Clerical abuse!

[Ulick]

"where in the Bible does it say that using condoms to prevent aids is wrong". Catholics are allowed to use barrier contraception if there is a risk of passing on a disease to the husband or wife. Every Catholic knows that surely?

Since when? The Pope's comments in November 2010? Can you show me where this is defined in Catholic teaching?
And even then, is it not still regarded as a sin and merely a 'lesser evil'?

Humanae Vitae, 1968, but then as most of us here were born Catholic, raised Catholic and taught by good liberal Catholic priests, we all knew that.

Had never heard of it - can you quote it?

Sure go read it yourself, never know you might learn something.

[Ulick]

Ulick, how do all these wise men in the Church know what God thinks? Why listen to any of them over your own judgement on all these matters?

All I'm doing is pointing out actual Catholic doctrine to those who are misrepresenting it whether willfully or through ignorance. I've not expressed my own beliefs anywhere nor said whether or not I agree with the Church doctrine.

[mylestheslasher]

Ulick, you are very learned in all things church related. I can tell you have a degree in mumbobumbobolloxology direct from the vatican which is even less useful than an arts degree.

[Arthur_Friend]

Ulick, how do all these wise men in the Church know what God thinks? Why listen to any of them over your own judgement on all these matters?

All I'm doing is pointing out actual Catholic doctrine to those who are misrepresenting it whether willfully or through ignorance. I've not expressed my own beliefs anywhere nor said whether or not I agree with the Church doctrine.

Fair enough.

[Maguire01]

"where in the Bible does it say that using condoms to prevent aids is wrong". Catholics are allowed to use barrier contraception if there is a risk of passing on a disease to the husband or wife. Every Catholic knows that surely?

Since when? The Pope's comments in November 2010? Can you show me where this is defined in Catholic teaching?
And even then, is it not still regarded as a sin and merely a 'lesser evil'?

Humanae Vitae, 1968, but then as most of us here were born Catholic, raised Catholic and taught by good liberal Catholic priests, we all knew that.

Had never heard of it - can you quote it?

Sure go read it yourself, never know you might learn something.

I'm very happy to learn something. But i've read it and can't see what you're claiming to be there. It would be appreciated therefore, if you could point it out.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

[Pangurban]

At least one of those groups Ulick named, is a bit dodgy and not in communion with Rome. I dont want to name them, as many of their adherents are sincere and genuine if a little misguided

[The Boy Wonder]

Ulick, you are very learned in all things church related. I can tell you have a degree in mumbobumbobolloxology direct from the vatican which is even less useful than an arts degree.

Pearls and swine comes to mind.

Enjoying your contribution Ulick 

[Ulick]

Needs to be read in context but in essence Humanae Vitae does not define or make distinctions between contraceptives but contraceptive acts.

Section 14 includes the definition of contraception which is also found in the Catholic Catechism (2370): "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible". In other words any act, before, during or after intercourse which is intended to prevent the creation of life.

Section 15 goes on to say that acts which have a contraceptive effect are allowed so long as the intention is not to impede the possibility of creation of life.

Ecclesia autem illas medendi rationes haud illicitas existimat, quae ad morbos corporis curandos necessariae sunt, etiamsi exinde oriatur procreationis impedimentum, licet praevisum, dummodo ne hoc impedimentum ob quamlibet rationem directo intendatur.

Which in your link is:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Humanae Vitae sets out the definition of contraception (within marriage) as the intention to prevent conception during intercourse. If the intention of the contraceptive act is not prevent conception such as in cases where they are intended to prevent the spread of disease then there is nothing to say they are illicit.

Rhonheimer explains it better in The Suppository:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

[Ulick]

At least one of those groups Ulick named, is a bit dodgy and not in communion with Rome. I dont want to name them, as many of their adherents are sincere and genuine if a little misguided

Pangurban, before this month is out that particular group will not only be in full communion with Rome, but will most likely have a Personal Prelature direct from Ben16. You heard it here first 

Edit: and most likely without the sedevacantist bampot convert from Anglicism.

[Pangurban]

I doubt that Ulick, unless there has been a serious revision in their current thinking

[armaghniac]

In fact I'm sure the Church of England and Church of Ireland would welcome disillusioned Catholics with open arms, though they may find it a case of the faraway field being greener.

I reckon a crowd from the Garvaghy Road could join Drumcree, it might lead to more inter-faith dialogue.

[mylestheslasher]

Ulick, you are very learned in all things church related. I can tell you have a degree in mumbobumbobolloxology direct from the vatican which is even less useful than an arts degree.

Pearls and swine comes to mind.

Enjoying your contribution Ulick 

Pearls before swine surely? Its actually a very suitable passage to demonstrate the arrogance of the catholic church and so is quite apt to appear on this thread.

[Maguire01]

Needs to be read in context but in essence Humanae Vitae does not define or make distinctions between contraceptives but contraceptive acts.

Section 14 includes the definition of contraception which is also found in the Catholic Catechism (2370): "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible". In other words any act, before, during or after intercourse which is intended to prevent the creation of life.

Section 15 goes on to say that acts which have a contraceptive effect are allowed so long as the intention is not to impede the possibility of creation of life.

Ecclesia autem illas medendi rationes haud illicitas existimat, quae ad morbos corporis curandos necessariae sunt, etiamsi exinde oriatur procreationis impedimentum, licet praevisum, dummodo ne hoc impedimentum ob quamlibet rationem directo intendatur.

Which in your link is:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Humanae Vitae sets out the definition of contraception (within marriage) as the intention to prevent conception during intercourse. If the intention of the contraceptive act is not prevent conception such as in cases where they are intended to prevent the spread of disease then there is nothing to say they are illicit.

Rhonheimer explains it better in The Suppository:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

Section 15 referes to "therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases". Contraceptives are a means of prevention - they cure nothing.
I read that section to mean, for example, a cancer treatment that results in the woman/man being infertile.

What that philosopher says is neither here nor there. It's one interpretation. And you really shouldn't need a philosopher's interpretation to understand the Vatican's teachings - it should be in black and white and clear to understand. You'd also expect it to be clear in the Vatican's subsequent statements and responses on the matter, not just some vague, ambiguous reference from 1968. I can't find anything.

The fact remains the Vatican has not 'allowed' what you're saying they have. The following extract, for example, comes from a Catholic newspaper after the Pope's 2010 statement:
Had the Pope given as an example a serodiscordant married couple, instead of a prostitute (whether male or female is not currently clear) he would really have said something dramatic; and answered a question which many senior churchmen have asked and the Vatican has declined to answer.

[johnneycool]

At least one of those groups Ulick named, is a bit dodgy and not in communion with Rome. I dont want to name them, as many of their adherents are sincere and genuine if a little misguided

So who is in communion with Rome as even the mainstream church doesn't tell Rome everything and has hid the child abuse scandal from the holy see for decades, allegedly.

JP II must be turning in his tomb at the thought of what was happening during his reign,

[Applesisapples]

Many including Ulick are quoting tradition and not doctrine based on the gospels to support the ongoing practices within the Church of Rome which has seen numbers of believers and priests dwindle. It is time the Church started to review its position otherwise it will wither and die. Just a point at no stage have I said that there is a corelation between celibacy and abuse. Rather easy unregulated access to children is the main reason many paedophiles in the past joined the priesthood. I am a mass going Catholic, I want to see married priests at the very least, that was a tradition that changed!