Pope modifies condom rules - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tonkovich · #16 11-21-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Someone's been pressing that button. I didn't even realize he was a member here and would take umbrage. Must be the whole G-Wagon popemobile thingy that brought him here.

(and why, exactly, are we supposed to respect such an evil cult leader, who hoodwinks the masses for millions, and gives them bad advice too?)

kerry · #17 11-21-2010, 04:44 PM

If you read the article which David linked, you may understand why I think this issue doesn't deserve serious discussion but simply ridicule, especially when spoken by a 'moral authority'. The Pope conceded that it might be ok if an HIV infected male prostitute used a condom to avoid infecting his customers. Yet the Pope still holds that it is morally impermissible for an HIV infected husband to use a condom to stop his wife from getting AIDS.

tonkovich · #18 11-21-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

If you read the article which David linked, you may understand why I think this issue doesn't deserve serious discussion but simply ridicule, especially when spoken by a 'moral authority'. The Pope conceded that it might be ok if an HIV infected male prostitute used a condom to avoid infecting his customers. Yet the Pope still holds that it is morally impermissible for an HIV infected husband to use a condom to stop his wife from getting AIDS.

uh, i join you in ridiculing the pontiff. the fact of his influence on the world continually astounds and disgusts me.

layback40 · #19 11-21-2010, 06:00 PM

Hey kerry,
You can now come & join the Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/group.php?groupid=36

I thought the pope's decision may have been to avoid the possibility of DNA evidence being used against any of those in his charge.

How does the saying go?

"Take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints!"

If we look at what was actually said by the pope, your comment is quite correct ;

"Benedict XVI appeared to signal that the contraceptive could be an acceptable means to stop the spread of AIDS. "

You simply gave an example of such an activity that has been shown to occur.

Who ever gave you the warning appears to be engaging in some sort religious dictatorship & censorship;

"I dont like what you are saying, it may be true but I will punish you for saying it"

Maybe our esteem member could also put up a link or two of court judgments proving that the behavior your post mentions has occurred in the past.

"Never a truer word spoken in jest" comes to mind.

Kerry,
best you dont go out in thunder storms for a while!! We dont wish to hear of you being struck by a bolt of lightening !!

davidmash · #20 11-21-2010, 06:08 PM

Perhaps I missed it but I did not see any thing about gender. I saw "prostitute" and assumed female/male or male/male. Did I mis something?

kerry · #21 11-21-2010, 06:15 PM

Male prostitute was definitely in the quote from Ratzinger in today's paper. Nothing about a female prostitute being eligible to put a condom on her customers to protect herself. She seems to be in the same category as the wife--SOL.

Just clicked on your link. Unless our local newspaper is misquoting the book, it looks like your article sterilized his views a little bit by covering up their blatant sexism by just saying 'prostitute' instead of 'male prostitute'.

davidmash · #22 11-21-2010, 06:22 PM

Do you know if that was an inference or if that was said by the pope. Not that it makes a huge difference.

I do find it odd that he would condone an item notbin line with catholic beliefs being used in an act not in line with catholic beliefs.

kerry · #23 11-21-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Do you know if that was an inference or if that was said by the pope. Not that it makes a huge difference.

I do find it odd that he would condone an item notbin line with catholic beliefs being used in an act not in line with catholic beliefs.

It was a direct quote in our local paper. There is a component of Catholic moral theology called the principle of double effect. While it wouldn't produce a straightforward inference, it's possible that it could be used to justify Ratzinger's position.
In all my interactions with Catholics, I've never actually met someone in person who concurs with the logic put forward in the Catholic theology of sexuality. A lot of people might accept the Catholic position on the basis of the authority of the Church but most modern people find the logic to be nonsense. It's relevant because the Church's position is that since their view is based in natural law, all rational people should concur and governments can legitimately enforce these views as part of natural law. See the ream after ream that John Finnis has written on this topic in legal philosophy. These issues aren't just theoretical with the majority of Supreme Court justices now being Catholic.

tonkovich · #24 11-21-2010, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

It was a direct quote in our local paper. There is a component of Catholic moral theology called the principle of double effect. While it wouldn't produce a straightforward inference, it's possible that it could be used to justify Ratzinger's position.
In all my interactions with Catholics, I've never actually met someone in person who concurs with the logic put forward in the Catholic theology of sexuality. A lot of people might accept the Catholic position on the basis of the authority of the Church but most modern people find the logic to be nonsense. It's relevant because the Church's position is that since their view is based in natural law, all rational people should concur and governments can legitimately enforce these views as part of natural law. See the ream after ream that John Finnis has written on this topic in legal philosophy. These issues aren't just theoretical with the majority of Supreme Court justices now being Catholic.

that finnis guy... very scary. and he seems to love aquinas, who, it must be pointed out, is among the many "levitating saints" of the catholic church. much reason and logic involved with that august group.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_levitation

seriously, such people as finnis must have been indoctrinated at birth, under the end of the lash, and then spend the rest of their lives trying to intellectualize their way around dealing with that trauma. or maybe they just love sucking up to the powerful?

kerry · #25 11-21-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonkovich

that finnis guy... very scary. and he seems to love aquinas, who, it must be pointed out, is among the many "levitating saints" of the catholic church. much reason and logic involved with that august group.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_levitation

seriously, such people as finnis must have been indoctrinated at birth, under the end of the lash, and then spend the rest of their lives trying to intellectualize their way around dealing with that trauma. or maybe they just love sucking up to the powerful?

I don't know much about Finnis' biography. You now have me curious about it. I do know that from a psychological point of view, it is very easy to view his explanation of human sexuality as the kind of ratiocination a gay guy would make when having heterosexual sex.
He's no lightweight. (don't know if this hinders his ability to levitate) He is very influential in the field of jurisprudence and constitutional law. Influential enough that a couple of law professors at NYU and Oxford decided to take on his philosophy of law in a full length book.

Very little personal biography of Finnis that I can find with a Google search.

davidmash · #26 11-21-2010, 10:16 PM

I just found this gem of a statement.

Comdoms

Quote:

In 2009, Benedict prompted international uproar when he told journalists condoms should not be used because they could increase the spread of Aids. In the book, he stands by his remark, but in more nuanced terms.

I am not sure how this following statement clarifies the above but what the hell.....

Quote:

He argues "condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen." And in the key passage, he says: "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality."

kerry · #27 11-21-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I just found this gem of a statement.

Comdoms

I am not sure how this following statement clarifies the above but what the hell.....

I took that latter paragraph to mean that if the male prostitute feels guilty about having non-reproductive sex with a person not his wife, and in an attempt to alleviate that guilt, puts on a condom (why the guy would do that is completely beyond me), then it's ok.
In other words, being motivated to protect his customer with a condom is not ok, but acting out of guilt to put a condom on is ok.

I'm actually curious to know whether there's anyone on the forum who actually believes the official Catholic teaching on this topic. No masturbation, no non-reproductive sex, no sex outside of marriage, no gay sex, no oral sex unless it's simply for the purpose of getting the guy hard enough for vaginal sex when no other method is available, no anal sex hetero or homo, no mutual masturbation between married couples, no prostitution, no f**k buddies, no condoms, no birth control of any kind, no abortion since it implies the sex was for some other reason than reproduction, etc, etc.

#28 11-21-2010, 10:33 PM

I normally consider religion to be silly, but mostly harmless. Stuff like this makes me wonder if it isn't a more negative influence on society.

davidmash · #29 11-21-2010, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I took that latter paragraph to mean that if the male prostitute feels guilty about having non-reproductive sex with a person not his wife, and in an attempt to alleviate that guilt, puts on a condom (why the guy would do that is completely beyond me), then it's ok.
In other words, being motivated to protect his customer with a condom is not ok, but acting out of guilt to put a condom on is ok.

I'm actually curious to know whether there's anyone on the forum who actually believes the official Catholic teaching on this topic. No masturbation, no non-reproductive sex, no sex outside of marriage, no gay sex, no oral sex unless it's simply for the purpose of getting the guy hard enough for vaginal sex when no other method is available, no anal sex hetero or homo, no mutual masturbation between married couples, no prostitution, no f**k buddies, no condoms, no birth control of any kind, no abortion since it implies the sex was for some other reason than reproduction, etc, etc.

t
That just crosses the line dam it. I'm fine with the other stuff.