Manny Pacquiao wants to ban condoms in the Philippines

When I say "scripture", it's basically a catch-all for religiously flavored morality. So, it's more of an indirect relationship, etc.

But yes, I completely agree with you. No sense in continuing.

 

The problem with this logic is that a lot of tradition follows from utility. For example, the interdiction of pork stems from the historical inefficiency of raising pigs.

Also, it implies that whatever worldview you may have trumps the need for proven solutions. This "so much more" is kinda a catch-all, no? I, for one, dispute it, since I think a fully educated populace is better than any "losses" in traditional morality systems, especially given how the traditional system we have grown up with in the West---has somewhat glaring contradictions (I go back to the old cliche of violence, where somehow a society that produces toy guys for children sees nothing wrong with that---but condoms are some mentally wacky stuff? forget about that.)

anyways, if you wish to leave, well, have a good time with kids. i also don't think this is a good forum to spread views---it's a good one to discuss stuff in though. I applaud your civility in this thread, and your steadfast belief in your convictions.

 

applies to all twhy77 posts

 

That is awful and reminds me of the pastor in Florida who burned a Qu'ran. I can understand how something that like that is very offensive to Catholics but I hope you don't consider all criticism of the Church to be equivalent to that sort of desecration.

 

Utility is different than utilitarianism.

Also, it is good for discussing stuff that isn't necessarily fundamental, but these discussions usually devolve into just citing authors who agree with us when it comes to fundamental matters. Why not just cut to the chase and just cite those authors? So, if you want to understand my perspective, just get a subscription to First Things and Communio.

 

No of course I don't. When Voodoopope's statement is immediately followed by a eugenic one, then I take offense.

 

Except I think you are simplifying the counter argument to your position to merely a questions of pain and pleasure. I don't want to speak for the other posters but I doubt that many are advocating a completely libertine society and I think most of us would agree that there is a moral component to the purpose of having government. As I said earlier though you have to consider as a whole though what is government for and certainly, as you say, there is a very strong utilitarian purpose for the creation of government.

My own view is that in this particular issue the moral and utilitarian components can co exist. You can have a policy that encourages sexual responsibility and even abstinence while at the same time engaging in condom distribution with the recognition that condoms prevent STD's and pregnancy. As I said earlier to me its not much different than encouraging safe driving while also making sure cars have seat belts.

Also based on what I know about Christian theology those two policies may not be in conflict as my understanding of Christianity is the idea that everyone is flawed and as failings. If that is the case then why not have a policy that recognizes human failings and seeks to moderate the affect of those failings even while still preaching people to better themselves?

The Church position regarding condoms just seems to me as damning of sexual failing in regard to the consequence of unprotected sex. Rather than dealing with human failing with compassion it is just a message of responsibility and condemnation.