The Nightstar Zoo

Let's take the following premises as true:
- sex out of wedlock without condoms is horribly unhealthy
- sex out of wedlock with condoms is ok where health is concerned
- sex out of wedlock is a sin regardless
- sex within wedlock is even healthier.

Should the Catholic Church distribute condoms?

It's true that if people are going to sin (and they are) they should do so competently, but I don't think the Church should encourage it. There are lots of organisations which could legitimately distribute condoms, but I feel that the Church isn't one of them.

OTOH, a blind eye and a mute mouth on the matter might be appreciated.

The problem is, from a Catholic viewpoint, that sex with a condom outside of wedlock is sin compounded, because not only are you fornicating, but you're spilling your seed outside the chance of life... more or less as bad as masturbating (or worse, since you're involving another in your sin).

My objection is that they try to force others to adhere to their definition of sin. They do it for what they see as noble reasons; by avoiding sin, others have a chance of avoiding Hell. However, fuck you. I'm an unwashed heathen, and I don't need you dictating what I'm allowed to do because you think your dead Jew on a stick doesn't want me to wrap my winky in latex. I don't particularly want to wrap my winky in latex. However, I also don't particularly want to wear a heavy coat in winter... I just realize that, if I'm going to go into a hostile environment, it's good to wear the right protective gear.

In all truth, I really don't care what the Catholic Church teachs it's followers or even what concepts they support or not...


But, yes, they should distribute condoms to their priests who have out-of-wedlock sex with children. If the church is going to facilitate child-rape and protect child-raping priests.

masturbation and oral sex are not sins. It is the actual act of having intercourse while not being open to the prospect to new life which is a sin in the eyes of the church.
If youre looking for a quote, I wish i could help you. All i remember about the appropriate bible passage was that someone was having sex with his brother's wife(like thats uncommon in the bible) and pulls out "spilling his seed on the ground."
the whole idea that masturbation was a mortal sin stems back to the time when people thought that the man's sperm held little babies and having sex simply "put a bun in the oven." Obviously killing thousands of babies was considered a sin.

Onan. Genesis 38:8-10. While some people like to say Onan got the zot for spilling his seed, the basic idea is that Onan was punished because God ordered him to knock up his dead brother's widow and he decided he didn't want to. Disobedience was the sin, not whacking it.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.

That's a choice quote right there.

Eh. To tell the truth, I'm mostly basing that off a movie called "Heaven Help Us" where a guy has to confess the amount of times he masturbated during the week (two weeks?), and its somewhere in the hundreds.

However, I don't think the Catholic Church should distribute condoms. It's not their job, and that does normalize fornication to an extent. OTOH, I think that sex without a condom should be considered a smaller sin than sex with a condom, since it is taking some responsibility for the life of other people.

Sex between unmarried people, no matter what you think of it, is going to happen. Ignoring that it will happen is naive and dangerous. Proper sex education is the key to this... knowing how to use a condom, how to use birth control, and everything else... keeps people from getting pregnant with children that might not be cared for as well as they could be.

Psssh. We don't need to concern ourselves with heretics who would engage in sin outside of marriage. Anymore than we need to concern ourselves with those who'd engage in abortion. After all, how many abortions would be conducted in back alleys with rusted coathangers if we didn't have those clinics, hmm?

</sarcasm>

I hope you meant that the other way around...

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.

Yeah, I did. Busy day, and zero chance to go to the bathroom.

I'm not sure why this is being brought up to begin with. Other than humorously, has anyone suggested that the church distribute condoms?
The issue is that they are against condom use, period, and by using their religious and political clout against condom use they are endangering people's health.

Meh, personally I think it's the first step in a good direction for them. Accepting the inevitable fact that they can't stop people from doing whatever they want is something that the church needs to live with in all aspects of life.

"Rhythm method kills more embryos than condom use": http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex ... 5.600.html

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.

I have to disagree with this premise. If one of the partners in wedlock had contracted an STD from an earlier relationship, unprotected sex would be unhealthy for the other partner. You could have protected sex with a different person everytime and still be physiologically healthier than someone in an unprotected monogomous relationship. Any protected sex is generally healthier than any unprotected sex.

If the view of the Catholic Church is otherwise, then I would recommend the church consult with reproductive health experts.

By "sex within wedlock", I meant that both partners only had sex within wedlock.

Doesn't necessarily solve the problem of widows, true.

The sad thing is that you have to consider poontang a "hostile environment".

If there is a God...he's got a sick sense of humor.

Isn't that the whole premise of my religion?

That is the one assumption I cannot let slide. Here's why:


1. You have to know what types protect you from what.

2. You also have to take into account what happens if you put it on wrong, as well as put it on and then take it off and put it on again, especially inside-out. (There are some who are stupid enough to do this. I once heard a lady formerly from Playboy give an entire lecture on how foolish this is.)

3. You also have to be certain that it's a trustworthy brand (i.e., not going to break or leak due to being manufactured cheap),

4. that you and your partner are not allergic,

5. and that it will cover all possible areas of infection. (Hard to guarantee for those with genital warts.)

6. Naturally, it does not protect against either physical or psychological sexual addiction or anything that results from that.

7. It also does not protect against blackmail. (It is foolish to ignore that as a possibility; it always can be one, even if not always likely).

8. It does not protect against any illnesses that are transferred through the air.

9. It does not protect you from saliva-carried infections either.

10. Nor does it protect you from any infections you may receive if you are too rough and damage some of your internal tissues. (This is more a problem for women usually, since the tissues of the vaginal area are what they are; but any instance of fairy penetration can cause this to be an issue for man or woman.)


The way I see it; if you're going to screw up; do so boldly, so that the consequences will be severe and so the law can function as a curb. (Mirror, Curb, Guide - logic taken from Luther's Small Catechism)

Otherwise, you're spending 50 cents per piece of plastic to buy what could end up being false hope.

But I agree that no church denomination should ever be required to dispense condoms. The belief that "since they're gonna do it anyway, they may as well be prepared" is like saying: "since nobody cares at all what God says anyway, we may as well train them in the art of rebelling against his word like a professional, so that they delay the judgment and keep the cycle of deviance going longer."

To tell a church to subscribe to that is to prescribe suicide. Also, it's a lie. Every couple that has chosen to do what is right is evidence that the "wrong path" is not inevitable.

To say "don't do the wrong thing, but if you do; be good at it" is a mixed message that anyone with half a brain can see through the hypocrisy of.

The church should not be required to send that mixed message any more than it should be required to recant the teaching that "God is not the author of confusion."

To make the church recant either through word or deed the above declaration in scripture is essentially to outlaw the church and make its facilities venues for both the State and for the Sex Industry.

To let such a conspiracy gain any momentum would be a betrayal of the entire human race. Once a religion becomes just a shelf product, its value sinks to zero.

If indeed there are states or nations that are trying to get churches to fall for this kind of scam by reason of force or pressure, then they are crooked states indeed.

I'm not Catholic, but I fully defend the resistance of the Catholic church against this marketing scam. And I pity any congregations who may have surrendered to it.

"Sinks" to zero?

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.