|
Post by katy777 on Feb 8, 2021 23:53:10 GMT
An example of what i mean is to put a 15 year old girl on birthcontrol because of acne.
There are other methods to cure this..
Therefore refraining from homosexual activities removes the need for a condom.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 9, 2021 18:46:25 GMT
An example of what i mean is to put a 15 year old girl on birthcontrol because of acne. There are other methods to cure this.. Therefore refraining from homosexual activities removes the need for a condom. I don't quite see the analogy. A homosexual can refrain from homosex, but the teenage girl you mention can't "refrain from acne". She has it, and the question then, is what means to use, to combat the acne. There are, as you note, various methods, some more effective than others. If birth control (i.e., BC pills used solely to treat the acne, with infertility tolerated as a side effect, which won't matter as long as she is chaste, which she should be) is the best way to combat the acne, then so be it. Some forms of acne, and some severe cases of acne, can leave undesirable scarring for life, and, I have to wonder, could even cause blood poisoning, in that it is an infection, the body trying to fight back with hyper-production of white blood cells. I would not want to see my daughter's face scarred for life, when taking a simple pill every day, until the acne period passes, could alleviate the acne. Again, her infertility wouldn't matter, if she is seeking to remain chaste. I would certainly hope she wouldn't be seeking to marry that young, teenage marriages (<18) in our time, economy, and culture are highly imprudent. The medication itself is morally neutral.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 10, 2021 23:54:32 GMT
An example of what i mean is to put a 15 year old girl on birthcontrol because of acne. There are other methods to cure this.. Therefore refraining from homosexual activities removes the need for a condom. I don't quite see the analogy. A homosexual can refrain from homosex, but the teenage girl you mention can't "refrain from acne". She has it, and the question then, is what means to use, to combat the acne. There are, as you note, various methods, some more effective than others. If birth control (i.e., BC pills used solely to treat the acne, with infertility tolerated as a side effect, which won't matter as long as she is chaste, which she should be) is the best way to combat the acne, then so be it. Some forms of acne, and some severe cases of acne, can leave undesirable scarring for life, and, I have to wonder, could even cause blood poisoning, in that it is an infection, the body trying to fight back with hyper-production of white blood cells. I would not want to see my daughter's face scarred for life, when taking a simple pill every day, until the acne period passes, could alleviate the acne. Again, her infertility wouldn't matter, if she is seeking to remain chaste. I would certainly hope she wouldn't be seeking to marry that young, teenage marriages (<18) in our time, economy, and culture are highly imprudent. The medication itself is morally neutral. True, acne in itself is just nature. But to put a girl on contracetion drugs to combat it is sinful because there are other methods. The other method for homosexuals is abstinence.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 11, 2021 15:39:48 GMT
I don't quite see the analogy. A homosexual can refrain from homosex, but the teenage girl you mention can't "refrain from acne". She has it, and the question then, is what means to use, to combat the acne. There are, as you note, various methods, some more effective than others. If birth control (i.e., BC pills used solely to treat the acne, with infertility tolerated as a side effect, which won't matter as long as she is chaste, which she should be) is the best way to combat the acne, then so be it. Some forms of acne, and some severe cases of acne, can leave undesirable scarring for life, and, I have to wonder, could even cause blood poisoning, in that it is an infection, the body trying to fight back with hyper-production of white blood cells. I would not want to see my daughter's face scarred for life, when taking a simple pill every day, until the acne period passes, could alleviate the acne. Again, her infertility wouldn't matter, if she is seeking to remain chaste. I would certainly hope she wouldn't be seeking to marry that young, teenage marriages (<18) in our time, economy, and culture are highly imprudent. The medication itself is morally neutral. True, acne in itself is just nature. But to put a girl on contracetion drugs to combat it is sinful because there are other methods. The other method for homosexuals is abstinence. Agreed regarding the homosexuals, but I cannot go there with you, and say that it is sinful for a young woman, who is supposed to be chaste in the first place, to use BC solely for acne, especially if it is the best and most potent way to combat the acne. If other methods work just as well (or even better), and do not have the side effect of unintended sterility, then that is one thing. But I have to suspect that BC might be the best method, at least in some cases. I would leave that to the young woman and her doctor. Again, if she is being chaste, she needn't worry about the contraceptive factor. If this is an issue --- if she's inclined to unchastity --- then she has a far worse problem than aggressive, scarring acne.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 14, 2021 1:23:08 GMT
Birth control used by females or males is sinful. The invention of a condom is birth control. Whether disordered people use it to prevent disease in a sinful way it's a sin. Get to the root.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 14, 2021 4:27:12 GMT
Birth control used by females or males is sinful. The invention of a condom is birth control. Whether disordered people use it to prevent disease in a sinful way it's a sin. Get to the root. Medications that have the effect, wanted or unwanted, of preventing conception, are in themselves morally neutral. Pope Paul VI admitted the licitness of using such medications to treat conditions unrelated to contraceptive effect in Humanae vitae. I hesitate to describe how a condom is made to a member of the opposite gender --- even though it is something all of us already know --- but it is simply a tube with a closed end. It is made basically the same way as a balloon. In and of itself, this, too, is morally neutral. At least in theory, they could be used for such non-sinful purposes as keeping moisture out of a rifle barrel or keeping matches, medicine, bandages, or what have you, dry in wet or humid conditions (such as going camping, canoeing or whitewater rafting, or even warfare in moist conditions). In the case of the latter, You just tie off the open end, and you have something very close to an absolutely impermeable barrier to water and moisture. As reprehensible as the unnatural act is, conception is impossible, and therefore contraception is impossible. The use of a condom to prevent disease, in and of itself, can only be sinful under the theory of "anything that makes a sin easier to commit, or that allows the sinner to escape certain temporal consequences of the sin, is sinful", and for the reasons above, I do not subscribe to this. I would look forward to hearing something from the magisterium that affirms this principle --- I've never heard this before. I would also add, that failing to keep someone else from getting sick, when it is in your power to do so, is also sinful. If I know I am contagious, it is sinful for me to subject others to that contagion, when I have a choice and the means either to subject them or not to subject them. It would be like deliberately sneezing into someone's face if I have COVID or the flu, or at the very least, failing to wear a mask or cover my nose and mouth in some way.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 14, 2021 19:36:42 GMT
Birth control used by females or males is sinful. The invention of a condom is birth control. Whether disordered people use it to prevent disease in a sinful way it's a sin. Get to the root. Medications that have the effect, wanted or unwanted, of preventing conception, are in themselves morally neutral. Pope Paul VI admitted the licitness of using such medications to treat conditions unrelated to contraceptive effect in Humanae vitae. I hesitate to describe how a condom is made to a member of the opposite gender --- even though it is something all of us already know --- but it is simply a tube with a closed end. It is made basically the same way as a balloon. In and of itself, this, too, is morally neutral. At least in theory, they could be used for such non-sinful purposes as keeping moisture out of a rifle barrel or keeping matches, medicine, bandages, or what have you, dry in wet or humid conditions (such as going camping, canoeing or whitewater rafting, or even warfare in moist conditions). In the case of the latter, You just tie off the open end, and you have something very close to an absolutely impermeable barrier to water and moisture. As reprehensible as the unnatural act is, conception is impossible, and therefore contraception is impossible. The use of a condom to prevent disease, in and of itself, can only be sinful under the theory of "anything that makes a sin easier to commit, or that allows the sinner to escape certain temporal consequences of the sin, is sinful", and for the reasons above, I do not subscribe to this. I would look forward to hearing something from the magisterium that affirms this principle --- I've never heard this before. I would also add, that failing to keep someone else from getting sick, when it is in your power to do so, is also sinful. If I know I am contagious, it is sinful for me to subject others to that contagion, when I have a choice and the means either to subject them or not to subject them. It would be like deliberately sneezing into someone's face if I have COVID or the flu, or at the very least, failing to wear a mask or cover my nose and mouth in some way. getting sick from sinful actions is different than you getting sick for the stupidity of others..
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 14, 2021 19:40:06 GMT
Actually going to the store and buying these things is sinful no matter to prevent pregnancy or to have unnatural relations.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 14, 2021 20:19:42 GMT
Medications that have the effect, wanted or unwanted, of preventing conception, are in themselves morally neutral. Pope Paul VI admitted the licitness of using such medications to treat conditions unrelated to contraceptive effect in Humanae vitae. I hesitate to describe how a condom is made to a member of the opposite gender --- even though it is something all of us already know --- but it is simply a tube with a closed end. It is made basically the same way as a balloon. In and of itself, this, too, is morally neutral. At least in theory, they could be used for such non-sinful purposes as keeping moisture out of a rifle barrel or keeping matches, medicine, bandages, or what have you, dry in wet or humid conditions (such as going camping, canoeing or whitewater rafting, or even warfare in moist conditions). In the case of the latter, You just tie off the open end, and you have something very close to an absolutely impermeable barrier to water and moisture. As reprehensible as the unnatural act is, conception is impossible, and therefore contraception is impossible. The use of a condom to prevent disease, in and of itself, can only be sinful under the theory of "anything that makes a sin easier to commit, or that allows the sinner to escape certain temporal consequences of the sin, is sinful", and for the reasons above, I do not subscribe to this. I would look forward to hearing something from the magisterium that affirms this principle --- I've never heard this before. I would also add, that failing to keep someone else from getting sick, when it is in your power to do so, is also sinful. If I know I am contagious, it is sinful for me to subject others to that contagion, when I have a choice and the means either to subject them or not to subject them. It would be like deliberately sneezing into someone's face if I have COVID or the flu, or at the very least, failing to wear a mask or cover my nose and mouth in some way. getting sick from sinful actions is different than you getting sick for the stupidity of others.. I was referring either (a) to someone, with malevolent intent, deliberately trying to make someone sick by exposing them to their contagion in a manner that would pose a real risk of this, or (b) knowing you are contagious, yet doing nothing to protect others from your contagion when it is reasonably possible for you to do so. Families have to live together. Sometimes people can't quarantine themselves from others, or at least, there are some people (doctors, caregivers, et al) to whom you have to expose yourself. Every situation would be different.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 14, 2021 20:30:04 GMT
Actually going to the store and buying these things is sinful no matter to prevent pregnancy or to have unnatural relations. I will concede that it would almost always be sinful to go in a store, as you put it, and buy these things, not because they are evil in themselves, but because you would be supporting the industry that manufactures and markets them, not to mention the scandal that would be given, if someone you knew saw you buying them, or even if they did not know you, but saw you buying them and said "there must be nothing wrong with that".
I said "almost always" because I can foresee cases, albeit rather far-fetched ones, where one would be forced to circumstances to buy them --- if there were some need to keep camping gear dry, and there were no other way to achieve this (large balloons could also be used for those medicines, matches, and so on, that I described above), or if one were going on a hunting trip or military maneuvers in a rainy area and had no other effective way to keep water out of the rifle barrel. And I hate to bring this up, as we are of opposite genders, but there could also be a need to use a perforated condom, to secure a semen sample for therapeutic purposes. Enough semen leaks out of the perforations to render the marital act licit, but enough is preserved to allow the medical purpose (testing for sperm count, etc.) to carry forward. I fully realize the world would see this as laughable, in that pretty much everyone outside the Church would admit of obtaining such a sample, ahem, in another fashion, but we were not put on this earth to ensure that nonbelievers would always think well of us, and never see us as being religious fanatics or "fools for Christ".
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Feb 15, 2021 21:13:32 GMT
Actually going to the store and buying these things is sinful no matter to prevent pregnancy or to have unnatural relations. I will concede that it would almost always be sinful to go in a store, as you put it, and buy these things, not because they are evil in themselves, but because you would be supporting the industry that manufactures and markets them, not to mention the scandal that would be given, if someone you knew saw you buying them, or even if they did not know you, but saw you buying them and said "there must be nothing wrong with that".
I said "almost always" because I can foresee cases, albeit rather far-fetched ones, where one would be forced to circumstances to buy them --- if there were some need to keep camping gear dry, and there were no other way to achieve this (large balloons could also be used for those medicines, matches, and so on, that I described above), or if one were going on a hunting trip or military maneuvers in a rainy area and had no other effective way to keep water out of the rifle barrel. And I hate to bring this up, as we are of opposite genders, but there could also be a need to use a perforated condom, to secure a semen sample for therapeutic purposes. Enough semen leaks out of the perforations to render the marital act licit, but enough is preserved to allow the medical purpose (testing for sperm count, etc.) to carry forward. I fully realize the world would see this as laughable, in that pretty much everyone outside the Church would admit of obtaining such a sample, ahem, in another fashion, but we were not put on this earth to ensure that nonbelievers would always think well of us, and never see us as being religious fanatics or "fools for Christ".
Ok,makes sense..
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 10, 2021 8:02:48 GMT
Do you mean homosexuals using condoms in the unnatural act? How so? If that is the case, the only reason I can think of, is that it makes the sin easier to commit, because the sinners do not have to fear disease (HIV, syphilis, etc.) nearly as much --- the risk is always "there" (I needn't be more specific than that), but it is way mitigated. And if so, is it then a general principle that "anything that makes a sin easier, becomes sinful itself, and makes the sin worse than it otherwise would be"? It makes it easier. Admittedly late to the discussion... Would you argue money is sinful or necessarily represents the near occasion of sin because money can make it easier to sin? Eg...purchase goods related to immortality or obtain immoral services. Of course money could, potentially, be used in a morally upright way as can a plastic tube enclosed at one end.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2021 13:30:45 GMT
Admittedly late to the discussion... Would you argue money is sinful or necessarily represents the near occasion of sin because money can make it easier to sin? Eg...purchase goods related to immortality or obtain immoral services. Of course money could, potentially, be used in a morally upright way as can a plastic tube enclosed at one end. Not clear how this relates to the present discussion, but money is morally neutral, and can be used for good or for evil purposes. It does not become good, or evil, because of what it is used for.
I cannot think of a single material thing in this world, that is either good or evil in and of itself. Some liberals (and others) would have us think, for instance, that guns are evil in themselves, supposedly because their only use is to kill people. No, guns are made for the purpose of putting holes in things, or for shattering things into pieces. Neither of those deeds is either good or evil in itself. You can put a hole in a target (morally neutral), you can put a hole in a game animal (neutral as long as one seeks to avoid cruelty and to minimize suffering, and positively good if the goal is to provide food for people), or you can put a hole in a human being (normally evil, but there are cases of self-defense where it is either "your life or theirs", and they have given up their right to life by attacking yours).
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 10, 2021 20:05:07 GMT
Admittedly late to the discussion... Would you argue money is sinful or necessarily represents the near occasion of sin because money can make it easier to sin? Eg...purchase goods related to immortality or obtain immoral services. Of course money could, potentially, be used in a morally upright way as can a plastic tube enclosed at one end. Not clear how this relates to the present discussion, but money is morally neutral, and can be used for good or for evil purposes. It does not become good, or evil, because of what it is used for.
I cannot think of a single material thing in this world, that is either good or evil in and of itself. Some liberals (and others) would have us think, for instance, that guns are evil in themselves, supposedly because their only use is to kill people. No, guns are made for the purpose of putting holes in things, or for shattering things into pieces. Neither of those deeds is either good or evil in itself. You can put a hole in a target (morally neutral), you can put a hole in a game animal (neutral as long as one seeks to avoid cruelty and to minimize suffering, and positively good if the goal is to provide food for people), or you can put a hole in a human being (normally evil, but there are cases of self-defense where it is either "your life or theirs", and they have given up their right to life by attacking yours).
I read the thread and found the discussion interesting and agree with many points made. Here you have preempted much of my thoughts, but I think my line of questioning/thinking is/was germane to the discussion. The quoted poster (katy777) (I can’t figure out how to quote only a portion of a post) makes the claim it is immoral to use a condom for homosexual acts, making it ‘double sin’ and using or having a condom is immoral because it ‘makes it easier’ to sin. The poster further claims it is sinful to procure condoms, an item which makes it ‘easier to sin.’ I was questioning if the poster would be willing to apply the same logic/line of reasoning to a different item, in this case money. Money can be used in the commission of sin. One can use money to obtain goods related to immorality (ie sexual materials) or procure immoral services. Persons desiring to engage in homosexual acts could use money to procure health services to ensure they are not carrying STIs which could be passed to their partner. All this seems to suggest money can be used to ‘make sin easier.’ It was claimed the procurement of an item enabling one to sin ‘more easily’ is also sinful. It caused me to wonder if in this line of reasoning one would also consider the procurement of money, thru labor or the acceptance of a gift, is also sinful. Basically just constructing a reductio ad absurdum argument against the additionally sinful nature of using a condom during a homosexual act or the simple act of acquiring a condom. It is worth noting the development of daily, orally administered pre-exposure prophylaxis and the ability of some medications to drive the viral load to undetectable levels in many HIV positive persons has contributed to a significant reduction in the spread of HIV among high risk populations. From a purely medically, practical point of view if one was interested in driving down acquisition rates of STIs in vulnerable populations one would encourage the safe disposal of spent needles, sexual education, affordable access to PrEP, and the use of physical barriers during sexual acts.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2021 21:50:04 GMT
Not clear how this relates to the present discussion, but money is morally neutral, and can be used for good or for evil purposes. It does not become good, or evil, because of what it is used for.
I cannot think of a single material thing in this world, that is either good or evil in and of itself. Some liberals (and others) would have us think, for instance, that guns are evil in themselves, supposedly because their only use is to kill people. No, guns are made for the purpose of putting holes in things, or for shattering things into pieces. Neither of those deeds is either good or evil in itself. You can put a hole in a target (morally neutral), you can put a hole in a game animal (neutral as long as one seeks to avoid cruelty and to minimize suffering, and positively good if the goal is to provide food for people), or you can put a hole in a human being (normally evil, but there are cases of self-defense where it is either "your life or theirs", and they have given up their right to life by attacking yours).
I read the thread and found the discussion interesting and agree with many points made. Here you have preempted much of my thoughts, but I think my line of questioning/thinking is/was germane to the discussion. The quoted poster (katy777) (I can’t figure out how to quote only a portion of a post) makes the claim it is immoral to use a condom for homosexual acts, making it ‘double sin’ and using or having a condom is immoral because it ‘makes it easier’ to sin. The poster further claims it is sinful to procure condoms, an item which makes it ‘easier to sin.’ I was questioning if the poster would be willing to apply the same logic/line of reasoning to a different item, in this case money. Money can be used in the commission of sin. One can use money to obtain goods related to immorality (ie sexual materials) or procure immoral services. Persons desiring to engage in homosexual acts could use money to procure health services to ensure they are not carrying STIs which could be passed to their partner. All this seems to suggest money can be used to ‘make sin easier.’ It was claimed the procurement of an item enabling one to sin ‘more easily’ is also sinful. It caused me to wonder if in this line of reasoning one would also consider the procurement of money, thru labor or the acceptance of a gift, is also sinful. Basically just constructing a reductio ad absurdum argument against the additionally sinful nature of using a condom during a homosexual act or the simple act of acquiring a condom. It is worth noting the development of daily, orally administered pre-exposure prophylaxis and the ability of some medications to drive the viral load to undetectable levels in many HIV positive persons has contributed to a significant reduction in the spread of HIV among high risk populations. From a purely medically, practical point of view if one was interested in driving down acquisition rates of STIs in vulnerable populations one would encourage the safe disposal of spent needles, sexual education, affordable access to PrEP, and the use of physical barriers during sexual acts. Good thoughts. Obviously money is a neutral thing.
And as an aside, I welcome anything that keeps people from getting sick, even if that sickness is something contracted through sodomy. I abhor sodomy as an abomination and one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, but I don't rub my palms together and lick my chops, saying "Aha! Got what you had coming to you, you filthy sodomite!". Some might do that (think the Church Lady from SNL) but I wouldn't be one of them. And keep in mind that some people could have HIV, yet be in valid heterosexual marriages. HIV is not a good thing. A family friend of ours lived with HIV and did a lot to promote HIV awareness, and lived celibately after he learned he had HIV. (That was not what killed him, he died of something unrelated.)
|
|