2005

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
2005
vexen

Catholic Church still pesky

Catholic Church opposing condoms in Africa, despite HIV threats [2]
The Catholic Church is still strongly opposing the use of condoms in Africa. In Kenya, local Bishops have instead recommended that abstinence, "counselling" and "ethics" are used to prevent the spread of HIV, instead of condoms, and Bishop Korir said that only "the guilty were afraid and resorted condoms" and that he wanted "no condom talk". Dr Muga, Kenya, said that the government has reduced infection rate from 14% to 10% as a result of sex education and condom contraception.

Birmingham Catholic church boycotts Comic Relief because charity money raised might go into a family planning charity. Father Guy Nicholls, parish priest of the Oratory in Edgbaston, opposed the charity that was running a family planning charity for street children, and also giving them access to healthcare.[4]


Thankfully the UK doesn't have *as much* of a problem with Catholicism as the rest of the world. Africa and the USA are the two "most Catholic" areas.

There is some hope, though:[1]

"Forty three per cent of Roman Catholic priests in England and Wales do not support the Church's ban on contraception, while another 19 per cent were unsure whether to support the policy or not.

The findings come in a poll of 1,482 priests that was released last week. They will have the Pope livid with fury - he simply cannot tolerate dissent.

The poll also revealed that one in four priests were no longer convinced of the need for "chastity", while 21 per cent said that homosexuals should be allowed into the priesthood"

It is ridiculous that "moral" figures such as priests should, in the Catholic Church in the UK, think that being gay means you (for some superstitious reason) cannot be a priest. The Catholic Church, now riddled with paedophilia claims, more than 400 cases, really does need to change. Anyone reading this who is a Catholic should consider breaking contact with their church, and any priest should consider openly declaring dissatisfaction with the Vatican's anti-human and anti-equality policies.

Mother Theresa, one of the other "good guys" who has rabidly oppposed condoms, spent millions flying to and fro in Europe and the USA on political campaigns against contraceptives. The Catholic Church, with all it's money, *could* turn itself into a force for good and squarely put the dark ages behind itself, but, riddled with superstition and religious inhibitions, it is still a failure.

[1] 2003 April 4 NSS newsline http://www.secularism.org.uk/newspress/news4apr3t.htm
[2] 2003 Mar 28 NSS newsline http://www.secularism.org.uk/newspress/news28mar3t.htm
[4] 2003 Mar 14 NSS newsline http://www.secularism.org.uk/newspress/news14mar3t.htm

The Catholics I know are all, for want of a better description, from the pragmatic wing, in that they use contraception but don't admit it to their priest at Confession.

Of course, it is universally accepted that they will burn in Hell for such deception.

Personally, I have little time for the Catholics; a friend of mine from Canada was taken from his mother and sent to a Catholic orphanage [because his mother was Inuit and his father unknown-but-not-Inuit]. While at the Catholic orphanage he was severely beaten on his left hand because he was left-handed and the Nuns wanted him to be right-handed. As a result, he now has severe arthritis in his left hand, and is taking the Catholic Church of Canada to court.

I also know someone who suffered in one of Ireland's Magdelen Laundries which were not much removed from forced-labour.

Papism is, as you might expect, not my cup of tea

the catholic church has one of the most bizarre "moralities" concerning sex. first it covers up a pedophile scandal here in the US, and then denies condoms to Africa. can u say "strange"?

Dear sirs,
I realize I am somewhat late to the discussion, but seeing as no Roman Catholic has replied, I will, for the sake of any other Catholics who visit these pages and see that the views of the Church are not fairly represented, and partly because I enjoy a good fight!
The reason that the Church is against contraception is really quite simple, but very difficult to put into practise.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it contains the fullness of truth, and the way to salvation and our rightful home with God in heaven. She teaches that the way to live this truth is through love, the highest form of love being charity, and thus the commandments of the Church are all pointed towards the keeping of Her members as close to love as possible. This is not to say that Catholics do not sin as much as everyone else, we all sin, and the Catholic doctrines on original sin are self explanatory on this, but the reason people should be members of the faith is so that they can stay as close as possible to the truth, the love that Christ Himself taught - ‘A new commandment I give you, to love one another; that as I have loved you, you also may love one another’
And then again:
‘One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the greatest of all?"
Jesus answered, "The greatest is,'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one:
you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.
The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." ‘
All the teachings of the Church come into these commandments, and that on contraception just as much as the rest. Firstly, the Church teaches that sex is for marriage exclusively, for the bringing of children into existence , (literally to populate the kingdom of God in heaven), and for the married couple to show their exclusive and mutual love for one another. Marriage consists in the couple giving their lives to God, to each other, and to their children, that they may grow up in a stable family. Married love is based upon Charity - the highest form of love, which consists in a perpetual outpouring of self towards another for the sake of the other, true living image and likeness of Almighty God.
Contraception is explicitly against nature and charity - against nature by obvious means, and against charity because it is intrinsically selfish - the opposite of charity, for it seeks to gain from the other rather than to give to another.
Firstly how is contraception against nature? Sparing readers the obvious details, contraception essentially seeks to separate the natural end of the act (which God ordained for it - the conception of a child) from the act itself, using the act for either pleasure alone or to show sexual love (not as high a form of love as Charity) while purposefully stopping God’s plan of creation from taking place.
contd.

Contraception is against Charity because it turns the man and woman in upon themselves instead of including God in what the Church teaches is the sacred act of the Sacrament of marriage - however, I imagine the reader might not believe this, thus I will give a less ‘religious’ argument, which is quite obvious to the open minded reader. Frankly, most people say that they love each other, and this is the reason for sex - rightfully so in the case of a marriage open to the arrival of children. However, to love someone is to give your all for them - (‘love one another…as I have loved you’. Christ gave His life for us - even if you don’t think it availed the world any good there is no doubt that man called Jesus died because He believed it was saving the people of the world, us, from the certainty of hell).
Using contraception is not giving your all, it is saying ‘I love you, but I am not prepared to share with you this most awesome power of giving life. This creative act, this act of full communion with you and with God I choose to obstruct (by whatever means, chemical or material). It is not you that I truly love, but it is simply the pleasure I can gain from making use of you in this way. I don’t want to have children with you, I just want the pleasure of sex with you without its natural (God designed) result’. This is not Charity, not a complete giving of self or even a fulfilling of the act, it is the seeking of pleasure (im)pure and simple from the other person’s body, and thus is selfish and not charitable. This, moralists would call mutual masturbation.
The reader may not believe this in the religious context, but in a common sense context all the above makes sense, as do the commandments of the Church which follow -
1)That contraception, as it is intrinsically selfish (even if both partners are willing in their mutual use of the thing), and against the will of God (the natural result of conception), is not to be used by anyone because it is not an act of love, and in fact goes against the love we should strive to attain.
2)That sex is for marriage, so that the couple are pledged to one another, and thus are held by a vow before God and by honour not to leave the other, that the relationship be secure and that the children which are the natural fruit of marriage be brought up in a safe and stable environment.

A Church which teaches Love and charity can scarcely avoid teaching against contraception as it is intrinsically against the way of life that seeks to attain heaven through practising love, love with all one’s heart, all one’s soul and all one’s mind.

As the Church puts the soul of each human as being more important than the pleasure of the person, thus the Church in Africa does not compromise on the case of contraception. It would be a cowardly Church that preached spiritual good whilst compromising on this (higher) good to attempt to get rid of the evil of AIDS. Then there is the problem that years of shipping out condoms to Africa have not actually helped, but hindered - the only foolproof means of stopping AIDS is abstinence - this is proven! No sex, no babies. No sex, no unwanted babies. No sex, no sexually transmitted diseases. No sex (even with a condom…), no sexually transmitted AIDS. Another proven fact is that condoms encourage ‘loose’ sex, sex outside marriage etc. This is exactly the type of sex in which AIDS is being transmitted, not inside marriages where both partners are faithful, that is to say mutually exclusive.

On another topic, there is no ‘superstitious’ reason for not allowing gays to become priests - the temptation to abuse boys (altar boys, adolescent men who are uncertain about themselves, boarding school boys) is obviously very high, unfairly high on both a homosexual priest and those to be put under his care. Suggesting that the Catholic Church is immoral for not allowing gays to be priests is like saying that it is wildly unfair for the judicial system to not allow a person who leans towards child abuse to have a job in a day care nursery - the ruling is common sense not superstition.
The Catholic Church is not anti gay people - but the acts of homosexuality cannot, for the same lack of love and charity that exists in contraception, be anything but things to be avoided at all costs by those who wish to live a life as close to truth and Charity, and therefore God, as possible. The Church does not hate gay people - it teaches that its sole reason for existence is to bring everyone to heaven! As such it teaches what is right and wrong, using reason and what has been revealed by God in scripture. The point in the end is that homosexual acts do not fulfil the natural end or purpose of sex, that is why the Church condemns them (the acts, not the people). Maybe I can refer you to the following site in order to show you that the Church does care for these people - http://couragerc.net/

On a less religious point, I am afraid I disagree with the point about Mother Theresa - she didn’t spend millions because she didn’t actually own anything! The sisters of Charity, her religious order, own nothing personally, and only wear one piece of cloth as their whole clothing. The order is required to either beg for food or receive what is given them by others some other way, they do not work for food or pay, but for the sake of charity alone. How you imagine Mother Theresa spending millions I am not sure! Whatever the order received through gifts or donations is always directed towards the care of the poor, none of these nuns own a thing to call their own, and anyone who has ever bothered to visit any of their convents will know that they live in strict poverty and always give the best of what they receive to those they care for.
Best Wishes,
Greg Morrison.

You are viewing vexen