|
Post by Hemingway on Mar 22, 2009 15:20:33 GMT
Hemingway, You wrote: "Not everyone will share your unique brand of Catholicism guillaume. " Remember this Board is for Irish Catholics, hence atheist or secularist positions are suspect. Suspected of what? Having view typical of an athiest? Why is that supprising? Back on topic, where do you stand on a married couple who are catholic having sex with a condom.... if one of the couple has HIV or AIDS? I'd be interested to hear yor reply.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 22, 2009 15:32:22 GMT
Hemingway, You wrote: "Not everyone will share your unique brand of Catholicism guillaume. " Remember this Board is for Irish Catholics, hence atheist or secularist positions are suspect. Hi Noel. Do you think its possible for an individual to be catholic and yet have a secular outlook on many issues? Its just that your last post suggests to me that Catholics and secularists hold diametrically opposing views. I would suggest that this is not the case. Many Catholics use condoms for instance and they pray and attend mass regularly. Many people hold deep religious convictions but hold the view that religion and religious matters should be kept apart from political decisions and all governmental activities. I would define the aforementioned category of people as religious secularists. I think your previous post tends to simplify the matter somewhat. Just because someone holds what Guillaume terms a seclurist view on a topic, they shouldnt be treated with suspision. That is prejudging their views and pigeon holing them. Not all Catholics hold the same view. The same goes for secularists and atheists I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Mar 22, 2009 19:47:36 GMT
Hemingway and Harris,
Thank you for your posts.
I suspect that all those with atheistic or secular views would not be sympathetic to Irish Catholic views, which this forum is intended to support.
I am asked : "where do you stand on a married couple who are catholic having sex with a condom.... if one of the couple has HIV or AIDS?"
I would suggest they have sex with each other rather than with a condom.
Also I read: " I would define the aforementioned category of people as religious secularists."
We are back in the world of Alice and Prof Joad who became famous for saying "It all depends on what you mean by…".
Lewis Carroll wrote "Words mean what I say they do, Humpty Dumpty declared. No more, and no less. "
I would thionk "religious secularist" is an oxymoron, similar to British intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 22, 2009 22:51:24 GMT
The Pope not being too enthusiastic about the use of condoms is hardly news. As far as I can tell from reading the various reports, what he said was that using condoms "could" or "might" make the problem worse (he was speaking Italian and I haven't got the full text); the point being that to suggest that using condoms was the solution to the African AIDS epidemic could encourage or reinforce sexual habits which need to be challenged. This Pope, incorrigibly intellectual and the embodiment of European high culture, is inclined to speak in a nuanced way about things and leave himself open to simplistic misinterpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 22, 2009 22:57:23 GMT
Do you think its possible for an individual to be catholic and yet have a secular outlook on many issues? ... Many Catholics use condoms for instance and they pray and attend mass regularly. Many people hold deep religious convictions but hold the view that religion and religious matters should be kept apart from political decisions and all governmental activities. I would define the aforementioned category of people as religious secularists. ... Not all Catholics hold the same view. The same goes for secularists and atheists I'm sure. You are correct, but the question is how far people can stretch their Catholic identity until it loses credibility. This was a favourite theme of Graham Greene's; though I have come to the conclusion that his intellectual position was self-regarding and bogus.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Mar 22, 2009 23:47:08 GMT
I would suggest they have sex with each other rather than with a condom. Thank you Noel. I think I now now know your position. The AIDS inflicted people of Africa will (I am Sure) be inspired by your Christian Charity. May your god go with you. He has obviously blessed you with the gift of oration and understanding. I understand you are against the use of condoms and that is fine and comendable if one is an orthodox catholic. But please answer the question. Don’t grand stand with your "Holier than thou" morals. Explain your position and answer the question posed to you about the catholic couple who are in the unfortunate position of one of them having AIDS and yet still want to have intercourse. Please Sir...... some decorum..... An honest answer…. Are you suggesting they should have sex without protection? Consider your answer carefully. You are a Christian…….
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Mar 23, 2009 18:31:38 GMT
Hemingway,
thank you for your post. You sound like a barrister cross-examining me. You state "Don’t grand stand with your "Holier than thou" morals." Please show me where I have shown a "holier than thou position". I have never in these discussions approved or disapproved of condoms.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Mar 23, 2009 20:43:45 GMT
Hemingway, thank you for your post. You sound like a barrister cross-examining me. You state "Don’t grand stand with your "Holier than thou" morals." Please show me where I have shown a "holier than thou position". I have never in these discussions approved or disapproved of condoms. Noel, You stated that Catholics who have sex using a condom are actually having sex WITH the condom. You imply that you reject this because of your adherence to Catholicism and the guideline as dictated by the pope. This suggests to me that you feel Catholics who are using a condom are not complying with guidelines as set out by the Vatican and not even (in your opinion) having sex with each other. This leads me to conclude that you feel you are more in line with the churches teaching in this area and therefore a "holier" (what a dreadful term to have to use in a debate) than Catholics who use condoms. QED........... I'm not falling for your delaying tactic by the way. Any chance you would answer my question at the third time of asking? What course of action do you suggest a married catholic couple, one of whom is infected with HIV?AIDS, should take when they wish to engage in intercourse?
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 26, 2009 19:28:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Mar 26, 2009 20:14:23 GMT
Hemingway:
You wrote: "You stated that Catholics who have sex using a condom are actually having sex WITH the condom."
Where did I say that? I wrote:
"I am asked : "where do you stand on a married couple who are catholic having sex with a condom.... if one of the couple has HIV or AIDS?"
I would suggest they have sex with each other rather than with a condom.".
Clearly I see "sex with a condom", I admit, my learned friend, that "with" was not emphasized. However when I read "sex with a condom" I thought this referred to "sex with a condom". However if "with" does not mean "with", I throw myself at the mercy of the court and M'lud, and hope the cross examination is over.
You also wrote: "You imply that you reject this because of your adherence to Catholicism and the guideline as dictated by the pope."
Where did I write anything to imply this.
You add QED. Have we left the court house for the school room? Am I now like an illogical naughty school-boy?
You ask me a question: "Any chance you would answer my question at the third time of asking?"
The answer is "Yes".
May I ask you a question first? What is the question you are asking me for the third time?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 26, 2009 22:32:15 GMT
Hi Noel.
I dont know if you meant to or not but your post suggested that the couple were having sex with the condom as if it were the subject of the sex act rather than the two people having sex with each other.
I am actually not clear on your stance either if I am honest.
I think the question being asked is "Do you think a Catholic couple should have sex without a condom if one of them has AIDS or HIV?"
I hope this is a bit clearer.
My own view is that they should use a condom. We should protect our loved ones from harm and if using a condom saves my wifes life then thats what I'll use.
I think Jesus would have approved of this action.
What do you think?
Hey! Maybe I'm one of those Religious Seclurists!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 27, 2009 12:02:49 GMT
My personal suspicion, to be quite honest, is that Noelfitz is a troll - that is, somebody who intervenes in discussion not to participate in them but to spread confusion. Ignore him.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Mar 27, 2009 15:43:02 GMT
Hibernicus,
I think you are a bit harsh on me, calling on people to ignore me.
The queastion IO am asked is:"Do you think a Catholic couple should have sex without a condom if one of them has AIDS or HIV?"
I M NOT
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Mar 27, 2009 16:01:26 GMT
Sorry, my last post was sent before I completed it.
It should be as follows.
Hibernicus,
I think you are a bit harsh on me, calling on people to ignore me.
The question I am asked is:"Do you think a Catholic couple should have sex without a condom if one of them has AIDS or HIV?"
I am not a moral theologian and have not been appointed the guardian of others' behaviour. it is hard enough for me to do what I know I should do, without condemning others for their behaviour.
The final arbitrer of behaviour is the properly formed conscience. Thus one is obliged to follow one's conscience.
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; (Luk 6:37 NRS).
Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself (Rom 2:1 NRS).
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Mar 27, 2009 18:48:12 GMT
Sorry, my last post was sent before I completed it. It should be as follows. Hibernicus, I think you are a bit harsh on me, calling on people to ignore me. The question I am asked is:"Do you think a Catholic couple should have sex without a condom if one of them has AIDS or HIV?" I am not a moral theologian and have not been appointed the guardian of others' behaviour. it is hard enough for me to do what I know I should do, without condemning others for their behaviour. The final arbitrer of behaviour is the properly formed conscience. Thus one is obliged to follow one's conscience. Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; (Luk 6:37 NRS). Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself (Rom 2:1 NRS). Its all very well quoting scripture Noel but I think it comes down to a personal common sense choice. I'll ask the question a different way just to finally clear this matter up…... "Would you use a condom with your married Catholic partner if he/she or you were HIV positive?If your answer is “Yes” or “No”, I will still see you as a catholic. Your Catholicism is not at stake here in my eyes. If your answer is "Yes" well then I would conclude you are using common sense and protecting yourself/partner from a fatal and agonizing viral infection. You will still be a catholic in my eyes...... If your answer is "No" well then that is your personal choice. As long as your partner is aware of the circumstances and consequences. However its my understanding that catholic church regards suicide as a sin. In this circumstance I will still regard you as a catholic but complicit in either your own or your partners death. Which option makes the most sense to you from a Christian standpoint?
|
|