thing isn't an infallible teaching, so is there an issue with agreeing to disagree and just not using condoms?

Actually it is an infallible teaching.

Humanae Vitae.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The more I think about it, the more I just don't get it. I can understand artificial birth control that can possibly be abortifacent not being allowed, but what is the issue with condoms? With NFP it seems like couples deliberately have sex during infertile periods. It seems like using a calendar to keep sperm and egg apart. With a condom it's a piece of rubber. So what's the difference?

NFP is still open to life if it so happens.
Condoms are a human measure to ensure this cannot happen. It is artificial means of helping the man spill his seed outside the woman to be thrown away like garbage and it is always the seeds of life...
If it must go anywhere - it must go into the woman where it was meant to.
Even if she does not conceive - there is always a possibility of being open to life if she were to conceive.
And the woman's body naturally absorbs the sperm...as is pleasing to God because He set it up that way.

Even if a woman was trying to get pregnant - the rate of success is 20% - that doesn't mean the sperm should be thrown away at any time.

 

[EmbattledBunny]

Can you show me where anyone said anything about your intelligence accept (sic) yourself?

She may have had this gem in mind:

Is the Catechism really that hard to understand for you?

If you don't see how that might have struck a nerve, it says even more about someone's intelligence than it first seemed to.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I think we're defining "understand" differently in terms of understanding the teaching.

I feel like maybe Joab is taking "understand" to mean "knowing that the Church says it is wrong," whereas Rebekka and others are taking "understand" to mean "fully understanding the logic and philosophy used in the reasoning for this teaching".

The logic and philosophy isn't actually that clear. Even priests themselves, with all their theological training, may not fully understand the teaching, but they accept it anyway. This is actually a constant item for discussion in theology, even today - not just among those who would be "dissidents" or "liberals", but among the average theologian as well. And no, they aren't debating "This teaching needs to be more loose!" They are debating the reasoning used to support NFP vs condoms when it comes to the issue of intent.

So please stop pretending that those who struggle with the teaching, but accept it anyway, are somehow less intelligent than those who accept it at face value.

 

[Cain Spencer]

For the great love of dust why don't you people just either buy or read a Catechism in a library!?

 

[Michie]

For the great love of dust why don't you people just either buy or read a Catechism in a library!?

Makes too much sense.

 

[Cain Spencer]

Makes too much sense.

Doesn't it just?

 

[Michie]

Doesn't it just?

Well it takes a lot of the fun out of blowing hot air all over the internet.

 

[Gwendolyn]

For the great love of dust why don't you people just either buy or read a Catechism in a library!?

I own two, and a compendium. Doesn't make understanding difficult, obscure concepts of theology any easier.

 

[EmbattledBunny]

I own two, and a compendium. Doesn't make understanding difficult, obscure concepts of theology any easier.

It isn't easy. If it were easy, there wouldn't be so much written on the subjet. Pope John Paul II wouldn't have bothered with ToB, he'd have just said "Read your Cathechisms, people!"....but he didn't

 

[Cain Spencer]

Well it takes a lot of the fun out of blowing hot air all over the internet.

It's funny because if they won't take the words seriously that are written in it, then why bother listening to us on this forum anyway? We will just spew the same nonsense as the Catechism at the end of the day!

I own two, and a compendium. Doesn't make understanding difficult, obscure concepts of theology any easier.

There is one version that is supreme, you need to have the correct version. It covers everything that is anything.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If someone would like to know the why's instead of just the how's...i find the early fathers the best teachers.

And yes, they mentioned withdrawing to avoid impregnation... and it is wrong because the man uses the wife like a personal harlot. Because they should be open to life rather than lust.

Sex is not meant to be just to satisfy lust, but be open to life.
NFP is open to life - there is nothing to prevent life. Even if the timing maybe off, it is still the natural way and no seed is spilled outside the body.

Pretty much in a nutshell.

But i could go find the quotes, if the discussion necessitates it.

 

[JourneyToPeace]

It isn't easy. If it were easy, there wouldn't be so much written on the subjet. Pope Johm Paul II wouldn't have bothered with ToB, he'd have just said "Read your Cathechisms, people!"....but he didn't

and I am soooo glad that nobody in the Church said "oh, just read your catechism and figure it out yourself, this is easy!" because although it is entirely possible that veteran Catholics like you folks would at least stand a chance of making heads or tails of it... but brand new Catholics or Catholics who have just come back to the fold who want to understand these things would be up a creek without a paddle.

 

[EmbattledBunny]

It's funny because if they won't take the words seriously that are written in it, then why bother listening to us on this forum anyway? We will just spew the same nonsense as the Catechism at the end of the day!

Who are "they"? What nonsence are they spewing?

 

[Gwendolyn]

There is one version that is supreme, you need to have the correct version. It covers everything that is anything.

Doesn't cover everything in depth, but yes, I own it. I have a BA in theology and I'm applying for my master's. Admitting that in Catholic theology, things are not often as black and white as we may like, is not a bad thing. We don't do our faith justice if we pretend that everything is cut and dry. There is a great depth and weath of philosophy and theology, and some of the brightest minds in history have devoted their lives to the Church and still haven't understood everything perfectly. God is still, essentially, a mystery, and we won't know Him perfectly until He calls us home, because sin clouds our vision.

 

[Memento Mori]

Personally, and I do NOT say this to belittle anyone who struggles with these teachings, I don't think the teachings themselves are all that difficult to understand.

I think the problem is "uninstalling" the programs of thinking that we've downloaded from the mainstream culture. I know that 2 years ago, when I first started looking into Catholicism, I did not grasp the logic behind the Church's teachings on issues of life and sex, but they seemed so minor to me that they really weren't on my radar.

But then I really undertook a study of the Theology of the Body, read books on it, listened to EWTN shows, and started to learn for the first time what it means to be human, what humans were supposed to be (original justice), how these issues fit into the big picture. Now I see that they are not just little bunny trails where the Church is being picky and moralistic; they are really essential to living authentic human lives and building a truly human civilization.

The reason why the Theology of the Body is so detailed is not because the concepts are difficult in themselves, but because we have so much re-learning to do. We don't see ourselves as we truly are and as we were meant to be, and it was JPII's mission to correct our vision..

No, I don't understand anything as deeply as JPII did. I'm only 18, how could I? But I don't think these truths are beyond the reach of the layperson, if he is shown the way.

 

[Gwendolyn]

It's not only re-learning. It's also that moral theology is an extremely complex subject. I've had 2-3 years of it in my undergrad and it's difficult to wade through. Most challenging (but rewarding) subject I have studied, but definitely NOT black and white or "easy".

 

[Cain Spencer]

Doesn't cover everything in depth, but yes, I own it. I have a BA in theology and I'm applying for my master's. Admitting that in Catholic theology, things are not often as black and white as we may like, is not a bad thing. We don't do our faith justice if we pretend that everything is cut and dry. There is a great depth and weath of philosophy and theology, and some of the brightest minds in history have devoted their lives to the Church and still haven't understood everything perfectly. God is still, essentially, a mystery, and we won't know Him perfectly until He calls us home, because sin clouds our vision.

Believe me, it won't help you.

Who are "they"?

They; the protestants.

What nonsence are they spewing?

WE; The Catholics of Cf. The nonsense we are spewing is the word of God otherwise know as the imaginative theories created by the Vatican councels...

Analyses complete, next question please.

 

[Memento Mori]

It's not only re-learning. It's also that moral theology is an extremely complex subject. I've had 2-3 years of it in my undergrad and it's difficult to wade through. Most challenging (but rewarding) subject I have studied, but definitely NOT black and white or "easy".

Maybe it is complex in an academic setting when you are getting deep into the intellectual aspects, but we have a God who writes His law in our hearts and reveals to the simple what He keeps from the wise. He will give wisdom and understanding to anyone who asks for it.

(I am not anti-intellectual. I just think Scripture's promises apply here!)

 

[JoabAnias]

If you don't see how that might have struck a nerve, it says even more about someone's intelligence than it first seemed to.

I will explain my intention:

To ask: "Is the Catechism really that hard to understand for you?"

Is to ask if they really understand the CCC or not because they are contradicting that teaching.

To ask this question is not to say someone isn't smart enough to understand the CCC. Its to ask if they really do or not. Your imaginations adds to it things that aren't said or inferred. The question is irenic. What you read into it is of you.

If the wording of the question is not considered charitable enough then say so. Don't make up some aggressive insinuation that asking the question refers to someones intelligence when it doesn't. Do either of you read minds or can know another's thoughts or intentions without asking them?

I generally assume anyone can understand the CCC. So, if you really can't understand the CC then thats another issue and the CCC needs to be explained. One has to ask to find that out. Don't they?

No one said that not understanding the CCC was actually the case or not. It was asked a couple different ways but never answered.

It was wrongly ASSUMED what was meant by the question. That false assumption in ones own imagination resulted in taking offense when an intent to offend was never the case.

Never impugn another's intention for asking a question because you may simply be taking it the wrong way. Try asking what is meant by it for clarification instead.

Pride and requiring respect is a trap. In the mean time, the facts are
missed. If someone denies what the catechism clearly says then thats a cop out IMO. Either that or they just don't understand it which needs to be determined.

I think thats really the nerves it struck. The only thing wrong with really not being able to understand the CCC is being so proud about ones misunderstanding that one never gets to understanding the teaching of the Church at all.

Defend and ascend to the Truth of the Church teachings on contraception instead of continually jumping on me for the same offense of petty and passive sensibilities.

If my poorly phrased late night post has you two in such a tizzy that you cannot get over it, when it was never aimed at anything but reaching an understanding of the truth of the Church's teaching on contraception that you two have all figured out in contradiction with the Church then:

Its not possible for me to phrase anything without offending you and you do not seem open to discussion or understanding so - good bye.