Darth Benedict, head of the Catholic Empire, has used his force to publish a book. Again. This time, in Light of the World, one of the topics he tackles is the subject of condom use -- something he and his other spindly-fingered, virgin Sith Lords know a lot about. I suppose when we want advice, we're all be beholden to the experts, right?Anyway, Catholicism's chief mouth-breather has announced it to the Empire, and to the scattered remnants of the Rebel Alliance (i.e., Protestants and Non-Catholics alike) that people can hereby use condoms in exceptional circumstances; e.g., if you're going to have sex with a male prostitute. Or perhaps he should add "if you're going to have sex with a priest."
In any case, people are going to hit the sheets. There's no exception to that reality. So, just what kind of "exceptional circumstance" warrants capping one's John-Thomas? Why, if one's John-Thomas is going to potentially threaten the life of another, of course! But if you just want to have an hour well-spent with your partner, and not be given over 9 months later to an 18-20 year responsibility, well that's just wrong, evil, sinful, and damnably ungodly.
So are condoms valid in AIDS-riven Africa?
"The Pope made clear in his view condoms were no answer to the Aids pandemic."
So there you have it, commmoners, Darth Benedict has indicated that despite the exceptional circumstances of sexually transmitted diseases that will kill you, they are not the kind of exceptional circumstances that warrant a latex moment. But if you're an African male prostitute, perhaps with AIDS, well that's fine. Go ahead. It's exceptional only when it's exceptional, and not all exceptions are the same. Excepting exceptional circumstances, your circumstances are only exceptional if they're exceptionally exceptional. Then you can put a cap on it. But don't do it if you're just out for some fun. That would make you an evildoer.
6 comments:
Did he actually say "sex with a male prostitute?"
Craig,
Apparently.
These comments on the Catholic church are wildly off-target, as usual.
Your first paragraph is sophistry, and poor sophistry at that. One does not have to had actual experience of condom use to know it is immoral just as one does not have to murder or rape to know that murder or rape is immoral. This is what is called the "experiential fallacy."
The rest of your rant is poorly researched, the pope did not write these things in Light of the World but were off-hand remarks given in an interview. Further, I believe you are misinterpreting them. The principle issue with condoms is that it prevents conception, homosexual sex provides no possibility of conception and therefore condom use is not an issue.
If you are interested in really understanding the RCC in this situation (which I presume you are not) then perhaps you should consult the actual statements of the Catholic magesterium instead of relying on mainstream news media. Many lay Catholics even do a good job of refuting libels like yours. See for instance, Edward Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/trojan-removal.html
Hey, thanks for your opinion, Theo.
TheoLandon,
"These comments on the Catholic church are wildly off-target, as usual."
Of course they are! Because by your declaration that that is so, it makes it easier for you to attempt exculpating your group of organised moralizers. Simply declare my remarks off-target, and then you can set the trajectory for an apologetic against me.
I welcome your response.
"Your first paragraph is sophistry, and poor sophistry at that."
Well, at least you credit me with having the appearance of wisdom. Thank you.
In any case, if you visit the bottom of my article, you'll notice a wee section that lists the labels I've categorised my ditty with. One of them is "snark", which, of course, betrays the fact that I'm purposefully imposing my bias, not trying to give a measured or balanced account. Did you expect something else from a site entitled "Saint Cynic"?
"One does not have to had actual experience of condom use to know it is immoral just as one does not have to murder or rape to know that murder or rape is immoral. This is what is called the "experiential fallacy."
Yes, fitting a latex dome over your winkie is on par with knifing, or forcing intercourse on another. Bravo, Landon! You've just committed the "epic fail" fallacy. Give me some objective or empirical evidence that sperm-catchers are immoral. Then we can begin to reason together.
"The rest of your rant is poorly researched, the pope did not write these things in Light of the World but were off-hand remarks given in an interview."
And that changes what, exactly? Does it change the fact that he stated it if he didn't write it? I'm not sure you're making a relevant point here.
"The principle issue with condoms is that it prevents conception, homosexual sex provides no possibility of conception and therefore condom use is not an issue."
Heavens, no! Wearing a condom to prevent pregnancy is bad? Immoral? Good luck when you get married, bud. Trust me, you're going to want to have those bedroom forays without worrying weather you're going to risk your wife's health with more and more pregnancies. It's either that, or you're going to get wonderfully familiar with the layout and acoustics of your bathroom.
Tell you what: when you get the gumpshun to challenge the pope's narrow and simple-minded decrees on other's enjoyment of their bodies, then you can take up a place where I might consider your preachments on prophylactics a necessary evil to deal with.
"If you are interested in really understanding the RCC in this situation (which I presume you are not) then perhaps you should consult the actual statements of the Catholic magesterium instead of relying on mainstream news media. Many lay Catholics even do a good job of refuting libels like yours."
Whether they can encircle me and poke me full of holes or not, is not the issue, Landon. The issue is that the Catholic Church has no business getting between other people's legs. And much less telling them what to do, and how to do it once they're there.
Every once in a while a blogger has the courage to stand-up and say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Such is the case with Landon over at The Blog of Theophilus, who commented here that this article was "poorly reseached." He also stated that my piece was "poor sophistry", that I was "wildly off-target", and that I was "misinterpreting" the pope.
Well, he has recanted at least part of those accusations, though he has not come here to say as much. So, I will post his comment to me from his site here, so I can be vindicated on my own site where those accusations were levelled.
Here is what Landon had to say:
"On a different note I have to apologize to you for my comments on your most recent post. It was I who had done the poor research. You were right, "Light of the World" contained those comments, which I thought was only an interview. It turns out the book is an interview, so you were right. Also, I must say that I as well am dissappointed with the pope's remarks (as many Catholics are), they were unclear and it is easy to see why so many have misunderstood them as condoning condoms in some special situations, which is not what he intended to convey. I want you to know that I realize this. Of course, I still think your vitrol is misplaced, but next time I'll do my homework better."
You can find Landon's comments here, at his blog.
To Landon, I will say this: thank you for your courage to admit where you were wrong. I actually really appreciate it. People are not apt to admit being wrong when they are, and your openness to stand-up and be wrong in public is admirable. Thank you, again.
Also, please keep coming by and enduring my snarkiness and occasional serious considerations. I will continue to do the same for you -- though you're far less snarky. :-)
Post a Comment