There a number of key issues involved in this discussion. 1) Is God soveriegn and can we trust Him to determine the creation of life? 2) Should we not be, as Christians, a culture of life and not merely convenience? These are the two crucial questions for me when I look at the Catholic ban on condomns. For me, it is a view that trusts in God's will for the family. Should we not trust God with the outcome of the marital sexual relationship? Do we think that God will not provide or that we have a better plan than God? This is not to minimize the difficulties surrounding this issue, but I would rather trust God and His will than my own poor conceptions of what I think is "right". This is not to say that I don't respect other views of this issue, but this is just where I stand. I am interested to hear your thoughts.

For me, it is a view that trusts in God's will for the family. Should we not trust God with the outcome of the marital sexual relationship?

Interesting...so just because God is in charge one does not need to take responsible measures? I think that is bad theology.

I am looking for a job. Should I just sit around and wait for someone to call me? Or should I take proactive measures to help be find a job?

not only that, but condoms are not 100% effective. if God wants you to get pregnant, you will get pregnant.

i think this is an issue for the church at large, even though the catholics are more known for failing to use condoms. i know of quite a few biola students who fooled around and wound up pregnant because people who think they will be abstinent have no use for condoms. thats why i think this campaign is so right on.

saying you are committed to abstinence does not prevent pregnancies. sure really abstaining would be 100% effective, but i would like to see the rates of pre-marital sexual activity among "true love waits" signers, etc. its definately not 100% but because they claim to be committed to abstinence most wouldn't carry a condom or even have the proper education about stds and pregnancy.

Yea...I didn't even address the greater issue of teaching about condoms.

Christians don't use condoms because they don't have sex....right?

Studies show that those that sign a purity pledge are just as likely to have sex as those who do not sign anything, but they are significantly more likely to not use protection.

yep, after a good wank i don't dispose of my sperm. i just put it in ice cube trays (the ones marked with X - yeah, don't use those).

Gringo...you are a strange man...

my strange point is they don't believe in wanking, they don't believe in sex, they don't believe in the pill, they don't even believe in a jimmy. they don't believe in common sense education.

and somehow, how i've understood from a catholic friend is that that sperm is something sacred.

i found that strange. so what do they do? save it? find the cycles? it gets a bit crazy and i don't pretend to understand.

damn those nocturnal emissions.

So, because people are unwilling to be faithful to God's covenant plan of marriage we are simply to provide them with an "easy-way" out with no consequences for their actions. From your comments it appears that you believe that no-one can remain sexually abstinent before marriage? So the Holy Spirit is too weak to sanctify us sexually? Also, I did not say not to have sex in marriage, so your analogy about needing a job but just sitting around doing nothing does not hold up. Yes, God us a rational mind to make solid choices, but left to our own devices, we would miss even Christ's specific dramatic, revelation. So, despite the difficulties, I would rather choose faith and trust than convenience and reason.

because people are unwilling to be faithful to God's covenant plan of marriage we are simply to provide them with an "easy-way" out with no consequences for their actions.

I never said that. First of all, this post has nothing to with marriage. You do know that people use condoms in a marriage, right? Second of all, there are many people that couldn't care less about "God's covenant plan." You cannot place everyone in society inside your Christian bubble.

From your comments it appears that you believe that no-one can remain sexually abstinent before marriage?

Who said that? No one said that one cannot remain abstinent before marriage. What we have said is that statistics show that people are just as likely to have sex if whether they sign a purity pledge or not. In turn, if people are having sex, they should use protection.

I did not say not to have sex in marriage, so your analogy about needing a job but just sitting around doing nothing does not hold up.

How does the analogy not hold up? So are you saying that it is okay to use condoms in a marriage, just not outside of a marriage?

So, despite the difficulties, I would rather choose faith and trust than convenience and reason.

So are you against all birth control? Or just condoms?

This is what I think you are getting at. You are saying that people should not have sex outside of a marriage, and condoms give people an "easy way out" when they have sex outside of marriage. yet you ignore the facts that people still do have sex outside of marriage, even devout Christians.

What would you rather have? People with unwanted babies (which lead to abortions) and STDs? Or people using condoms?

So, because people are unwilling to be faithful to God's covenant plan of marriage we are simply to provide them with an "easy-way" out with no consequences for their actions.

As Dave points out, not everyone believes in "God's covenant plan of marriage". Also, this "no consequences for their actions" thing is disturbing. What consequences do you propose for people who have sex before marriage, and why?

If we are not talking about Christians and their response to the Catholic position, then why even care? Of course non Christians will not believe in God's covenant of marriage, so why should anyone care what the Vatican says? Why should we go out of our way to critique the Catholic position? How is it negitively affecting you if you don't agree? Just do what you want and let the Catholics believe what they want to believe.

Actually, to be honest, by this far down in the thread I'd forgotten that it started by talking about a Catholic group. My bad.

Still, anti-contraception forces, be they Catholic or otherwise, have an effect on government policies that affect people of faiths besides their own.

I don't even know if my comments really make a difference or not (my guess, they probably don't and I'm making an ass of myself). Oh well.

From what I've read is that this kind of "education" is actually having the opposite kind of effect intended. Higher rates of STD's and pregnancies. Kids don't know how to have healthy sex.

It is in fact affecting domestic policy negatively because this is the same crap agenda they're pushing for: abstinence. It doesn't work. When will we realize humans are humans and will act as such.

Faith and trust won't protect from unwanted pregnancies and STD's. That's reality.

My point it: If you are not Catholic, who cares what the Catholic Church says? It is a losing battle trying to change the Catholic Church. Also, if you think our country is going to change policy because of the Catholic Church you are in a dream world. If you believe that condoms are the answer, fine. If you think that parents can't teach their kids, by the Holy Spirit, the value of waiting until marriage for sex, fine. If you want to hold to a deist world view where God cannot be involved in our day to day struggles fine, but leave the Catholic Church out of it. They are far from being this world's biggest problem in regards to sexual issues. At least they are willing to take a stand and be consistent.

I think it's the other way around. They're attempting to teach abstinence (which doesn't work in and of itself) in public education.

"If you want to hold to a deist world view where God cannot be involved in our day to day struggles fine.."

I didn't say that, I don't think anybody else said that.

Why take a stand and be consistent on something that doesn't work?

gringo: Kevin may be referring to me, though there's rather a gulf between my statement of "not everyone believes in 'God's covenant plan of marriage'" and flat-out Deism. I mean, a lot of Christians disagree with him about God and marriage too.

Kevin: I care about what the Catholic Church -- and other anti-contraception, anti-sex education groups like Focus on the Family, etc. -- think about sexuality when they affect public policy in this country or elsewhere. And contrary to your belief, they do affect public policy here. Abstinence-only sex education is, if I'm not mistaken, the only kind that's allowed to be funded by the federal government, and it's the only kind that's available in many public schools. It's sure not taught because it's educationally sound -- it's taught because it's in accordance with the religious beliefs of pressure groups. In addition, pro-life groups do not feel free to promote contraception as one way to reduce the number of abortions (despite the fact that this demonstrably works in many other countries) because of the anti-contraception minority.

If the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality only affected its members ... well, I'd still care, because I think those teachings harm some people, but I'd probably butt out and let the members work that out among themselves. But when health officials in Africa can't promote condom use to prevent the spread of HIV because *some* people don't believe in contraception, it becomes everybody's business.

"And contrary to your belief, they do affect public policy here."

not only with regards to education and curbing the spread of aids in africa, the catholic church's stance on condoms and BC in general can affect those (even non-catholics) who work for catholic companies, organizations and hospitals, and the people they serve. access to birth control and accurate information about preventing STD's and pregnancy have often been hindered by those who have opposing beliefs and it should never be the business of an employer, public policy maker, pharmacist, or hospital to decide for someone what sort of protection is right for them.

So you're saying that if a company does not distribute condoms that the people are too ignorant to go out and find them somewhere else? Do Catholic companies have that much control over their employees, no! This argument borders on the paranoid. You are attributing much more power to the Catholic Church then they actually have in society and the world. The Catholic Church has the right to make whatever policy they think is right in their own organizations. Stop trying to impose your values on someone else.

So you're saying that if a company does not distribute condoms that the people are too ignorant to go out and find them somewhere else?

Ummm...who said that?

The Catholic Church has the right to make whatever policy they think is right in their own organizations.

Sure...and we all have the right to talk about it and attempt to change it, do we not?

There is certainly selective reading here. What Jim was referring to is the previous post that describes how awful it is for a Catholic institution to refuse to distribute condoms to its employees and those under its care. What Jim was trying to say is people can find condoms anywhere. Just because they cannot recieve them from a Catholic institution does not mean that these people are without access to them. In reference to your last point, yes, we have the right to discuss any issue or group that we like, but people from the outside (i.e. non-Catholics)are misguided when they attempt to change it while not even being part of the community that it provides. There would be more understanding of their decision to ban contraception if you were in the community and sharing in the joys and struggles they face as Catholics. Its always easier to criticize from the outside with our tunnel vision and political agenda.

Abstinence message goes beyond teens - USA Today - 31OCT06

"Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.""

What Jim was trying to say is people can find condoms anywhere.

For the most part this is true. No one is really arguing that.

My issue is not only with the organizations that would refuse these condoms, but also the stigma that is related to them. In turn, those that belong to a Catholic Church feel that they are "sinning" if they want to use protection during sex.

But my bigger issue with the Catholic Church's ban on condoms is related to places like Africa, where AIDS spreads rapidly and the Catholic Church refuses to see the need for condoms.

There would be more understanding of their decision to ban contraception if you were in the community and sharing in the joys and struggles they face as Catholics.

Actually no, I would not understand it more. And I know many Catholics who agree with me.

Its always easier to criticize from the outside with our tunnel vision and political agenda.

Funny...I criticize Evangelicals all the time, and I am on the "inside," so don't give me arguments that are irrelevant to the conversation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a political agenda either. Not sure where that comes from. This comes from a desire to see people have the access and ability to be as safe as possible in their sexual lifestyles. The Catholic Church places a huge barrier in front of those who are sexually active but would like to be responsible. And it places a large barrier in front of those who would like to do something about things like AIDS in Africa.

The Catholic Church has more money than any other institution in the world. They could give the entire continent of Africa access to condoms and seriously hamper the spread of HIV/AIDS, yet they refuse to due to bad theology that has no Biblical foundations.

That is what I have issues with. This is not about politics are criticizing the Catholic Church because I am on the "outside."

It's interesting that you say the Catholic position has no biblical basis and is bad theology. Where does your assertion that condoms are the solution to the AIDS problem and other sexual issues fit into your "biblical" theology?

Common sense? It works?

I don't think you're getting it (and that really gets under my skin because you accuse us of not listening and having selective reading when it's been stated over and over and over and over and ah well you get the point or do you?). Ok, enough... I kid, I kid.

Abstinence in and of itself doesn't work but with safe sex education it's a nice package and a bit more wholistic.

"It's interesting that you say the Catholic position has no biblical basis and is bad theology."

I don't think he even stated that. Oy ve.

Gringo, Here is Dave's exact quote? Thanks for being condescending even though you miss an obvious quote. "yet they refuse to due to bad theology that has no Biblical foundations."

It's interesting that you say the Catholic position has no biblical basis and is bad theology.

Kevin...I would say the burden of proof is on you, not me.

The Catholic church has a belief that has zero backing in the Bible. Can you give me Biblical justification for the ban against condoms?

Where does your assertion that condoms are the solution to the AIDS problem and other sexual issues fit into your "biblical" theology?

I NEVER said that condoms were THE solution to the AIDS problems. But they are part of the solution. I do not have a Biblical justification for my belief that condoms should be available. But I am not a church either.

I believe that when a church/denomination/religion prohibits something, they should be able to give solid Biblical support for that assertion. I do not believe that when you allow something you do not need the same support.

"Thanks for being condescending even though you miss an obvious quote."

yeah, i did miss that. so sorry, hope i didn't offend you because i wouldn't want to make you upset or anything.

Well guys, thanks for the dialogue. Peace be with you.