Log in

Why on earth do Catholics believe *that*???
here's another: 
21st-Jul-2006 09:04 am
why does the pope get to decide what you do about birth control? he is male and celibate so it'll never affect him personally...
23rd-Jul-2006 02:30 pm (UTC)
Well, two things:

First, the Pope isn't deciding anything, he's conveying tradition and natural law. The morality or immorality of birth control is independent of what any individual person says about it, and entirely dependent on God's will.

Second, the whole "male and celibate" thing is something of a non-objection. Would it really make a difference if a married woman said "birth control is wrong"? Would people really listen then?
23rd-Jul-2006 11:16 pm (UTC)
Would it really make a difference if a married woman said "birth control is wrong"?

it might if she had babies as cute as mine to show for it :) in fact, my husband's married protestant friends who said they were gonna wait 5 years before having kids almost reconsidered after the birh of our second (we were married only 3 months before them). *almost*. maybe if we had a third we'd push them over, otherwise they've got 2 years until they reach their goal...

and actually, a lot of people do feel it's a woman's issue and would be more likely to discuss with a woman than men, who don't get pregnant, etc.
26th-Jul-2006 03:07 am (UTC)
That's the same logic that men use when they say that abortion affects a woman's body so they don't see how their opinion matters. It does matter. On the question of birth control, its not a matter of the Pope arbitrarily deciding we shouldn't use birth control, Pope Paul VI down to Benedict XVI but especially JP II have clearly demonstrated that the use of birth control for contraception is immoral and therefore sinful, so the Pope, man or not, is trying to protect his flock from sin and that is his job.
Sexual ethics are the only realm of existence where we ever feel that we have to personally experience the situation to have an opinion on it. No one questions that since the Pope (or anyone else) hasn't murdered someone they shouldn't condemn the act of murder. Granted this is not a good example, but hopefully my point is clear. Even better, there are laws prohibiting the destruction of bald eagle eggs because they are an endangered species, no one argues that the eggs yield birds so both must be protected, you translate that to humans and all of a sudden its so "personal" that one can't have a position on it unless its your body and your situation.

Sorry, I realize that most of what I just said didn't address the initial question, I just get frustrated.
26th-Jul-2006 02:24 pm (UTC) - playing devil's advocate...
endangered species' eggs aren't protected because they contain living beings of that species. they are protected because they contain the future of that species. laws don't give a crap about killing things that aren't endangered.

and actually, sex isn't quite the only issue people feel more entitled to an opinion on if they have personal experience... how about that mom protesting the war in front of the president's house because she lost her only son in it?

I know, I know.. I'm picking apart irrelevant parts of the argument... but until we get more members to argue about stuff here...
19th-Apr-2007 02:19 am (UTC)
You know I actually have this reaction to the #%!%#%! 6 month waiting period for marriage. It's totally insane for the people who have gone through American seminaries - who let's face it are overwhelmingly not normal heterosexual people - to make this kind of blanket rule for all couples. But note that there is no natural law argument for making people spend an hour every weekend listening to an exnun exhort them to talk about their feelings.
This page was loaded Feb 28th 2017, 4:49 pm GMT.