bad for the health http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/4775/t/bad-for-the-health.html en-us Copyright 2006, Yuku feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster) webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster) Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:43:45 GMT Fri, 08 May 2009 18:50:30 GMT Yuku Feeds 1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Yuku http://static.yuku.com//feed/bypass/images/button-yuku.png http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/4775/t/bad-for-the-health.html Yuku - free hosted forums and profiles 88 31 {pics-1.1 "http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 )) Search Search Domain q http://yuku.com/search/direct/ <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42993/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42993
One could argue that neither condoms or artificial contraception makes procreation impossible because none of those are 100% effective. Sterilization would fall under that category. This is why the Church in Africa can sanction condoms within an HIV marriage.
It would be nice to think that the catholic hierarchy was as amenable to logic and consistency as you are!
]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42993 Fri, 08 May 2009 18:50:30 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42982/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42982
> The use of condoms does not interfere with the natural reproductive cycle.

Good point.

> The catholic catechism says:
"[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370)... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42982 Fri, 08 May 2009 08:41:26 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42962/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42962
No, the problem with artificial contraception is that it interferes with the natural reproductive cycle, whereas natural family planning does not.
The use of condoms does not interfere with the natural reproductive cycle.

The catholic catechism says:
"[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42962 Wed, 06 May 2009 22:58:30 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42957/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42957
> As far as I know the church's argument is with the openness to conception, not "natural" versus "artificial".

No, the problem with artificial contraception is that it interferes with the natural reproductive cycle, whereas natural family planning does not.

> It does not, for example, object to the use of drugs or hormones for disease control or mechanical devices such as splints to mend a broken arm on the basis that... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42957 Wed, 06 May 2009 08:25:11 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42951/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42951
> That really doesn't answer the question as to why the church differentiates between contraceptive techniques.

One is natural, one is artificial. One disrupts the natural bodily function and the other doesn't. The difference seems pretty obvious.
As... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42951 Tue, 05 May 2009 19:12:38 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42946/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42946
> That really doesn't answer the question as to why the church differentiates between contraceptive techniques.

One is natural, one is artificial. One disrupts the natural bodily function and the other doesn't. The difference seems pretty obvious.

> And it seems a tragedy that adherence to a non-core belief would be preferred over good public health programs.

What has contraception got to do with public health programs other than... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42946 Tue, 05 May 2009 09:17:43 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42945/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42945 > Why does the catholic church differentiate between contraceptive techniques?

The thing to remember is that contraception is not a core teaching of the Church. The core teaching is that the marriage must be open to children, but the Church recognizes the right of couples to plan their families. At one time even natural... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42945 Mon, 04 May 2009 19:43:44 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42942/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42942
> Why does the catholic church differentiate between contraceptive techniques?

The thing to remember is that contraception is not a core teaching of the Church. The core teaching is that the marriage must be open to children, but the Church recognizes the right of couples to plan their families. At one time even natural family planning was prohibited. The Church moves extremely slowly in most matters.

> On the contrary. Its restrictions are... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42942 Mon, 04 May 2009 10:18:09 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42939/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42939 Natural family planning has been around in the Church for years and there is a ministry within the Church that teaches it. I have often wondered about this. It seems very schizophrenic. Mechanical and chemical contraceptive is never 100% effective - it is always therefore "open to conception". Proponents of "natural" contraception claim that their method is as effective as condoms and people... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42939 Sun, 03 May 2009 18:37:03 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42936/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42936
> To take the analogy one step further the church's attitude is like insisting that good music can only be played in concert halls.

I know some music aficionados who would claim that very thing. When it comes to sex the Church would agree.

> By insisting that sex be "open to conception" it reduces the act to a mechanistic child creating process and attempts to deny people the ability to write their own symphonies.

That it be... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42936 Sun, 03 May 2009 11:13:02 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42933/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42933 Actually you missed the point. I was addressing Gary's assertion that we are freed to delight in what makes us human.
What makes us human is also reason. I did not miss the point. Sex, like any other drive or appetite, has many uses beyond the functional. That use, however, as with any other, must be disciplined by reason - our ultimate capacity. ]]> feeds@yuku.com (tonydev) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42933 Sun, 03 May 2009 01:47:39 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42930/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42930 Part of the ongoing discussion has been about the inability of people to control their sexual urges making the pope's objection to condoms unrealistic. The reason condoms are effective is that they do compensate for people's inability to consistently control their sexual urges. This is a fact that applies to people regardless of religion, race, wealth or position.

I object to the catholic... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42930 Sat, 02 May 2009 20:59:14 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42929/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42929
> The tragedy of the Catholic church's attitude to sex is that it fails to account for the richness and the humanity of the act.

Not true, the Church considers sex within marriage as a sacred act in which a couple express their love for one another in the most intimate way.
To take the... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42929 Sat, 02 May 2009 20:55:25 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42928/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42928
> I would suggest that you are making a leap in order to sustain your point.

Actually you missed the point. I was addressing Gary's assertion that we are freed to delight in what makes us human. Part of the ongoing discussion has been about the inability of people to control their sexual urges making the pope's objection to condoms unrealistic. In is that context that I anwsered his post.

Peace,
]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42928 Sat, 02 May 2009 17:54:35 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42927/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42927 Are we really? Try taking your delight with a child sometime or in a public park on Sunday afternoon. Society puts many restrictions on our freedom to delight in what makes us human. Some are illegal and some merely frowned upon, but they are limits nonetheless. In Catholic society the limit is sex within marriage.

I would suggest that you are making a leap in order to sustain your point. The use of animal skills in ways beyond the need for survival, so too, the use of... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (tonydev) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42927 Sat, 02 May 2009 17:28:57 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42925/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42925
I was merely disagreeing with Tony's premise that sexual delight was part of our human nature rather than our animal instinct. The enjoyment of music and art fall into the former category.

> The tragedy of the Catholic church's attitude to sex is that it fails to account for the richness and the humanity of the act.

Not true, the Church considers sex within marriage as a sacred act in which a couple express their love for one another in the... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42925 Sat, 02 May 2009 09:23:26 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42920/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42920 The delight in casual sex is purely animal in nature.
So what? I am sure my delight in fishing has roots in an animal instinct to hunt. We are intelligent, social animals and causal sex (as we have seen from the statistics) appears to be an essential part of our make up. But this is balanced by an equally strong desire to form long lasting monogamous relationships - if it wasn't the concept of family... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42920 Fri, 01 May 2009 18:53:53 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42916/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42916
> We have a sexual inclination, but that inclination, like all our other inclinations, is not destined alone to the survival of the species as it is among other creations, but for the delight of itself.

I agree completely, but as in most cases of our delights there are limits and consequences. Most of society still frowns on those in a committed relationship who keep lovers none more than the significant other. The law forbids taking such delight with children,... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Burke) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42916 Fri, 01 May 2009 08:58:51 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42915/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42915 We have a sexual inclination, but that inclination, like all our other inclinations, is not destined alone to the survival of the species as it is among other creations, but for the delight of itself. It's taken a long time but someone has finally seen through to a real issue and said something very profound. I think you have encapsulated the great tragedy inherent in the catholic position on sex in a very few words.... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Argy Lacedom) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42915 Fri, 01 May 2009 03:10:31 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/reply/42914/t/bad-for-the-health.html#reply-42914

We have eyes. In our animal form, we have them to see the world around us, to protect us from danger. But, in our human form, we have them not only for the animal function but for the appreciation and delight of the world in which we live. We not only see to protect, we see to enjoy and to delight. We call the delight... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (tonydev) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/sreply/42914 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:46:48 GMT <![CDATA[ bad for the health ]]> http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/4775/t/bad-for-the-health.html Perhaps, there are other dimensions to that topic.

Whether Catholic or Protestant, we have been taught about our unworthiness, our sinfullness or worthlessness. Romanists tell us we are born in sin. Fundamentalists tell us we can do nothing to attain our own salvation. Catholics belittle us. Fundamentalists devalue our efforts. In a whisper they tell us of a God who redeems. But, in a shout they proclaim our... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (tonydev) http://catholicdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/4775 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:43:45 GMT