to think that the catholic church are bloody immoral and need to be made answerable to the shit they seem to get away with?

[cupcakesandbunting]

I am referring to this; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

and yes, I am totally aware that the police and government are to blame too but we expect governments and to an extent police, to be corrupt.

I am saying this as a RC too. I am fucking shocked at the amount of revolting crap that the church seem to get away with. Covering up paedophiles/abusers, bombers and who knows what else.

Why are they never made accountable?

Well that does explain it somewhat, thanks FBM. What about in a marriage where one person has HIV and the other doesn't? What would the church advise in this case? Sex to procreate, or abstinence, or what?

I think it would advise abstinence (disclaimer - I'm not an RC priest!!) That would admittedly be very difficult for the people concerned, but the church does emphasise that partners should make real attempts to show love for one another in other, non-sexual ways, in these circumstances... Again, people may be outraged at this, but personally I think it's a good teaching that there are more ways to show our love than only sexual ones.

So is all sex a sin then? I'm intrigued.

It seems to me that it would be more in keeping with the Catholic stance to say they could continue having sex and hope that God doesn't choose them to contract HIV.

No, sex in a married relationship between consenting adults is great , quite the opposite of a sin. the church would be fine with them continuing to have sex if they used their conscience to decide that was the best thing to do.

Have to go for a bit now but will try to have another look later. Thank you Elephants for reading my posts and not just going straight on the attack 'cause I'm on the catholic side (not that that EVER happens here of course )

But if they wanted to continue to have the (great) sex, but without the risk of contracting HIV, then it would be wrong to allow themselves to do with by using a condom?

I don't get the "condoms aren't 100% effective" argument either - surely in light of the God's will argument then that's a good thing? He can choose whether it works or not?

I don't hate all Catholics, it's just silly to think like that IMO. And since a lot of people are living by these rules I am interested in finding out what they are. Plus I can recognise when someone is talking sense and not just spouting a load of shite (except when I do it of course) :)

"There is a real difference between preventing something from being and choosing not to cause something to be."

Although your explanations have clarified things a bit FBM, thanks, I must admit to still finding that statement a tad confusing with regard to sex, and am genuinely curious.

Would having (say) oral sex instead of sexual intercourse during a fertile window be classed as 'preventing' or 'choosing not to cause' pregnancy? I guess as the withdrawal method is 'okay', then oral sex would be too. But then shouldn't oral sex be counted as having sex 'for its own sake' and therefore disrespecting the act?

This thread is still going?

Crikey I am thinking about oral sex now FFS...

mmmm....

The whole contraception issue in the Catholic church is ridiculous. I've read the gospels and can't remember Jesus ever saying anything about it. Or much about sex at all, tbh, apart from telling everyone to lay off the woman taken in adultery and hanging out with Mary Magdelene - both of which suggest he would be unlikely to support the Catholic Church on this issue.

The church got along fine for the best part of 2,000 years without making a big issue out of whether sex was for the purposes of procreation or not - just that sex was for marriage alone. No idea why they have complicated that issue and got into arguments about contraception.

(Except of course the church did have a roaring trade in extorting money by forcibly taking babies from unmarried women and selling them for adoption - see criticism of the Irish church. Maybe opposition to contraception was a business dispute?)

Asking oneself the following questions pretty much covers what is and is not permissable within a catholic marriage:
Is 'sex act' open to life?
Can life come from 'sex act'?
With regard to oral sex therefore this would be sinful in the eyes of the church if the whole act of intercourse only involved this. It is perfectly permissable however for the man to give the woman oral sex or stimulate her to orgasm if he climaxes first during the course of penetrative sex. Not the other way round however.

So, ridiculous you may think it, but those are the facts. Set out as above people will probably think the whole thing is laughable but it is completely in harmony with the concept of sex being reserved for within a marriage where the ideal is a loving, mutually respectful and holy relationship between a man and a woman. People can take it or leave it of course, which is the beauty of us having free will.

Also not everything that the church teaches or indeed what Jesus taught and communicated is expressly stated in the bible. That's where Apostolic succession comes in. Jesus spent a lot of time with the apostles before sending them out as the first priests to start the catholic church.

Elephants - yes (according to church teaching) it would be wrong for them to have the (great!) sex using the condom because of their motivation. Sex is meant to be enjoyed because it is (again, according to the church) a way in which two people can help God to perform a miracle. it is not meant to be a 'selfish' act performed purely for pleasure as an end in itself. Treating it in this way ultimately takes away it's goodness. It's a bit like food (imo), we're meant to eat to live and it's enjoyable when done appropriately. But eating purely for the sake of enjoyment ends up making us fat!

I really like responding to posts such as yours and many others on here as it is great to be examined and forced to think through your own beliefs... some of mine have definitely altered as a result of conversations on mumsnet! It is just so annoying when people come on and spout a load of propoganda that they obviously haven't even thought about though, and it makes me all aggressive and defensive.

cider - neither oral sex or the withdrawal method is ever ok according to the church. Sex should be the whole complete thing or nothing at all, ie. ejaculation is only allowed in one place!

Edam - not just my faith but my common sense indicates to me that the Catholic church's line on contraception is not at all ridiculous. Call me a prude (I am one I suppose!) but I think the world would be a better place if sex was only performed between two consenting adults in a committed and loving relationship. The main focus of the church's teaching is to avoid seeing other humans as merely objects to give us pleasure.

YANBU. I'm hardly surprised tho, as the church has always been in the business of hurting innocent people in many ways, it's what they do best.

An example of what makes me all aggressive and defensive

Mathanxiety - Great post and very interesting on p.8 re WW2... have to admit that I am so glad I was not around at that part of the thread though - what nastiness . Am off for tonight before it goes that way again...

Oral gratification...mmm

Freddo, I wish you had ways to disprove my statement; what organised religion has done over the millenia and continues to do is shocking and an insult to intelligence and humanity.

Freddo - the Catholic church doesn't teach that all sex must take place in a loving relationship. It teaches that it must take place within marriage. If you aren't married, doesn't matter how loving and committed you are. If you are married, doesn't matter how shitty the relationship is...

I'm not a Catholic, but one thing I like about the Catholics is that they are not in favour of population control, they believe that God knows best, unlike the WHO, governments, the greens and many others. Much of the UN influence to use condoms etc. is to keep the world population down and the Catholics are against this.

"There is a real difference between preventing something from being and choosing not to cause something to be."

I couldn't let that pass. Is ir me, or does that sentence make no sense at all?

I agree, Claig -- I would add that much of it is an effort to keep the non-white population down as far as its focus and effects can be observed, imo.

exactly right mathanxiety. Much of the others' activity is in third world countries under the guise of helping them, but really just to keep their numbers down. The Catholic church is not at all racist, and values all races equally.

No, but I think the Jesuits could probably debate it for a while, once they've finished all that 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' business.

Friend of my mother's is a Catholic priest. He's a nice guy, very distressed by the cover-up. Shame decent people like him didn't stand up for the victims decades ago. I like him, but I'd respect him more if he'd done his bit.

He's having a hard time at the moment, he says when he goes out in his robes, he can see mothers looking at him suspiciously - some people even cross the road.

His theory is the doctrine of celibacy, imposed on lads in seminaries from just the age at which their hormones are screaming at them to go out and reproduce, does something to a youngster's development - some of them end up emotionally unable to connect with adults.

My mother's friend left the seminary before being ordained and lived a fairly normal life before returning and training as a priest in his 40s. From his point of view, the lack of that experience - the lack of the opportunity to express yourself as a full adult human being - does something very damaging to some people.

I suppose if you are unfortunate enough to have sexual feelings about children, you may be attracted to celibacy in an honourable way, in an attempt to deny those feelings and choose a life where you can suppress them. Only it doesn't always work...

Just to clarify, Edam, celibacy is not a doctrine of the catholic church (and thereby unchangeable) but is a disciplinary rule.

I disagree that celibacy does something to a youngsters development. After all, the church teaches that we are all called to celibacy unless the marriage vocation finds us. So it is not just 'imposed' on lads in the seminary but applies to all unmarried people.

The suggestion that remaining celibate somehow gives rise to deviancy is unfounded.
If the church changed its tradition and decided to allow catholic priests to marry (note that married priests are already allowed in certain circumstances) then they would still have to remain celibate until married just like lay people.

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine the first line should read.