[facdroit]

I wonder how there can be even a single non-vatican affiliated catholic in the world.
A bunch of child rapists. It's INSTITUTIONAL.

United States:
10,667 reported victims (younger than 18) in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._United_States

Ireland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...dal_in_Ireland

Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...ndal_in_Canada

Belgium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_C...riests_scandal

Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hullermann

How on earth can anyone still want to share the same religion as these people?

And no this isn't a case of a few bad apples in the bunch, there are thousands of cases around the world and throughout history.

[Old Father Time]

Granted, this is the shame of the Catholic Church, however its not just Catholics. Other religions have also committed such crimes, and it is something which we as a race should tackle together, not look to bully an entire religion of people. Catholicism has its bad sides, and that is the main one, but overall it is a massive force for good in the world.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
...but overall it is a massive force for good in the world.

Disagree completely. I think it's divisive - like all religions. The cruel child abuse is only part of the story. The Catholic Church has been allowing Aids to spread throughout Africa for years by discouraging the use of condoms.

[Old Father Time]

(Original post by Tycho)
Disagree completely. I think it's divisive - like all religions. The cruel child abuse is only part of the story. The Catholic Church has been allowing Aids to spread throughout Africa for years by discouraging the use of condoms.

Ah, but then again, you can look at it two ways. The Church also encourages abstinence from sex, and also encourages one, if they must engage in the activity, to be faithful to their partner. These are undoubtedly two great ways of stopping HIV spreading.

In regards to condoms its a tricky one. I believe that life begins at conception, and therefore I have a mixed opinion on the matter. I'm not against them, I think they should be used to prevent diseases such as HIV from spreading, but then again, stopping conception from occurring is stopping life from being created, and that could be viewed as murder, and thats the issue I have with any form of contraception.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
Ah, but then again, you can look at it two ways. The Church also encourages abstinence from sex, and also encourages one, if they must engage in the activity, to be faithful to their partner. These are undoubtedly two great ways of stopping HIV spreading.

The Church encourages these things for religious reasons alone, not specifically for the benefit of people's health. That these things may benefit people's health is just a coincidence. The Church proves that it doesn't care about people's health by discouraging the use of condoms, hence undermining the suggestion that the above is done for the purposes of good. Fundamentally, it's done to please God. Discouraging sex is counterproductive because without it our species would cease to exist. Obviously there are going to be fewer sexually transmitted infections if people don't have sex, but clearly that's unrealistic and brings the future of mankind into serious doubt.

(Original post by Old Father Time)
In regards to condoms its a tricky one. I believe that life begins at conception, and therefore I have a mixed opinion on the matter. I'm not against them, I think they should be used to prevent diseases such as HIV from spreading, but then again, stopping conception from occurring is stopping life from being created, and that could be viewed as murder, and thats the issue I have with any form of contraception.

This can't be viewed as murder. No living thing is destroyed at this point in intercourse. Viewing this as murder is akin to viewing the squashing of a fly as murder. Much more like murder is demanding Catholics do not use protection when having sex, damning millions of them to a life of Aids, from which they will almost certainly die.

[Old Father Time]

(Original post by Tycho)
The Church encourages these things for religious reasons alone, not specifically for the benefit of people's health. That these things may benefit people's health is just a coincidence. The Church proves that it doesn't care about people's health by discouraging the use of condoms, hence undermining the suggestion that the above is done for the purposes of good. Fundamentally, it's done to please God. Discouraging sex is counterproductive because without it our species would cease to exist. Obviously there are going to be fewer sexually transmitted infections if people don't have sex, but clearly that's unrealistic and brings the future of mankind into serious doubt.




This can't be viewed as murder. No living thing is destroyed at this point in intercourse. Viewing this as murder is akin to viewing the squashing of a fly as murder. Much more like murder is demanding Catholics do not use protection when having sex, damning millions of them to a life of Aids, from which they will almost certainly die.

Well actually, the contrary to your point is true. The reason the Church discourages condoms is because they prevent life, as does any form of contraception, and preventing life from existing is murder in my opinion. The purpose of sex should be for reproduction, and not for selfish reasons such as pleasure, therefore individuals should either abstain from sex altogether or engage in it with the purpose of reproducing. To have sex for pleasure, and then use a form of contraception to stop life from being created is selfish, you're effectively stopping someone from being born so you can feel sexual pleasure. I'm also unaware of the "religious reasons alone" as to why the Church is against condoms. Maybe you can enlighten me on that one, because as stated above, they have a purpose to prevent life, and thats wrong on any humanistic level, not just in terms of religion and the ten commandments. Using contraception will be wrong until overpopulation deems it necessary to take drastic measures against the creation of human life, in order to safeguard limited resources, but as of now that is yet to happen.

To conclude my argument, using contraception during intercourse is wrong, because it prevents life from being created, and life is the most precious gift one can have, and by using contraception, humans deny the precious gift.

[jesse111]

(Original post by facdroit)
And no this isn't a case of a few bad apples in the bunch, there are thousands of cases around the world and throughout history.

You lose your arguement here, thousands out of millions is a few apples in the bunch. A small fraction of people doesnt represent our religion, the same way a few terrorists dont represent the whole of islam and so on. Nor does the church encourage these crimes, so its the perpetrators doing it out of their accord not catholicism. Think before you post, einstein.

[Nick_]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
The purpose of sex should be for reproduction, and not for selfish reasons such as pleasure, therefore individuals should either abstain from sex altogether or engage in it with the purpose of reproducing. To have sex for pleasure, and then use a form of contraception to stop life from being created is selfish, you're effectively stopping someone from being born so you can feel sexual pleasure.

This argument is completely flawed. For a start how is not having sex any different from using a condom when having sex in terms of preventing life from being born?

[yawn]

(Original post by Nick_)
This argument is completely flawed. For a start how is not having sex any different from using a condom when having sex in terms of preventing life from being born?

When we consider the efficacy of the condom on preventing conception we can see that the risk rises with each act of intercourse.

People use condoms in the belief they will prevent each and every act of intercourse from resulting in pregnancy. Statistically, it is inevitable that the more one uses a condom the more risk there is of a resulting pregnancy.

Can you now see why your accusation that the poster's argument is flawed has actually come back to bite you on the bum?

[Darth Stewie]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...5.html?afid=af

Well thanks to this case we at least now know the catholic church's stance on child abuse. According to Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho a girl who has been raped by her step father having a life saving abortion has committed a more heinous crime than the rape of a 9 year old.

Something to consider next time the pope wants to visit the UK and use tax payers money to spew his message of "good".

[Nick_]

(Original post by yawn)
When we consider the efficacy of the condom on preventing conception we can see that the risk rises with each act of intercourse.

People use condoms in the belief they will prevent each and every act of intercourse from resulting in pregnancy. Statistically, it is inevitable that the more one uses a condom the more risk there is of a resulting pregnancy.

Can you now see why your accusation that the poster's argument is flawed has actually come back to bite you on the bum?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[yawn]

(Original post by Nick_)
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the point you were making. I assumed you were asserting that having sex whilst using a condom was no different to not having sex as regards no resulting pregnancy.

[Nick_]

(Original post by yawn)
Sorry, I think I misunderstood the point you were making. I assumed you were asserting that having sex whilst using a condom was no different to not having sex as regards no resulting pregnancy.

My point was that if you say that it is wrong to prevent the creation of life then you must apply that to both not having sex at all and as well as to using contraception. Because obviously if you avoid having sex then you are preventing creation of life.

[yawn]

(Original post by Nick_)
My point was that if you say that it is wrong to prevent the creation of life then you must apply that to both not having sex at all and as well as to using contraception. Because obviously if you avoid having sex then you are preventing creation of life.

True, both cyclical abstinence [NFP] and contraception aim to prevent pregnancy, but morally they are not the same. Contraception involves taking direct and deliberate steps before, during, or after marital intercourse to avoid pregnancy by frustrating the natural channels of fertility. NFP involves no marital act at all. So, contraception means doing something that is immoral, whilst NFP means doing nothing at all. There's a big difference, morally speaking, between acting against something and abstaining from it. (source: Drummey)

[Alkranite]

(Original post by yawn)
Sorry, I think I misunderstood the point you were making. I assumed you were asserting that having sex whilst using a condom was no different to not having sex as regards no resulting pregnancy.

when else would you use a condom?

[cgraham15]

You know, athiests rape people too. It's not the religion, its the person.

Source: half my family are Catholic, none are rapists.

[Nick_]

(Original post by yawn)
True, both cyclical abstinence [NFP] and contraception aim to prevent pregnancy, but morally they are not the same. Contraception involves taking direct and deliberate steps before, during, or after marital intercourse to avoid pregnancy by frustrating the natural channels of fertility. NFP involves no marital act at all. So, contraception means doing something that is immoral, whilst NFP means doing nothing at all. There's a big difference, morally speaking, between acting against something and abstaining from it. (source: Drummey)

Depends how assess weather something is moral. For me it only comes down to too things: Is it fair? Is it for the greater good?
As NFP and contraception both have the same outcome and neither is unfair to anyone, in my personal definition of morality that are both the same.

[yawn]

(Original post by Nick_)
Depends how assess weather something is moral. For me it only comes down to too things: Is it fair? Is it for the greater good?
As NFP and contraception both have the same outcome and neither is unfair to anyone, in my personal definition of morality that are both the same.

It really depends how deeply you want to consider the issue. If you don't want to go into great depth, preferring to consider morality on a superficial level, I'm not surprised your opinion is limited by the superficality.

Please don't assume I'm denigrating your viewpoint because I'm not. I'm just pointing out that an assessment that takes more than you have into account might very well come to a different opinion.

Thanks for discussing it with me anyway.

[Nick_]

(Original post by yawn)
It really depends how deeply you want to consider the issue. If you don't want to go into great depth, preferring to consider morality on a superficial level, I'm not surprised your opinion is limited by the superficality.

Please don't assume I'm denigrating your viewpoint because I'm not. I'm just pointing out that an assessment that takes more than you have into account might very well come to a different opinion.

Thanks for discussing it with me anyway.

Are you saying are my personal way of assessing if something is moral or not is superficial?

[Bardamu]

(Original post by Tycho)
Disagree completely. I think it's divisive - like all religions. The cruel child abuse is only part of the story. The Catholic Church has been allowing Aids to spread throughout Africa for years by discouraging the use of condoms.

Contraception is unacceptable because it subverts natural law by removing the procreative act from the sexual act. It prevents the total giving of man to woman and vice versa.

Really though, if every man and woman restricted their sexual activities to a single life partner (their husband or wife), would STDs be such a problem?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App