(August 7, 2018 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Just an FYI, the second thing you said (bolded) is not true. You can certainly have sex with your spouse without the purpose/intent of conception lol. I did it for years (though bitterly regretting it now, it wasn't immoral). That is why NFP is widely taught and advocated in Catholic circles. So that married couples can learn their infertile weeks of the month and enjoy intimacy during that time when they are trying to avoid pregnancy.
The actual philosophy behind it implies that the purpose of sex is for procreation alone, with pleasure being a means of encouraging that procreation. It is from this philosophy that church morality comes.
It is true that the Church will turn a blind eye (and even encourage) such family planning methods, for it is well known that humans mostly have sex for the pleasure it provides, not thinking so much about the procreation part.
(August 7, 2018 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I understand that unfortunately many people will keep sleeping around despite having aids, or knowing that aids is widespread in their area. But that doesn't change the fact that abstinence in these circumstances would still give the best outcomes and is also the more moral thing to do. The Church has a duty to advocate morality, and it just wouldn't be within the realm of our understanding of morality to tell these people to "keep having sex, just wear a condom!", when we know it doesn't 100% protect against aids and other things.
Of course, people have the a right to their own free will and will either follow the advice or not.
Yes, abstinence would indeed lead to the best outcome.
But here is where they fail to account for human nature.
How much worse would it be for the church to stick to their morality, while acknowledging that, under different circumstances, it would be best for people to use protection both against diseases and unwanted pregnancies?
One can always tell the people "Look, guys, this is the ideal case. Do it. But, if you can't stick with that ideal case, do take precautions."
(August 7, 2018 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It is unfortunate that most won't follow that and in turn the aids prevalence will continue to increase. But we can't advocate for a "solution" that we don't believe is moral. We have to advocate for the one we think is moral.
Certainly.
I just think it's less moral to advocate a "solution" that leads to more suffering, more disease, more death.
Human morality need not be church morality.
One would think that a god could tell the difference and influence those in the positions of power to always stick with the "solution" that actually leads to less suffering, less disease, less death. Clearly, that hasn't happened.
(August 7, 2018 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: With that being said, if anyone says that sex with a condom doesn't help protect at all in comparison to sex without, that's a lie and I certainly don't stand behind the clergy people who said that.
Enjoy:
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488
The guy has since died... but the damage is done in the populations where this myth was spread.
