There isn't any Catholic doctrine that says condoms cannot be used to prevent the spread of STDs. However the Church has doctrine that forbids the use of birth control and promiscuous behavior. As far as the church is concerned violating those doctrines may cause a soul to suffer for eternity in hell....a fate much worse than any std or inconvience of caring for an unwanted child.

The Church's position is that distributing condoms would lead to them being used for birth control and would facilitate peoples engagement in promisuous behavior. To intelligently criticize the Church's position on condom behavior it seems to me one has to attack it from these angles:

A)Condoms do not prevent conception
B)Condoms do not facilitate promiscuous behavior
C)Use of Birth control or engaging in promiscuous behavior do not cause one to go to hell for eternity.
D)Having an STD or unwanted child is worse than suffering in hell for eternity.

Have I missed anything?

I imagine D would be a hard one to argue?

Catholics believe that sex must be unitive and procreative.

You covered procreative in A, but you need an E: Condoms do not prevent unity during sexual intercourse. (or something of this sort.)

Catholics believe that anything that is a barrier during natural intercourse, such as condoms, is intrinsically evil and against the natural law as well as the Divine law.

Suppose in a catholic marriage one of the partners had AIDS. Would it be okay for the male to wear a condom for the purpose of preventing the disease from being transmitted to the other partner? Would you say such an action was purposely intended to impair the capacity of the sex act to transmit life? I would not.

Before I have to attack it from that angle, you need to demonstrate that using a condom would send me to hell for eternity.

I can demonstrate that using condoms prevents the spread of STD's, no one can demonstrate that you will suffer in hell for eternity for using a condom.

BTW: The flying spaghetti monster has divinely revealed to me that not using a condom to prevent the spread of a known STD infection will result in suffering in pastafarian hell for all eternity, minus one day.

This isn't a debate about God or theology. I don't have to demonstrate anything other than its an accepted belief of the Church. Given that belief.....are not the actions of the Church reasonable? Yes.

The point is you should not be attacking Church's position on condom distribution.....I understand why you do it though.....You can score a lot of points with the dimwitted because its emotionally charged. What you should be doing is attacking the fundamental dogmas of the Church from which their stance of condom distribution logically flows.

Noone ever claimed that marriage was easy. The person with AIDS should either not get married, abstain during marriage, or find a partner who is willing to accept the risk (or already has AIDS, etc). What is marriage? Marriage is the union of a husband and wife with the purpose of procreation. Those who are not open to children should not marry.

Since marriage is ordered toward procreation, a person with AIDS also might take into account the serious risk that they and their partner might die and leave the child parent-less - this should also affect their decision.

About your use of the principle of double effect - you are saying that by using condoms, the purpose is not to 'prevent contraception' but to 'prevent the spread of disease' while allowing the couple to have sex. Again, the purpose of sex is uniting and procreative, so it would violate both principles still.

That's like saying the actions of Andrea Yates are reasonable given her beliefs.

So sure, given the absolutely ****ing ******ed beliefs they hold, their actions are reasonable. Why do you think so many of us think that religious beliefs are dangerous?

The purpose of this thread is to reasonably discuss the beliefs of the Church in relation to condoms, given that Catholics believe this. The purpose is not to discredit all their beliefs simply because "God does not exist and anyone who thinks so is crazy." Whether or not he does is meaningless to this thread.

Probably why she was found innocent.

From my perspective, I think you guys are being ******ed for attacking actions you find reasonable at the expense of ignoring attacking dogmas you find unreasonable.

LOL.

When I ride my bike, I don't wear a helmet. Anything that is a barrier to my head smashing my brains against the ground is intrinsically evil and against the natural law.

(is that attacking the ridiculous dogma?)

Here's from wiki that might shed some light on what the natural law really holds:

If someones says the Church's view on condoms is wrong aren't they implying the reasons backing up that view are wrong?

Uh, how doesn't the above paragraph contradict itself?

There's a little more to it than that. Not only are STDs and the inconvenience of caring for an unwanted child a problem, there is also mass starvation in under developed countries due to over population.

The rest is just ridiculous. Real world suffering should take precedence over a mythical afterlife or a fictitious place called hell.

zing

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/...sex_education/

B has never been conclusively proven, but it's often asserted by religious conservatives.

I'll be more than happy to argue point C, mostly because Hell and damnation are complete fictions invented to keep people in line.

You heard him, menopausal women. No marriage for you, no matter how much you love someone. Now be a good spinster and go back to kneeling in prayer!

If you're suggesting that the sex I have with my partner is any less loving because I don't go bareback, you're an arrogant prick.

even if you could, you'd be wrong

I think the intelligent thing to do is to renounce catholicism.

E)Willfully spreading incomplete and/or misinformation in an attempt to trick people into ignorantly conforming to your belief system is ridiculous regardless of whether or not that belief system is correct.

As for the positive assertions B) and C), neither of those is necessary. Just a request for a demonstration that the opposite claims (ie. the claims of the Catholic Church) are true, as well as a demonstration that they are detrimental, is sufficient (which is, of course, where the incomplete and misinformation comes into play). Requesting demonstration that 'prevention of conception is detrimental' instead of A) is what is sufficient there. And requesting a demonstration that 'hell' exists and that using condoms causes people to go there is sufficient rather than D). The Catholic Church is the one making a positive assertion in an attempt to govern the actions of others and it is therefore their responsibility to demonstrate it that their assertion is true.

Not only is this belief not justified, but attempting to trick people into conforming with the actions associated with this belief is ridiculous, especially when the consequences of those actions are killing people.

I agree Stu. Its' very clear that there is no time for investigating child molestations accusations. I would be fine with the church telling people that condoms are infected with disease if it saved them form hell.

You are creating an imaginary barrier. Most people's attacks on the Catholic Church's position on condom distribution is because the dogma behind it is ridiculous. If we all agreed with said dogma, then of course we would agree with their position.

Oh, okay. Well then if we are just going to accept 'the Catholic Church believes that this is the right way to do things' without considering the reason behind it, then we do not need a rebuttal based on rejection of their reason. All we need is a counter assertion: 'we believe that this is the wrong way to do things.' Simple.

Of course, this is not what is happening.

.