Oooooooh! THATS why Teh Pope is against condoms!

The Vatican should sponsor research on the topic to determine the right kind, duration and frequency we can use to pray our STDs away. Also to clarify if the children need to be baptized first, whether one or both parents need to be Catholic, how active they need to be in the church, if praying to saints is more effective than praying to dead Popes, and if the cure can be distilled into some sort of topical ointment.

Tooth fairy science at its best.

Now everyone on the planet knows that your mom has herpes! Im sure that will make your middle and high school years really fun!

I'm sure da Popel will strike down with a bolt of lightning from the HeavensTM anyone who in any way disparages the Miracle ChildTM.

Don't worry, every fourth guy in Virginia is called Jesse.

Don't worry, every fourth guy in Virginia is called Jesse

And each one is a miracle, having beaten 3-1 odds!

I've got nothing against condoms, but to call them 'a medical device' is absurd. Sure, using them can help to prevent various maladies. By that standard, hand rails in stairways are also 'a medical device.'

Argh! 25% is not the same as 0%!!!

In other news, I performed the "miracle" of flipping a coin and getting heads! I'm told there was only a 1 in 2 chance of that happening!!!!

@bob koepp #5

I've got nothing against condoms, but to call them 'a medical device' is absurd.

They are medical devices under the jurisdiction of the FDA. I don't recall the exact title and section of the Code of Federal Regulations, but it's there.

fusilier
James 2:24

"Apparently Pope John Paul II cures herpes."

Wadowice is going to have one weird shrine.

Lourdes meets Studio 54.

P.S.

fusilier@#7

"They are medical devices under the jurisdiction of the FDA. I don't recall the exact title and section of the Code of Federal Regulations..."

201(h)FFDCA and they are actually a Class II medical device subject to the same oversight as laparoscopes and electric wheelchairs.

*shrug*

Stryker saws are Class I and artificial hearts are Class III.

The Catholic zombie death cultists should write an "Idiot's Guide to post hoc ergo propter hoc for believers" sometime.

"And really, this isnt just about one case. This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Dont wear condoms, just pray the STDs away!"

No it isn't. Don't be a fucking idiot. Sure they believe some whacky things, but how about taking the piss out of the stuff they actually believe, not your tendentious and illiterate take on their actual message.

You're about as honest as someone who criticises 'evolutionists' for believing 'we evolved from Monkeys' - it's not a correct interpretation of what's being said, and the only person who looks stupid when you attempt to take the piss yourself.

So, test for honesty and not being a fucking idiot:

Does evolution say we evolved from Monkeys: Y/N?

Do Catholics teach "Dont wear condoms, just pray the STDs away!": Y/N

So that's N and N, unless you're a complete cretin.

@Sarah, yes let's focus on what they actually teach:

"better to die of AIDS and go to heaven than protect yourself/partner with a condom and go to hell"

...Charming :)

@Sarah, as a recovering catholic, I can say with confidence that, while the church does not teach "...just pray the STDs away..." explicitly, the attitude in the non-quote is a logical conclusion of the church's teachings and societal attitudes.

Oh, and congrats, Jesse from Virginia whos birthday is November 2009! Now everyone on the planet knows that your mom has herpes! Im sure that will make your middle and high school years really fun!

It will - because li'l Jesse will always have the perfect response for any "I did YOUR MOM" jokes coming his way.

But yeah, the process of canonization is pretty much a joke - officially, they refer to a commission 'verifying the evidence', but in practice it's just collecting anecdotes of coincidences, which are then subjected to a simple and subjective 'does this feel sincere' test. Far from accepting only actual evidence, they don't even consider the odds of the coincidences they accept into the record. They still take it rather seriously, though.

You can tell how much 'Sarah' cares about public heath by the way she only comments on this blog to defend the indefensible behaviors encouraged of 'Catholicism'. Religion is so beautiful.

"No it isn't. Don't be a fucking idiot. Sure they believe some whacky things, but how about taking the piss out of the stuff they actually believe, not your tendentious and illiterate take on their actual message."

I thought it was a fairly accurate thumbnail sketch of the operation of intercessory prayer to saints and the associate access to the thesaurum satisfactionum Christi et Sanctorum that has been fundamental dogma since around 1230.

*sigh*

I wonder if I will ever meet a Roman Catholic below the rank of bishop who has read the rules on the back of their absurd fucking board game.

"You can tell how much 'Sarah' cares about public heath by the way she only comments on this blog to defend the indefensible behaviors encouraged of 'Catholicism'. Religion is so beautiful."

You can tell how much ERV cares about logic because she never bothers to defend her indefensible, factually incorrect, illogical posts.
Of course it's only when talking about the Catholic church that ERV abandons logic and truth, so that's the only time she needs to be corrected.

You're right though, everyone who cares about public health has mentioned it at least once on your blog. That's how you can logically conclude that I don't care, after the three or so times I've commented on your posts, without mentioning public health.

Come on. Are you even trying? Glenn Beck could do better than you.

"she only comments on this blog to defend the indefensible behaviors encouraged of 'Catholicism'"

And of course, being illiterate you managed to read my attack on your lies as a defense of the Catholic church.

It wasn't. They are responsible for what they do, and should be criticised for that. Not for whatever tendentious bullshit lies ERV has whipped up.

"I thought it was a fairly accurate thumbnail sketch of the operation of intercessory prayer to saints and the associate access to the thesaurum satisfactionum Christi et Sanctorum that has been fundamental dogma since around 1230."

That must be because you don't understand how it works. If you did you'd be embarrased to make such an obviously false claim.

Of course, you can be confident that no one else will look up your obscure bit of religious trivia to find out that you're chatting nonsense, so they will probably just assume you are right.

You are not. There is no way that ERV's nonsense above could be taken to be a description of the operation of intercessory prayer to saints, except by someone who doesn't care about accuracy or the truth.
And the thesaurum satisfactionum Christi et Sanctorum is to do with defending the indefensible indulgences and nothing to do with praying away STDs you half educated moron.

"@Sarah, as a recovering catholic, I can say with confidence that, while the church does not teach "...just pray the STDs away..." explicitly, the attitude in the non-quote is a logical conclusion of the church's teachings and societal attitudes."

No it isn't. You obviously weren't a Catholic who understood what you were meant to believe.

HAHA!

'Sarah' is a Catholic Kw*k!

Quick, Prom, bet him/her a camera lens!

Actually from a cladistic point of view we are monkeys who evolved from monkeys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8

"HAHA! 'Sarah' is a Catholic Kw*k! Quick, Prom, bet him/her a camera lens!"

You can tell how much ERV cares about truth and logic because she never bothers to defend her indefensible, factually incorrect, illogical posts.
Of course it's only when talking about the Catholic church that ERV abandons logic and truth, so that's the only time she needs to be corrected.

p.s. for anyone not interested in ERV's tendentious bullshit, the correct interpretation of Catholic dogma (grammar corrected) is:

"This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex. Praying does shit all to get rid of STDs, but if you're miraculously lucky you might get a miracle"

Now you might think miracles are bullshit, fair enough, but that doesn't make ERV's bullshit any truer. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc, etc.

@Sarah "Now you might think miracles are bullshit, fair enough, but that doesn't make ERV's bullshit any truer. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc, etc."

Circular argument fail

"Circular argument fail"

WTF does that mean. Point out exactly where my argument is bullshit?

That's right, you can't because you're just throwing out stupid terms. Allow me to diagram this out for you.

(1) Catholic claim about miracles = Bullshit (if you like)
(2) ERV claim about Catholic belief = definite bullshit, easily refuted.

(1) does not make (2) into not bullshit. i.e. Two wrongs don't make a right.

How is that complicated?

Your claim assumes ERV is wrong and then uses that assumption to support your two wrongs etc. Circular.

Also assumption built into your "This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex. Praying does shit all to get rid of STDs, but if you're miraculously lucky you might get a miracle"

You can have sex without getting an STD by using a condom.

Sarah, out of curiosity do you care more about ERV being 'wrong' than about HIV infection rates? Your church actively opposes one of our most important tools in prevention, and that makes them at the very least utterly unhelpful for those of us working in disease research, and at the worst such opposition seems downright evil.

In an ideal world everyone would meet their perfect spouse right from the get-go and no STDs would ever be transmitted. Also, no one would ever be poor and desperate enough to be forced to put themselves at risk of an STD. No-one would ever be infected by an unfaithful partner. No-one would ever be the victim of a hospital/lab accident. How are you working to create this perfect world? Some of us work stupid hours in science trying to improve treatments for these diseases, how are you helping us?

This is something to keep in mind whenever someone talks about how only crazy extremists are bad while moderate christians like catholics who accept evolution and stuff are just fine.

"Does evolution say we evolved from Monkeys: Y/N?"

Yes, yes it does. Not current monkeys, but ancient monkeys. There were monkeys in the past, too, you know.

"Do Catholics teach "Dont wear condoms, just pray the STDs away!": Y/N"

Yes, they do. In fact, even the current boss argued in 2009 that condoms actually spread HIV instead of preventing it. In Africa. Of course he received flak about this tremendously stupid assertion and the PR section of the Vatican demanded him to make some bullshit "well in some cases it might be okay" clarification. This doesn't stop less visible local leaders to continue teaching that the only HIV stopper is abstinence, despite the fact that it's been proven factually wrong.

From the Vatican's site:

"the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus."

1) Condoms aren't a "real solution" to the problem of AIDS?! WTF! They're certainly a start.

2) What is "mistaken human behavior" that is the root cause of the spread of the virus? Sex? Sex in marriage? Unprotected sex in marriage? WTF!!

Just responding to Sarah's request that we take the "piss" out of "stuff they actually believe." Though, I have no piss to take out, just total incredulity, exasperation, and a dawning sense of horror.

"Your claim assumes ERV is wrong and then uses that assumption to support your two wrongs etc. Circular."

Nope. I presented my reasons for believing she's wrong. Try and keep up.

"Sarah, out of curiosity do you care more about ERV being 'wrong' than about HIV infection rates?"

No. If ERV starts increasing HIV infection rates I'll be sure to point out how bad that is.

"Actually from a cladistic point of view we are monkeys who evolved from monkeys."

"Yes, yes it does. Not current monkeys, but ancient monkeys. There were monkeys in the past, too, you know.

These are the kinds of retards who say "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?", how likely do you think it is that they are talking about modern monkeys?

"1) Condoms aren't a "real solution" to the problem of AIDS?! WTF! They're certainly a start.

2) What is "mistaken human behavior" that is the root cause of the spread of the virus? Sex? Sex in marriage? Unprotected sex in marriage? WTF!!

Just responding to Sarah's request that we take the "piss" out of "stuff they actually believe." Though, I have no piss to take out, just total incredulity, exasperation, and a dawning sense of horror."

By doing that you are being more honest that ERV. Well done.

You're right though, that was not very effective piss taking.

1) Actually that's partially true, condoms are not a real solution, as you say. They are a start. You should have chosen:

Following Catholic doctrine on sexual morality as a better solution than condoms? Yeah... everyone's just going to resist their natural biological urges, as has been succesfully practised... um... well shit nowhere. They can't even stop their priests fucking outside the bonds of marriage, how do they expect to stop all of Africa?

2) Again you answer your own question. Yes, sex with multiple partners is the root cause of the spread of the virus. There really isn't a related belief to take the piss out here, it's an obvious fact. I suppose you could go with:

"refuses to address"? Are you fucking kidding me? WHAT DO YOU THINK CONDOMS ARE FOR? They are addressing the 'mistaken human behaviour' and its role as the root cause of the spread of the disease by stopping it spreading the fucking disease! You might think it's not the best way of addressing the behaviour but pretending it isn't addressing it is straight up lying.
What more do you want anyway? A magic wand that makes everyone chaste? Get real.

Hmm. Needs some work, but it's a start. This is a hell of a lot more satisfying than talking to brick walls like ERV, too stupid to understand that "Things Catholics believe" =/= "Things Catholics don't believe". Maybe I should start an anti-Catholic attack blog? I'd do a better job than you lazy obfuscators. At least I'd attack real beliefs. But then who would point out where ERV is wrong or flat out lying?

Sorry, the last set of italics is meant to go from "1) Condoms aren't a real solution" to "a dawning sense of horror."

Sarah@#18

"And the thesaurum satisfactionum Christi et Sanctorum is to do with defending the indefensible indulgences and nothing to do with praying away STDs you half educated moron."

My CV would indicate I am a fully educated moron to your half wit.

The denial of the "power of the keys" by the intercession of saints for purposes of praying away an STD, your own inherent stupidity or the dumb of another is extra sacramental but still a violation of the cannon and exceeds Luther in his promulgation of that heresy.

Guess you forgot to do the "Look down upon Me, Good and Gentle Jesus" last Friday to score extra credit (plenary indulgence) last Friday.

Time to catch up on your orbi et urbi.

I'm an unbeliever but no heretic and Cardinal Baggio himself used to sign my checks.

Once again you suck at your own silly game.

Have fun in hell.

It could just be my take, but you seem more angry with ERV for "lying" than you are at the Church for its dangerous position on condom use. What gives?

I guess I'm not sure what your point is?

Don't you believe the Pope deserves criticism for his teachings on condom use?

This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex.

Only for definitions of "really responsible" that include "irresponsible" and "hypocritical". One of the few claims that Catholic dogma and science agree on is that human knowledge is imperfect. Since we dont know if we can have sex without getting a STD*, the second part of the message is meaningless. Of course, I wonder how you managed to drag this into a discussion of sex when the original post was about a kid who got a STD simply by being born.

*Is my partner faithful? Lying about his/her status? Unaware of his/her status? Infected since last test?

"Your claim assumes ERV is wrong and then uses that assumption to support your two wrongs etc. Circular."

Nope. I presented my reasons for believing she's wrong. Try and keep up.

You gave no reasons, just assertions. And I'm afraid I'm having to slow down to keep you in the rear view mirror. Still, I'll type slowly for your benefit.
And your second circular argument?

"...Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex..."

You can sex without getting an STD by wearing a condom.

"My CV would indicate I am a fully educated moron to your half wit."

Oh but your wit is simply delightful!

"The denial of the "power of the keys" by the intercession of saints for purposes of praying away an STD, your own inherent stupidity or the dumb of another is extra sacramental but still a violation of the cannon and exceeds Luther in his promulgation of that heresy"

Alas! But luckily I didn't do that. So that's that worry calmed.

Your dropping of the cathphrases is very impressive though.

"Have fun in hell."

Oh how clever. Because it's all ironic, like, you know there's no hell, so it's cool to use it too, and if you'd just schooled me on Catholicism but the religion was true then I totes would be going to hell, but I'm not because it's definitely not true. I c what you did thar.

"It could just be my take, but you seem more angry with ERV for "lying" than you are at the Church for its dangerous position on condom use. What gives?"

Have you been reading my posts on the Church's blog? Because those are meant to be private, and anyway, my pm's to the Pope have been far more vituperative and critical.
By which I mean, how would you know how angry I am with the church?

As for being angry, no I've just been here before, ERV doesn't seem interested in responding to any criticisms or acknowledging them in any way, so I may as well try the highly approved NA conversational method known as the "Calling a spade a spade" "Don't worry about Tone Trolls" "It will totally convince people" method.
Of course I know that it won't convince ERV, but if she won't debate criticisms then nothing will convince her anyway, so why waste time sugar coating the facts? I believe that PZ Myers definitely didn't say "If you state the truth it doesn't matter how much of a sanctimonious dick you are about it peeps gonna 'preciate"

"I guess I'm not sure what your point is?"

You said it yourself: "ERV "lying"". Though it's really just tendentious bullshit that only becomes a lie if you refuse to be corrected.
The rest is just me responding to other people. Like you, and your question.

"Don't you believe the Pope deserves criticism for his teachings on condom use?"

No, criticism for his teachings on condom use is fine. But criticism of his teachings not criticism of straw man tendentious bullshit masquerading as his teachings.

"You gave no reasons, just assertions. And I'm afraid I'm having to slow down to keep you in the rear view mirror. Still, I'll type slowly for your benefit."

Yes, the assertion I made was the correct description of the church's position. Either contest my description, and prove that hers is more accurate if you believe that's the case, or just look it up discover I'm right and realise that you are badly misusing the concept of circular arguments. If being wrong seems impossible to you, try diagramming out the arguments, remember each argument has to lead to the other in a neat circle.
Don't just dodge my explanation of where she is wrong by claiming it's an "assertion" without addressing whether it's "correct"

"Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex"

You contend this is circular. First, and please notice this sentence: This is not my argument, it is a description of the Catholic position and not an argument at all.
Second, even if it were an argument it is incomplete, and not circular. There are only propositions, and no conclusions.

(1) Don't wear condoms.
(2) If you can't have sex without getting an STD don't.

Neither argument leads to each other.

A circular argument would be:

(1) You shouldn't wear Condoms because they are bad.
(2) Condoms are bad because you shouldn't wear them.

@Dave. 'responsible' was ERV's description and it was sarcastic.

"Of course, I wonder how you managed to drag this into a discussion of sex when the original post was about a kid who got a STD simply by being born."

I don't know. Maybe it was the mention of condoms. You use them for sex, right?

If this Jesse from Virginia was *really* *fucking* *truly* *fucking* *miraculously* *fucking* *cured* of the HSV, then he should have a titer of *zero* *fucking* *zero* with *zero* *fucking* *zero* herpes virus detectable with PCR.

So does he?

I would think that ERV would be able to find a lab that would be willing to test samples just to be sure there really is *zero* *fucking* *zero* herpes virus.

"This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex. Praying does shit all to get rid of STDs, but if you're miraculously lucky you might get a miracle"

From the Vatican:
"Prayer for the restoration of health is therefore part of the Church's experience in every age, including our own ... Not only is it praiseworthy for individual members of the faithful to ask for healing for themselves and for others, but the Church herself asks the Lord for the health of the sick in her liturgy ... It is licit for every member of the faithful to pray to God for healing. When this is organized in a church or other sacred place, it is appropriate that such prayers be led by an ordained minister."

Do you think they should add "by the way, this is true for everything except AIDS"?

Yes, I meant STDs in that last sentence.

Sarah, if you're going to direct the tiresome 'illiterate' argument towards people for very minor spelling mistakes (otherwise known as typos, not exactly a new phenomenon in the world of interwebs. not that calling someone illiterate when they clearly aren't adds any weight or relevancy to your arguments anyway) then you should at least proof read your posts to make sure youre not doing the same, otherwise you might look a bit silly.

HERP DERP--... responding to any criticisms...
Oh pooooooor herpity derpity! No one is thoughtfully and strategically addressing your educated, in depth criticism of my post consisting entirely of: "NUH UH!! LIAR!!"

Youre a stupid creature enamored with a Death God, and it would be funny (ie Twihards) if what you did and what you supported didnt hurt real people.

For instance, lets take dear child Jesse. He is infected with HSV2, and will be for life. Virgin boy, Catholic boy, who will be taught the fine sex education that Sarah got:

p.s. for anyone not interested in ERV's tendentious bullshit, the correct interpretation of Catholic dogma (grammar corrected) is:
"This is, overall, a really responsible message to the public from Catholocism: Don't wear condoms. If you can't have sex without getting an STD then don't have sex. Praying does shit all to get rid of STDs, but if you're miraculously lucky you might get a miracle"

So, according to the expert on Catholicism here (who cant refute Prom), Jesse should never have sex. Ever. Even if he gets married. Because his mom had HSV2 and gave it to him via birth. Very realistic worldview you have there, Herpity.

Or, Expert Herpity Derp, should he have sex with his wife in the future, without a condom, and NEEDLESSLY give her herpes?

And if he does, because every little sperm is sacred, and his wife gives birth to a child, who dies a painful death of the very thing that Pope John Paul II saved Dear Jesse from, well, thats just Gods will?

Of course, a lot of this transmission could be avoided with the use of a medical device, condom. And it could be avoided with other medical interventions, like medications. But apparently Catholics arent 'fans' of medical advances, while there are rotting corpses to pray to!

Yeah, no, you dont worship a twisted demon of a god at alllll Herp Derpington. We should all address you and your magic pixie claims in a serious, thoughtful manner, while what you preach causes NEEDLESS pain, suffering, and death.

Go fuck yourself, freak. Oh wait, thats a sin too. How convenient for you.

"Do you think they should add "by the way, this is true for everything except STDS"?"

Why would they? Nothing there says that it happens often enough to rely on as a cure. As one of the things that is significant enough to contribute to validation of someone's Sainthood it seems pretty rare to me.

"Sarah, if you're going to direct the tiresome illiterate' argument towards people for very minor spelling mistakes"

No, I'm not. I called ERV illiterate for describing my post as "a defense of the Catholic church" rather "attacking her tendentious bullshit", it could be better described as poor reading comprehension perhaps, but it was nothing to do with any typos, it's your own poor reading comprehension that has made you think that.

Cross-posted there.

ERV:

"Lots of attacks that entirely avoid defending your tendentious bullshit"

Yes. I can see that you are annoyed. But what does that have to do with your innacuracies? I'm a terrible person therefore you can be as loose with the truth as you like? What principle is that exactly?

Was any of that meant to address the criticism? Or were you just venting? Because that's ok, but it doesn't make a rational argument. I thought religious people were the irrational emotional ones? Thank goodness you have logic on your side, you won't have to resort to transparent attacks instead of addressing the point. That would be so Creationist of you!

Herpdy Derp-- ... resort to transparent attacks...

Only to a theist could The Real World be viewed as a 'transparent attack'.

"Why would they? Nothing there says that it happens often enough to rely on as a cure."

Ah, then they should add: "By the way, this thing we've talked about here? IT DOESNT WORK. So don't bother."

That's not what they believe, of course. It's part of the church's doctrine, so they believe it works the same way they believe in the transubstantiation or whatever other item in the doctrine. They explicitly say that praying for healing is licit. So "don't wear condoms, instead pray that STD away" can very well be said by a catholic priest and it is in agreement with the doctrine of the church.

Conclusion, ERV's statement is accurate according to the catholic doctrine, given what they say in their own documents.

"As one of the things that is significant enough to contribute to validation of someone's Sainthood it seems pretty rare to me."

Yes, the church usually want to have it both ways: convince people that it works, but when it allegedly works, it's an exceptional occasion. That doesn't mean they don't believe it works. They do, as ERV rightly said.

"Ah, then they should add: "By the way, this thing we've talked about here? IT DOESNT WORK. So don't bother."

Again, why would they do that? That's neither their position, nor my argument? You seem confused.

"It's part of the church's doctrine, so they believe it works the same way they believe in the transubstantiation or whatever other item in the doctrine. They explicitly say that praying for healing is licit. So "don't wear condoms, instead pray that STD away" can very well be said by a catholic priest and it is in agreement with the doctrine of the church."

No it can't, and this may be the source of your confusion. "Don't wear condoms, instead pray that STD away" implies that praying is a reliable method for a cure. Nothing in Catholicism teaches that prayer is a reliable way of achieving any aim. They teach that prayers can be answered, but would never tell you to do something and rely on prayer to effect a cure.

That's a stupid and tendentious way of describing their teaching that fails to describe it correctly.

Conclusion: ERV's tendentious bullshit is still tendentious bullshit.

@jose Look at it this way. I believe Celebrities exist. People write letters to celebrities. Sometimes they reply. Sometimes they really help out people in need. So I say, if you're in need write to Celebrities. You may get help.

Would you now say that I believe "Get in debt. Just write-Celebrities that debt away"?

Because that's not an accurate description of what I just said.

I'm sorry, but the document clearly states that praying is a licit way to deal with sickness. You can interpret it the way you want, it won't change a letter of the doctrine.

The message the church sends with this is that praying is a preferable method to condoms in order to face the problem of sickness. It teaches that if you ever, for circumstances of life, catch something (for instance, a husband cheats on her devoted wife with a woman who has hepatitis, and so the wife also gets infected), praying is a licit way to deal with it. When, in all actuality, it isn't.

Whole new branches of christianity have been created due to disagreements in the interpretation of certain texts. We areââI amâânot going to go there. I know ministers who, although being both catholic, disagree in aspects far more central than this one (things like the existence of hell or the validity of newborns' baptism as a sacrament). If you think your interpretation is right, that's okay. I'll stick to what the documents actually say and call it a day.

Sarah, by your logic, a woman who is raped by a man who has an STD should never have consensual sex with someone she loves. Not even in marriage. A person who finds out too late that her or his spouse was using injected drugs should give up sex for life. So should someone who gets hepatitis because their doctor was careless with multi-use drug vials.

Maybe that's church teaching. If so, it's one more argument against your church. At least, to this member of the reality-based community: god is at best an unproven hypothesis. Sexual love and desire are real. Children are real. Infectious diseases are, unfortunately, real. But so are antibiotics, antivirals, and condoms.

"Maybe that's church teaching. If so, it's one more argument against your church"

Yes. If it's the church's teaching it's an argument against the church. If it's tendentious bullshit masquerading as the church's teaching, then it's not an argument against the church. That's the point.

"tendentious bullshit masquerading as the church's teaching"

redundant

You contend this is circular. First, and please notice this sentence: This is not my argument, it is a description of the Catholic position and not an argument at all.
Second, even if it were an argument it is incomplete, and not circular. There are only propositions, and no conclusions.

(1) Don't wear condoms.
(2) If you can't have sex without getting an STD don't.

Unless you're married. If you're married, you're required to have unprotected sex, for as long as the woman is able to bear children. So, if one of the partners has an STD like HIV that's undetected and wasn't acquired via 'sex with multiple partners', oh well, sucks to be you. Maybe, if you ask real nice, your neighborhood man in a dress will give you SPECIAL DISPENSATION to not have sex. Note, you'll never get SPECIAL DISPENSATION to use condoms. Not. Happening.

Well, unless you're a male prostitute. Then it's okay, but only if worn to prevent STDs. The Pope even said that was okay.

Fuck me, now I have my "trying to find logic in a religion run by a bunch of male homophobes in drag wearing faaaabulous hats" headache.

John C. Welch@#52

".............headache."

And there you go. Trust me, those middle aged golf playing virgins in beanies are having the same headache all the time.

More than any other form of religion on earth, Roman Catholicism is legalistic. When you are trying to get a clear answer on the status of condom use you are looking at parsing what are doctrinal versus non-doctrinal statements made by a succession of individuals under various interpretations of another doctrine each unbound by the doctrinal and non-doctrinal statementsof predecessors.

Anti-trust law is less complicated.

Ultimately responsible parish priests use the admonition and move on, to wit:

"Venial sin is better than Irish twins."