New Pope Elected

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

How about quoting a more recent document than those extremely outdated sources?

From the CDC: Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Sorry, but condoms do provide a very significant lessening in risk of STD infection.

Male Latex Condoms and STD's

CDC's report on effectiveness of latex male condoms in preventing STDs, including HIV.

Don't bother him with facts, some old guy in Rome told him what to believe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

But if you REALLY want to cut down on the spread of AIDS, educate people about self-control, about mynogomy, about avoiding promiscuity.

Monogamy with a person infected with the HIV virus has not proven to be a very effective way to prevent one from catching the virus.
What you stated would amount to saying that educating people about the evil of breaking laws should negate the need for an executive branch.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[sinker 0]

significant lessening***

to me and the Catholic Church, it is grossly insufficient to merely LESSEN the chance of spreading HIV/AIDS. We want to eradicate it altogether.

LESSENING is still Russian Roulette. The virus that causes AIDS can STILL get through. And condoms break, sometimes as high as 1 in 10. Lessening the risk is not good enough.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Monogamy with a person infected with the HIV virus has not proven to be a very effective way to prevent one from catching the virus.***

I'm sorry I didn't speak clearly there. I am not saying that infected people should have sex w/ only one person, in a monogamous relationship. Infected people shouldn't be having ANY sex. How incredibly irresponsible! I was referring to those NOT affected. If people were monogamous w/ uninfected people, would AIDS be the pandemic that it is? I think not.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Don't bother him with facts, some old guy in Rome told him what to believe.***

Oh, my citations were from Rome? Perhaps you need to reread...

Perhaps it's asking too much. Just more of the same drivel from ANOTHER old --and grossly misguided-- man. I do NOT just swallow whole heartedly what my Church teaches, w/o any critical thinking. I'm very well read in theology. It's just that I do not have such incredible paranoia and negativity that you do. They've been right about so much already, that I'm not to proud or arogant or pompous to think that my knowledge, amassed in the short time I've been on earth, is automatically far superior to the Church's. I think that's really the differenct b/t you and me (besides another couple of decades in age, )

Ask Michele Lesser about my beliefs and if I just blindly follow what the Catholic Church teaches.

Also, read the document Fides et Ratio. That is, if you can get past the abject horror of "touching" anything Catholic.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

How about quoting a more recent document than those extremely outdated sources?

From the CDC: Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Sorry, but condoms do provide a very significant lessening in risk of STD infection.

Male Latex Condoms and STD's

CDC's report on effectiveness of latex male condoms in preventing STDs, including HIV.

***

From your first citation.... first bolded paragraph...

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

Why not try for the BEST? Why settle for mediocrity? Half-heartedness? Human beings are capable of greatness, and they should be given the education and resources to obtain that goal.

From your second citation... which is PDF and I can't copy... look at paragraph 3 of "Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions..." Same thing...

"there was insufficient evidence from the epidemiological studies on these diseases (like HIV) to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the latex condom in reducing the transmission of these diseases."

And the citation's recommendations for prevention...
the VERY FIRST THING they say is abstinence, then mutual monogamy... interesting.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[jakee 1,609]

Quote

The short answer to your question is that it prevents the total, mutual, self-giving, self-donation that the marital act calls for. It's like saying, "I love you so much that I want to give all of myself to you, that which makes me ME, well, except for this part here... you can't have that part."

WTF are you talking about?

'Darling, its our wedding night and I need to give the whole of myself to you. So I'll just cut open my vein and you can drink my blood.' After all, people have been spilling blood just as long as they've been spilling cum.

What the hell do bodily fluids have to do with true love? (apart from whether she spits or swallows)* Oh, and if you don't think sex existed before marriage "the marital act" then I just ain't gonna bother talking anymore.


* Sorry, sorry, I don't think that way but I just couldn't help it ok.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,609]

Quote

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

And how effective is the teaching of abstinance? Not very, hell if it nudges 50% I'll buy you a lifetime supply of beer.

Or perhaps people who don't have the moral fibre required for abstinance aren't deserving of life, yeah, maybe that's it.

(And how many people do you think can get tested in Africa?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sinker 0]

What the hell do bodily fluids have to do with true love? (apart from whether she spits or swallows)* Oh, and if you don't think sex existed before marriage "the marital act" then I just ain't gonna bother talking anymore. ***

[shakes head in wonderment]

The 'bodily fluds' that are involved in sexual intercourse are of supreme importance. W/o them, the generation of new life --which COMES from the marital act DUH-- would be impossible. But for people who hold your worldview, the procreative aspect of sex has been SO divorced from the unitive aspect, that it's almost impossible for you to think in these terms. Sex isn't about pleasure, although the pleasure it gives is a supreme good. The pleasure it brings merely points to two much HIGHER and NOBLER goods, that of the union b/t the spouses and the possibility of procreation. And those two goods are inexplicibly linked. That isn't to say that every act must result in conception, but the act should certainly be open to the possibility.

Again, in our culture today, that is a very hard thing for alot of people to comprehend. Instead, sex has been cheapened and denegrated. THAT is true repression, NOT what the Church teaches.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Kris 0]

So, what you're essentially saying is that only Catholics make love, the rest of us merely go about thrusting our loins at each other like animals.

Got it. Check.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[sinker 0]

Quote

So, what you're essentially saying is that only Catholics make love, the rest of us merely go about thrusting our loins at each other like animals.

Got it. Check.

If I had a dime for everytime someone misunderstood me, I'd be rich. No. What you said is just silly. YOU may very well just "thrust your loins at [another] like an animal." Many others do too, sadly enough.

I'm simply stating that is the Catholic perspective. It's also the perspective of many non-Catholics. It's not hard to discern... if you just open yourselves up to it.

Here's an analogy, not perfect, but few are... Eating... what is it's purpose, what is it's function? To sustain life, to foster growth. But it has many secondary functions as well. Establishing community, bonding w/ others, etc. It is also quite pleasurable. However, these secondary functions or effects aren't sought after for there own sakes. BUT, if eating is sought after for only the pleasure, that is unhealthy. If all you do is eat junk food b/c of the pleasure it brings, you'll become unhealthy. If you eat food for the pleasure and then purposely throw it back up, that's a disorder. That last example, bulemia, is closely analogous to using birth control in the sexual act, be it condoms, birth control pills, etc.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

the rest of us merely go about thrusting our loins at each other like animals.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

the rest of us merely go about thrusting our loins at each other like animals.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing!

It is.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

It is.

Now you're telling me!
I've gotta try that love making thing one day.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

It is.

Now you're telling me!
I've gotta try that love making thing one day.

if you never have, you really should! it's the most incredible thing! i know you're being fecitious (sp?) but really, it's quite incredible. people think the church is down on sex, but if they only new how sex is really viewed by the Church, minds would change. Read JP II's book, before he was Pope and was called by his birth name Karol Wojtyla (Voy-tee-wa), Love and Responsibility. It's mind-blowing.

sex isn't good... campbell's soup is good.
sex isn't great... kellogg's cereal is great.

sex is... sacred. and engaging in it should be a sublime, ecstatic, deeply religious experience.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

i know you're being fecitious

I was trying to be "felatious".

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Don't bother him with facts, some old guy in Rome told him what to believe.***

Oh, my citations were from Rome? Perhaps you need to reread...

Perhaps it's asking too much. Just more of the same drivel from ANOTHER old --and grossly misguided-- man. I do NOT just swallow whole heartedly what my Church teaches, w/o any critical thinking. I'm very well read in theology. It's just that I do not have such incredible paranoia and negativity that you do. They've been right about so much already, that I'm not to proud or arogant or pompous to think that my knowledge, amassed in the short time I've been on earth, is automatically far superior to the Church's. I think that's really the differenct b/t you and me (besides another couple of decades in age, )

Ask Michele Lesser about my beliefs and if I just blindly follow what the Catholic Church teaches.

Also, read the document Fides et Ratio. That is, if you can get past the abject horror of "touching" anything Catholic.

Are you seriously suggesting that your beliefs in the dogma of the RC church did not originate in Rome?

You came up with stuff like "The Immaculate Conception" all on your own!

Come on, you can't expect anyone to believe that!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sinker 0]

You came up with stuff like "The Immaculate Conception" all on your own!

Come on, you can't expect anyone to believe that! ***

actually, if you read the line of reasoning that led to the belief in the immaculate conception, it's very reasonable. and there are scriptural references that allude to it as well, but that's another thread...

(zenister, if you're reading, save your breath and spare us the comments that my faith has nothing to do w/ reason.)

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

sex isn't good... campbell's soup is good.

I hope that there are other metaphores than Campbell's soup for what is "good".

Quote

sex isn't great... kellogg's cereal is great.

Kellog's Cereal is horse's food.

Quote

sex is... sacred. and engaging in it should be a sublime, ecstatic...

I agree. Have felt that way pretty much every single time.

Quote

...deeply religious experience.

You HAD to throw that in here!
In an empirical, metaphorical way it is.
But I do not believe that anything better than Cereals and Campbell should be the privilege of the spiritual world. Not saying that it is necessarily what you meant, but that's how I read it.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[sinker 0]

But I do not believe that anything better than Cereals and Campbell should be the privilege of the spiritual world. Not saying that it is necessarily what you meant, but that's how I read it.
***

they were just pithy slogans those products used, and i think the descriptors were appropo (sp?) considering how cheepened sex has become in our culture.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Zenister 0]

Quote

While certain elements of Catholic education have been misguided and mis-taught vis a vis human sexuality, the Church's teaching on sexuality is not the least bit repressive/oppressive... unless, of course, you consider uncontrolled, unbridled, lustful, sleazy, polygymous (sp?) sexual excess as normative and healthy (barf).

i suppose that is why the image of 'catholic school girl' is an even larger archetype than your (the Church's) latest creation 'abusive priest'... perhaps you should take your blinders off... before the Church turns your spawn into the same 'waiting victims' it has created for centuries...

Quote

You're nothing but a bigot, Zen.

nice PA... very christlike.. i can see the Church's teachings at work in your life

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

You came up with stuff like "The Immaculate Conception" all on your own!

Come on, you can't expect anyone to believe that! ***

actually, if you read the line of reasoning that led to the belief in the immaculate conception, it's very reasonable. and there are scriptural references that allude to it as well, but that's another thread...

(zenister, if you're reading, save your breath and spare us the comments that my faith has nothing to do w/ reason.)

no breath needed electrons will suffice....

it isnt your faith that has nothing to do with reason, it's the Church's version of 'logic' that they've used to create their dogmatic structure for the last 2000 years... of course since you buy into that dogma without question you have no need of reason at all....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

what is silly is the incredible predjudice and lack of understanding that people like you and zenister have about the Catholic Church.

no hatred involved...unlike the Catholic Church i dont have issues with facts, and i can place blame squarely where it lies, with the institution that found, backs and teaches it still...

but if you'd like to actually discuss Church policies, practice and history you'll find i'm probably better prepared than the majority of your seminary students... I'll wager i know more about the realities of your Church, its actual history and dogma than you do... of course it helps that i'm not blinded by belief

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Matt. 7:6

pathetic cop out... cant refute any arguments against? just state that your opposition is not worthy of your 'wisdom'

sad

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Wayne, that is an excellent question. I invite you to read Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), the Papal document written by Pope Paul VI, which can be found here...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

The short answer to your question is that it prevents the total, mutual, self-giving, self-donation that the marital act calls for. It's like saying, "I love you so much that I want to give all of myself to you, that which makes me ME, well, except for this part here... you can't have that part."

Fixed your clicky. I don't know Mike, it sounds like that rationale still turns a deaf ear to the religious family of modest means that just wants to stop having children after four or five. In your reference, the Vatican itself acknowledges that:

Quote

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

But it's also true that the degree of fertility varies quite a bit in practice with some couples having great difficulties conceiving and others having one child after the other. And if a couple wishes to use a condom and withhold that part of the act of love that would tend to make their already large family unmanageable, that strikes me as an example of love in a different sense. Because not only are the two people expressing love for each other, they are also showing how much they care for their existing children who are already sharing limited resources. To do otherwise would be to put those same children in jeopardy.

Quote

My understanding of the issue specifically related to the transfer of HIV is that the actual size of the HIV molecule (right word?) is substantially smaller than the smallest porous hole in a condom. So, will condoms stop the spread of HIV? No, but it will likely decrease the spread of it.

It's difficult to argue with the facts on the ground that condom use has substantially reduced the incidence of AIDS in this country since its outbreak in the 80s.

And why should the fact that it will "only" decrease AIDS motivate the Church to dismiss it as a useful tool? Certainly, a lot of Church effort is devoted to "decreasing" the incidence and effects of poverty. There is no argument that since poverty can't be eradicated completely, they should cease their efforts. If condom use can save the life of just one person it should certainly be, if not endorsed, at least considered benign by the Church.

Wayne