This is a very Western-centric analysis and completely overlooks the different behaviors in Africa--Church members there seem, compared to America and Europe, to adhere more closely to papal proclamations on birth control and procreation. Which turns out to be a very bad choice given the opposite level of their obedience to Catholic rules on adultery and as a result has caused a great deal of suffering and misery when the husbands bring home AIDs and other STDs from sexual encounters elsewhere.

The Church may have extricated itself from Latin American politics, but it has played a very active political role in the United States. Of course, there were the attacks on Kerry (from high up in the Church leadership), but moreover the Church has chosen to make abortion the only question Catholics can consider in casting their votes - they are to disregard economic equality, the environment, health care, and other moral issues. Catholics are urged to promote a culture of life by voting for enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty.

Maybe I'm a tad bitter, but it's hard for me to congratulate the Church for returning to its high-minded detachment from politics just in time to abandon a left-wing movement in Latin America, then plunging back in on behalf of the right-wing movement in the United States. You can argue that the combination of religious activism with economic populism is especially dangerous, but this doesn't mean that the Church should (effectively) sabotage the Democratic party in the United States.

Of course, embracing capitalism might increase overall happiness, but it's worth remembering that not everyone embraces wealth maximization as an ethical guideline. Even if wealth maximization is your thing, it's not clear that a higher rate of wealth redistribution wouldn't actually increase wealth. I never seem to hear that from the Church these days, though.

First a technical point. You say

Yet even in recent years, a quarter of teenage women who engage in intercourse for the first time use no contraception. This is a larger fraction of all teenagers than the total fraction of teenagers in 1950 who engaged in pre-marital intercourse.

This is inconsistant with your earlier claim that now 80% of teenagers engage in pre-marital intercourse versus 25% in the 1950's. One fourth of 80% (i.e. one fourth of those who engage in intercourse) is 20%. So your statement and you data are in flat out contradiction.

Secondly, I think it is absurd to give the pope a pass on his clearly harmful beliefs just because they are mainstream religious beliefs. The pope was intelligent and well-informed enough to know that preaching against condom use would increase AIDS transmission in africa and thus cause death (not to mention the harms his preaching against homosexuals has caused). Now the pope did this on purpose because he believed in his moral obligation to oppose pre-marital sex.

Yet this in now way excuses this choice. We have no problem holding McVeigh responsible for his bombing or the Nazi's responsible for their crimes despite the very real possibility they believed they were doing the right thing. Now I am not in any way suggesting the pope's actions were in any way equally culpable but these cases do demonstrate the general principle that individuals are responsible not only for doing what they think is good but also for having a reasonable idea of what is good.

Quite simply thinking pre-marital sex is bad because some big man in the sky told you (or worse told ancient peoples) that it was wrong is not a reasonable moral belief. Thus the pope's moral beliefs provide no defense for knowingly offering teachings which would lead to death and disease. Now the pope may have done plenty of other nice things in relation to communism but the fact that many other people share his beliefs about pre-marital sex does not shield him from moral culpability.

Regarding James points: 1) I don't think the Church and John Paul II were detached from left-wing Latin-American politics--I think such politics were actively opposed. This was one of JPII's triumphs. 2) I highly doubt governmentally-enforced wealth redistribution will lead to increased overall wealth.

On the other hand, regardless of the arguments he used, there are many doctrines that the Pope supported which were quite unfortunate, particularly when it comes to sex. (I can see abortion, even contraceptives, still being controversial, but masturbation?)

Seems to me the Pope preached the one thing that always works. I can't imagine any Pope advocating condoms as an AIDS prevention when there is something else that is simple, easy and guaranteed to work 100% of the time. Its not right to hold the Pope responsible for more AIDS deaths considering that if his advice were followed AIDS would probably not even exist, at least not as we know it.

Larry -

1) True, I'm not knowledgeable about the Church's involvement in Latin American politics. I was basing my point on what little I know of Archbishop Romero's life and death. Perhaps the Church actively supported right-wing politics. If so, all the worse: how can it be a triumph to support dictatorial thugs, murderers of your own bishop, merely because they support one particular economic arrangement over another?

2) Redistribution is a public good, in the sense that you can't exclude other people from enjoying the thought that children who might have gone hungry are well-fed. In a free market, then, we can expect to see sub-optimal wealth redistribution. See Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom.

Ken - The Church must craft an ethical policy for the Africa it has, not the Africa you might want or wish to have at a later time. Many Africans contract HIV not through promiscuity but by having unprotected sex with their spouses. True, we might want an Africa where promiscuity is less prevalent. We might even wish for an Africa untouched by HIV. Wishing, unfortunately, doesn't make it so. To tell Africans not to use condoms, even when married to an HIV-positive person, is grossly irresponsible. To tell them that condoms are ineffective against HIV, as priests have done, is inexcusable.

Actually, the church doesn't have to "craft an ethical policy for the Africa it has." It isn't a government bureaucracy, and believe it or not, some people actually believe that there's more than ethical pragmatism involved in church teachings.

Ken is exactly right in pointing out that if people listened to the Pope on sexual promiscuity, they wouldn't need condoms. Where did the spouse in your example get HIV? Bitten by a monkey?

Uganda is the proof. It represents the most dramatic reduction in HIV infection rates in all of Africa. It did that without any money from U.S Taxpayers (listen up President Bush) and by simply spreading the moral and ethical messages of the Church. I am a secular non-elite, but I respect what works.

The criticism of the Church regarding AIDS is misplaced. While the prohibition of condoms is without a solid theological basis, the prohibition of non-marital sex is not. That is a bedrock of Catholic (and all Christian) teachings. Allowing condom use in wedlock would do little to promote condom use out of wedlock. If someone is going to break the Church's teachings regarding non-marital sex, why would they care if they break the rule against condoms? Individuals don't use condoms because they don't enjoy sex with them or they are caught unprepared and in the "heat of the moment." Often they do not possess knowledge about the risks, or irrationally believe they are invunerable to the risks. That is as true in Africa as it is in America (though to different degrees).

I am somewhat disturbed by the lumping of abortion with contraception. I suppose it's possible some disfavor abortion because they view it reduces the cost of pre-marital sex (and therefore increases the amount of pre-marital sex). But I think the vast majority of individuals (religious and not) disapprove of abortion because they view it as the taking of human life. I must emphasize that I am not saying that abortion is unrelated to sexual decision making. I am saying it is wrong to conflate moral opposition to abortion with moral opposition to contraception.

I like how my church rails against birth control, pre marital sex homosexuality while,

child molesting priests and the bishops who protect them are out of bounds.

The church's stand on human sexuality will change or the church will continue to lose members in first-world countries as it has done in recent history.

Seems to me the Pope preached the one thing that always works. I can't imagine any Pope advocating condoms as an AIDS prevention when there is something else that is simple, easy and guaranteed to work 100% of the time. Its not right to hold the Pope responsible for more AIDS deaths considering that if his advice were followed AIDS would probably not even exist, at least not as we know it.

I am responding to this particular comment but my response is meant for the several comments which seemed to argue something along the lines: but catholicism prohibits contraception/extra-marital sex/whatever so the pope had to do what he did. As before several of my moral examples will involve nazis, but this is only because they provide a very clear case of an institutionalized moral principle which is nevertheless quite wrong and in no way is meant to suggest the pope's actions are morally similar to the horrific actions of the nazis (I think the pope's actions are bad but not that bad).

First of all I want to make it clear that the response 'but the pope told people to be abstinent and that works 100% of the time' is clearly insufficent. I've heard claims that he specifically said that it wasn't okay to use condoms in a marriage where one party had HIV but I don't have any source on this and it may be hearsay. The real point is that the pope was perfectly aware that people are weak and give in to temptation and thus new that people would not be fully abstinent. I have no problem with him preaching that people should be abstinent but knowing they were not going to be perfect he caused deaths by opposing condom use and distribution for those who were not going to be abstinent.

I mean suppose I went to africa and started giving lectures saying 'HIV doesn't cause AIDS, you can't get sick from having sex with strangers. But you all should be perfectly celibate.' Sure, if people followed my advice they would be perfectly safe from HIV but since I know many people will not be celibate I am still clearly morally culpable for getting many of these people sick. Similarly the pope is culpable for the HIV infections he caused despite the fact that he counseled abstinence. In short saying 'be abstinent' is not something you can slap on top of flawed teachings on HIV and avoid moral responsibility. Knowing that people are not going to be abstinent one has a moral duty to help avoid these infections.

Alright this brings us to the objection 'I can't imagine any Pope advocating condoms as an AIDS prevention when there is something else that is simple, easy and guaranteed to work 100% of the time.' Well first of all the pope could suggest, as the very effective ABC program in uganda does, that people should be abstinent but if they aren't going to be they should use condoms. Thus your defense of the pope boils down to the fact that catholics have a strong prohibition on condoms or would find such a statement morally bothersome.

My response would be this is exactly why the pope is not a great man. Because you can't imagine him advocating condoms this shows that popes are allowing their religous beliefs to interfere with alleviating suffering. In short the defense 'but the pope is catholic' is no defense at all. The pope is morally responsible BECAUSE he is catholic and is following flawed teachings on sexual morality. In short the pope is responsible for choosing to accept and propogate a flawed notion of sexual mores and the fact that he is merely one more player in a long tradition does not excuse him.

To show the flaw in this argument consider the following defense of a nazi leader. By killing jews this person is just doing what they believe is correct and have been taught is good. In fact one can't imagine someone being a nazi leader without them believing jews should be persecuted. However, I think we all agree the fact that this individual is merely doing what he thinks and has been told is right and could not have occupied his position without that belief in no way excuses him from moral responsibility.

While nowhere near as extreme the situation with the pope is logically similar. Sure it might be impossible to become pope without believing these things about sexual mores, just as it would be impossible to become a nazi leader without believing these things about jews, but the individuals involved nevertheless have a choice. The pope could have choosen and should have choosen not to be traditionally catholic (like many american catholics in the church I grew up in did). The pope is thus fully and totally responsible for the effects of these beliefs.

In short them being traditionally catholic is not a defense of the popes actions but is an indeitment(sp?) of the pope.

I don't care about your caveats, LogicNazi, comparing the belief that pre-marital sex is immoral to genocide is idiotic. It isn't useful, not even in the most abstract.

It's a highly spurious argument to posit that someone will engage in pre-marital sex AGAINST Catholic teachings but refuse to use a condom while engaging in that sex BECAUSE of Catholic teachings.

It seems LogiNazi and others expect the Catholic Church to be a sort of Planned Parenthood for the Third World. And if they're not, well, then they're just Nazis (though lesser Nazis).

Let's say I operate a train on a commuter rail line. I fail to stop at one of my stations, and as a result I have passengers who need to get back to that station. Now I drop them off in the middle of a very unsafe neighborhood, at night, and tell them to walk there. They say, "But it's horribly unsafe!" I respond, "You don't understand - I'm opposed to mugging, rape, etc. So you don't need to worry. If everyone adhered to my moral precepts, you'd be completely safe."

True, they would be safe in such a world. The only problem is that they don't live in that world, and I have refused to allow the facts of life to impinge on my moral certitude.

Now this may come as a shock to Palooka et al., but you can get HIV from your spouse even if you yourself never commit adultery. If all spouses behaved according to the precepts of the Catholic Church, HIV wouldn't spread nearly as fast. When someone breaks those precepts, though, it's not just the "guilty" who suffer; it's also the faithful spouses who reject condoms as immoral and ineffective, on the advice of the Church. So no, maybe her husband wasn't "bitten by a monkey," but a faithful wife in Africa might still want a way to protect herself and her future children from the dire results of her husband's imperfect Catholicism.

I like how my church rails against birth control, pre marital sex homosexuality while

I don't know why anybody would ever have sex with someone they KNEW or even suspected to be HIV positive (huband or not). Blaming the Catholic Church for such a scenario is riduculous.

The train analogy is inapposite because that relies on the good behavior of third parties. Preaching abstinence only requires the good behavior of the individual (absent rape, and I don't think the Catholic Church thinks it's a greater sin to rape someone with a condom than without).

"So it is possible to understand the basis of the sexual revolution using an 'economic' approach, but the approach must recognize that norms and habits are also important. These norms and habits usually adjust eventually to new forms of behavior, and the new norms greatly accelerate this behavior after they do adjust."

I'm a little confused by this. What does Prof. Becker mean? Shouldn't any careful "economic" approach to sexual behavior take account of norms and habits? Wouldn't these be reflected implicitly in the preference function of the hypothetical rational actor? Are you saying that there are some norms and behaviors that cannot be treated within that rubric? Or are you saying simply that it's too difficult or complex (at least right now) for us to treat certain norms or behaviors within that rubric?

I think there may be a very interesting difference in moral philosophy coming out here.

Posner, giant hedgehog that he is, has taken the logically self-consistent position of the moral relativist in discussing sexual behavior and its relationship with moral norms. Becker seems to be hesitating. I'm not sure if he's saying that he agrees with Posner, but that the relationship between behavior and norms is more complicated than Posner is giving credit (because of "a lot of emotional attachment and baggage"), or if he's saying that there are moral norms that will not change with behavior, even over the long haul, even in the face of terrible costs or unmatched benefits.

I hope that it's the latter. I don't understand economics very well, but I remember hearing that economists remain basically agnostic as to how preferences are formed. That seems to leave the door wide open for some part of the preference function to reflect -- at least initially or independent from social effects -- absolute moral principles.

There is no effective way to do this, while continuing normal sexual activity, without extensive reliance on effective contraception.

Ha ha ha.

No. Unless you consider work/college/existence of other children to be contraception.

I knew viagra would cause our more senior citizens to start thinking loopy thoughts.

The Church is interested in putting forth it's morality (which it believes is permanently and divinely correct) in any country, regardless of the politics. It may disapprove of how the politics are administered, but it's still more important that religion be followed correctly.

Therefore, the church is more disturbed by those whose politics directly contradict or argue against Church beliefs. 70 years ago, this meant communism wasn't only a threat, but a greater one than fascism. Today, it means that while right-wing dictatorships may be unpleasant, they are not the threat to religion that the heresy of Liberation Theology (mixing church doctrine with Marxism) represents.

James,

The source of your disagreement with Catholic theology stems from the fact that you don't understand the premise of this religion.

Theology is not utilitarianism. You should try to understand something before you judge it. I think if you were to dive deeper into the consideration of the subject, you would find a more thorough consistency than what utilitarianism can offer.

Note to Posner: explain free will and how your actions are consistent with the denial of free will.

I think other people have made useful and good responses to some of the issues. So my remarks on these will be brief. In particular some people believe it is absurd to believe that preaching against condoms by an organization which teaches no extramarital sex at all could possibly cause more STDs.

First of all while not directly on topic a recent study (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/18/virginitystudy.stds.ap/) which shows that abstinence only education increases sexually risky behavior certainly shows this type of result is possible. Certainly the catholics church's teachings encourage the administration of abstinence only sex education and if the study is right this increases risk.

Secondly, purchasing a condom or being prepared for safe sex is often a deciscion made in public and with foresight. If the church tells everyone it is immoral to distribute condoms most likely there will be less condoms availible AND people will feel guilty about requesting them or carrying them around with them. On the other hand sex often occurs on the spur of the moment when not thinking clearly and if condoms are not present they are not likely to be aquired. This gives a perfectly plausible mechanism to explain the results of the above study (and why the catholic church's teachines are harmful). When the issue is considered at leisure individuals are much more likely to follow moral dictates and thus avoid aquiring condoms or other safe sex instruments. However, since sex often occurs during a moment of weakness this does not necessarily mean they won't have sex.

Finally to the person who said the following:

I don't care about your caveats, LogicNazi, comparing the belief that pre-marital sex is immoral to genocide is idiotic. It isn't useful, not even in the most abstract.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I in no way compared the actions of genocide and beliefs in pre-marital sex. Rather I considered the general principle that is often used to defend the pope's preachings about pre-marital sex, namely that the pope is just supporting what he believes. I then pointed out that this same principle could be used to excuse the nazi's for their crimes hence it is clearly an invalid principle.

In no way shape or form is there a claim that the pope's actions are tantamount to or even share simalarities with genocidal actions. Rather a defense of the pope's actions is shown to be inadequate because it would lead to absurd results when we consider horrible crimes commited by people who believe they are doing right. It is the same form of argument that is used when debating questions about simple moral questions by asking questions about theoretical situations with extreme consequences (terrorists making you choose to kill 5 people or 5000) and the like.

So I hope this clears up any misconception. If you simply don't think we can ever use the example of nazi genocide to make moral points I would simply have to disagree. In fact it would be utterly horrible if we did not use our experience with the holocaust to refine our moral principles. Admitedly choosing this as an example perhaps encourages an emotional response in some people. However, I think there is a certain temptation to ascribe to the abstract principle that anyone who is trying to do what they believe is the good is morally okay. Thus I needed to bring in a concrete example where we are clearly unwilling to say the perpratrators of a crime were morally okay because they thought what they were doing is right.

Perhaps a more politic person would have restricted attention to the McVeigh example but I've never been very good at being politic.

The question of inhibiting supply of condoms is an interesting one, and I have seen no data on it. I doubt the Church made it an issue to restrict contraceptive access during the John Paul II's Pontificate. There are certainly cases of the Church doing so before, so maybe they did. Show me.

My point (which nobody really seems to challenge) is that if somebody is going to engage in the "sin" of having pre-marital sex, then I doubt if they would let the additional "sin" of using a condom prevent them from using one.

If, however, the Church acted to inhibit supply of contraptives (or even ban their use, as they have done in times past), then I have to say that would have a real effect. Also, if the Church's teachings resulted in considerable societal disapproval, then that would also have a material effect. I am highly skeptical of both of these possibilities.

I have always been skeptical of the basis of the Church's position on condom use. They allow the rythym and withdrawal methods, so it can't because they think sex should only occur for procreation. I've always took the cynical view, and believed they advocated the policy because it's bound to create more Catholics. Maybe it's a slippery slope thing. Anybody know the stated reason behind the policy?

Reading through the commentary here I find one point completely left out of the discussion, though it's not an economic one so perhaps that's reasonable; it does change the argument from pragmatism back to morality though.

This pope and the Catholic Church in general chose to take a stand against a specific evil, use of condoms, rather than stand against a more nebulous one, pain and suffering. But the latter seems much more important to me and taking action to remedy it much closer to the core beliefs of the Church.

How can a leader say that followers should not use some tool which has the demonstrated ability to lessen suffering and pain when not using it subjects them to these terrible indignities caused by the 'sinful' choices of others? The reward of 'life everlasting' may result from such pain but still such preaching seems to be in direct contrast with the words of Jesus as handed down in the Bible.

"a recent study shows that abstinence only education increases sexually risky behavior certainly shows this type of result is possible."

I am distrustful of media outlets' interpretation of scholarship on polarizing topics. (Examine tortured logic from article linked: "Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex than..." A prude like me has a hard time keeping up with the ever-evolving definition of "virginity.") However, if the statement were to be changed to "abstinence-only education increases the RISKINESS of sexual behavior that does take place among youth in such communities," I would probably agree.

Anecdotally, I once traveled to the small town of Panguitch, hidden away in the mountain fastness of Southern Utah. To my surprise, this city of fifteen hundred, with its Latter-day Saint sexual ethics and stay-at-home-mom culture, has a day care. According to locals, the Panguitch high school is positively silly with unwed teenage mothers: young gals' (and guys') LDS upbringing and abstinence-oriented school education seem to have inadequately forearmed them for avoiding some of the generally unwanted physical consequences of sexual activity.

Though offensively dismissive about chastity ideals that come from "a big man in the sky," Logic nazi is probably right about the limitations of moral, abstinence-only instruction and moral teaching in preparing religious youth for promiscuous lifestyles.

The statement that the Pope and others bear blame for not being active advocates of protected sex is perfectly acceptable so long as we also accept the materialistic view that physical discomfort (and death) is the worst thing in the world; that religions are primarily useful in helping people avoid the consequent ills of whatever lifestyle it pleases them to lead; that freedom from disease is the main prerequisite of a happy life.

For the less cynical and materialistic, the synthesis of moral teaching with pragmatic disease prevention is a very difficult question. Religious leaders certainly do not want people to die of AIDS. The longer a person lives, the more opportunities they will have to become better people, serve others, enjoy life, repent. From this point of view, condoms could be viewed as a wonderful innovation.

But for all the best intentions, unintended consequences can abound. Would churches best serve humanity by distributing condoms to youth in Africa, America, and elsewhere. What effect would that have? Would it influence sexual activity one way or the other? Would it promote or retard a romantic landscape full of empty hearts, broken homes, alienation and hostility? Would it save lives only to lose souls? This is the dilemma religious leaders face. Not able to vouch for every religion, I believe the teachings of spiritual leaders in this respect, in general, are far more pragmatic and principled than some of you cynics seem to believe.

(As far as references to Hitler, I note with some amusement that with his username Logicnazi godwins himself in every post he makes...)

The Church does not allow the withdrawal method. The rhythm method is an obsolete and ineffective form of what is now called Natural Family Planning, which has an effectiveness rate in avoiding pregnancy far superior to condoms and comparable to oral contraceptives. It involves abstaining from sex during the woman's fertile period, which with training any woman can identify with considerable accuracy. Therefore, the above post about the Church accepting that sex is not just for procreation is based on faulty premises.
In Catholic teaching, the sexual act is a bodily expression of our reflecting the image of God - therefore it is only to occur in a committed love relationship (marriage) and must be at least creative in intent (non-contracepted). Partners engaging in sexual activity must not by an action they take change the meaning of the sexual act so that it no longer is true to its divine meaning.
I find it bizarre that, in all the discussion in this thread, no one has yet bothered to either find out or express why the Church teaches what it teaches. Believe it or not, there is a rationale for these teachings. They didn't just drop from the sky!

"The Church does not allow the withdrawal method."

That was my understanding. Perhaps I am wrong. What's the best way to find out?

"The rhythm method is an obsolete and ineffective form of what is now called Natural Family Planning, which has an effectiveness rate in avoiding pregnancy far superior to condoms and comparable to oral contraceptives."

It's obsolete and ineffective yet it is more effective than condoms? You seem confused.

"It involves abstaining from sex during the woman's fertile period, which with training any woman can identify with considerable accuracy. Therefore, the above post about the Church accepting that sex is not just for procreation is based on faulty premises."

If the Church allows individuals to have sex but to use the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy, then I think that's a pretty clear indication the Church feels non-procreative sex is morally permissable. What else could it mean?

Correction of last paragraph of my recent post:

If the Church allows individuals to have sex and allows them to use the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy, then I think that's a pretty clear indication the Church feels non-procreative sex is morally permissable. What else could it mean?

Furthermore, a consistent application of believing non-procreative sex is immoral would require that individuals who physically cannot have children to abstain from sexual activity (elderly, sterile, etc). Does the Church take this position? If it does, then maybe my view of the Church needs some examination.

Sex was a primary commodity before Constantine brought about his slaughter in the name of conversion. If we are allowed to step away from the overbearing grip of theocracy and fundamentalism, we might again see sex become a commodity; the need for pleasant sexual contact is nigh universal. And there are always person who either are willing to do anything for money (bad/untalented at the act, often) or who have signficantly less fundamentalist views and seek to use sex for an improvement of their and others' worlds.

My apologies if I was unclear in my previous post, palooka. It is not the 'rhythm method' (more fully, the 'calendar rhythm method') that is superious to condoms/comparable to oral contraceptives, but the modern methods of natural family planning (NFP) which are the Billings Ovulation Method, and the Sympto-Thermal Method. They have an effectiveness in the 92%-95% in avoiding pregnancy and are even better in helping couples trying to have a baby conceive.
Of course non-procreative sex is permissible - it would be ridiculous if every sexual act resulted in pregnancy. Sex is an expression of covenant love, which by its nature is creative and open to life. The key to the Church's teaching is that the individual sexual act of the partners must not be deliberately altered by either of them so as to render it essentially infertile.
Simply choosing not to have sex on a given day, or choosing to have sex on another day, does not change the nature of the sexual act. Wearing a condom, taking a pill, using spermicides or IUDs does change the act itself so that it no longer communicates the human meaning of sex to express God's creative covenantal love.
Additionally, older or infertile couples have, again, done nothing to change the nature of the sexual act to make it infertile. Their sexual intercourse is still an expression of covenant love, to which they have done nothing to falsify it.
Is this clearer? You may not agree, but have I expressed it better? Pax.

Sorry for the spelling/grammar errors in the above post(the preview button is my friend!). Also, the authoritative source for Catholic teaching on this and any question is The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This is all very interesting, but all it proves is that an economic analysis isn't always relevant. Missing from the discussion is whether God exists and what his(?) views on the matter are.

The role of a church is to teach about God and his commandments and to preach repentance or otherwise provide guidance on how to live. If issues like fornication and adultery, which are well established as sins in Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures are relegated to mere options, either God has changed or the church no longer speaks for him. Maybe the willingness of many churches to follow social trends on matters such as ordaining women, acceptance of the gay lifestyle and gay marriage, and downplaying the seriousness of sexual promiscuity is what has caused the numbers of their adherents to plummet.

The Catholic Church's response to the priest-pedophilia-pederasty scandal has had that very effect in Ireland. I wouldn't remain in a church that behaved so hypocritically. I'd feel the same about a church in which sin becomes permitted behavior merely because of a change at the top. This isn't democracy, after all. It's supposed to be a connection to deity. Once it is seen as just another human institutions like the BPOE, the only reason to belong is the bingo nights, gambling having already been accepted.

Billsaysthis - Well, there's nothing wrong, and nothing against the teachings of the Church in 'preventing pregnancies' in a particular situation. The Church explicitly calls on couples to practice 'responsible parenthood' in Humanae Vitae, which is the touchstone document on this matter.
The Church's teaching is not primarily about goals and intentions, but about methods. Not to repeat myself, it is about disallowing methods of preventing pregnancy that falsify the nature and meaning of the specific sexual act.
This focus on the specific act is, in itself, a reflection of the fundamental Catholic view of reality which is sacramental and incarnational: invisible, spiritual realities mediated and made visible by concrete, embodied acts.
This comment is overlong already, so in regards to the Church's desire to eradicate pain and suffering, not all tools to do this are acceptable. A gun ends suffering... and the life of the one who is suffering. Its the old end-means thing; either you get it that a good end doesn't justify an evil means, or you don't.

Denis, my point is that the Church is focusing on one aspect of its doctrine and not another (which to my non-Catholic POV is more important) to the serious detriment of the flock. Perhaps if the Church spent the energy instead on preventing adultery and corruption, also serious spiritual problems, people such as myself would see things in a more favorable light.

Bill, I understand the perception that the Church is 'hung up' or even obsessed with sexual matters. According to the MSM, one would think that this is all the Church ever thinks about, writes about, or is concerned with.
This reflects the preoccupations of the MSM and the general culture of the West, not the Church's own emphases. I have no hard data to back this up, but I'm pretty plugged into the Vatican and its writings, and sexual ethics is quite low on the list of subjects the Vatican regularly addresses. I would say that, in no particular order, global peace, alleviation of poverty, responsibility of the rich nations for the poor, ecumenical and inter-religious initiative, and spiritual matters such as the Eucharist and prayer are the primary focusses of the Church at this time.
We must realize that, if we receive our main understanding of any institution or individual through the media, this will be skewed by the media's own priorities and biases.
Mind you, as a devout Catholic and a child of the sexual revolution, I would argue that, in fact, the crisis of meaning in human sexuality is one of the most pressing if not the most pressing problem facing the Church in the West. But that's just one man's opinion. The Church itself absolutely does not focus on sexuality to the exclusion of other topics.

Perhaps teenagers who engage in sex without contraception are making a mistake (in a positive, not normative sense).

Any teenager has a vague notion of how often sex occurs among her peers, among her adult relatives, and among characters on television, and based on that she can estimate the likelihood that one sexual encounter will result in pregnancy.

But, if she does not realize that the adults in her sample are using contraception, then this will skew her estimate (which no doubt has many other sources of error also).

Adults who privately use contraceptive methods while publically condemning them or at least never mentioning them are in a sense sending deceptive information to an unsophisticated teenager.

"Simply choosing not to have sex on a given day, or choosing to have sex on another day, does not change the nature of the sexual act. Wearing a condom, taking a pill, using spermicides or IUDs does change the act itself so that it no longer communicates the human meaning of sex to express God's creative covenantal love.
Additionally, older or infertile couples have, again, done nothing to change the nature of the sexual act to make it infertile. Their sexual intercourse is still an expression of covenant love, to which they have done nothing to falsify it.
Is this clearer? You may not agree, but have I expressed it better?"

Yes, it's clearer. I knew there was an explanation, a distinction. But I think it's mostly a cover for something else. It just doesn't make sense. Let me point out that I think there is at least a solid distinction for the use of oral contraceptions (and IUDS). If it only prevented ovulation, I wouldn't see much difference between it and barrier methods. But oral contraptives also change the lining of the uterus, which if a woman does ovulate despite taking oral contraceptives, may cause something similar to the morning after pill (e.g. preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg). This isn't the primary function of the pill, and it's a long way from abortion, but I can see how it would make someone theologically uncomfortable.

Back to condoms. Thanks for giving us the official Church teachings on condom use. That's interesting. But it seems a pretty tenuous foundation. I mean, does the Church have a position on Viagra and penis pumps too? Those, too, would seem to violate the prohibition of deviation from the "natural act." What about lubrication? I mean, the list goes on and on. It also seems pretty artificial. As someone has already pointed out, the intent and result of using "natural family planning" and condoms is the same. I am having trouble believing anyone would think deviation from the natural act is a persuasive reason to prohibit condom use within marriage. I may not agree with the Church on pre-marital sex, but at least I can see some solid principle there. I can respect it (even if I think it unlikely in the age of marriage in one's 20's and 30's).

Most of the comments overlook the fact that the Church IS responsive to its constituency for good or for ill. But that constituency is the growing bloc of Catholics in Latin America, Africa, and Asia NOT the West.

Hence the notion that the Church is increasingly alienated from its votaries only works for the West.

In reality, as the West shrinks in the share of the Catholic Church, it is not surprising that the Pope would take a "harder" line. Even a simple public choice analysis would say that he is simply responding to the demands from the median voter who is socially conservative by liberal American standards. Attempts by the US to "change" the church's views will only cause US Catholics to become even more cut off from the main Church.

As brought up above, the Catholic Church does involve itself with and speak to every issue of our lives and world. That people may agree or disagree is not of any concern, for it is not the business of the Church to conform to man. When our human sexuality is separated from the original procreative intent, that is where the true "slippery slope" begins...ending with the "culture of death" which John Paul II fought against. Even the use of NFP methods may result in offspring, and a Couple must be open to the "possibility of life"- as it is a "surrender" of ourselves to God's will. Few may realise that the Church also disallows invitro fertilization--and while there are many upon the earth today who came to be by that method, there is the pesky ethical problem of all of those "extra" people waiting around in cryo...

As a study of the human condition, the Bible shows us that truly, there is nothing new under the sun. People are still tempted and have the same virtues and frailties of the past. We have remained the same. The rules and laws of the Bible and the Church are not a prison, but a foundation upon which to build a life.

If I do not cheat, lie, steal, or murder, I will not have harmed myself or anyone else by those means. If I try to keep my envy and pride in check, I will be more clearly able to understand what in my life is truly important (and will consequently be less inclined to do harm.) If I recognise the dignity of each person, I will see others as brothers and sisters upon this world... How much of this is a bad way to live out one's life? It is not as "limiting" as people seem to believe, and "cuts down" on the problems in one's life.

What is most fascinating to me is that people (who are informed of the risks) are still so promiscuous in the face of AIDS. What are people getting from sex that drives them to play this Russian Roulette? Is there something which has fundamentally changed about psychological needs not being met?

Palooka, well in fact the abortifacient nature of oral contraceptives is a major issue - we hold that human life begins at conception, so the prevention of implantation is morally equivalent to abortion, even if in reality the subjective guilt of the individual is lessened by ignorance, uncertainty, so forth.
As for the second point you raise, while I prefer not to explore in detail the entire world of sexual devices and toys, I think what's needed here is a distinction between different senses of the words 'nature' and 'natural'.
Taking a pill which allows you to engage in normal (i.e. genital, open to life) sexual intercourse is an 'artifical' intervention which allows you to achieve a natural act. Ditto with various other devices or substances whose purpose is to enable or facilitate sexual intercourse.
The 'naturalness' which is violated by condoms/IUDs/oral contraceptives and so forth is the nature of sex itself - a unitive, creative expression of love between man and woman. The Church is not an anti-technological fetishist; technology is evaluated by how it serves or fails to serve the divine meanings and purposes of things.
I've already explained above how the intent to avoid pregnancy is not, in itself, immoral, and hence using the Billings Ovulation Method is acceptable.
I'm not sure I can explain the Church's position any more clearly - I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.

"Palooka, well in fact the abortifacient nature of oral contraceptives is a major issue - we hold that human life begins at conception, so the prevention of implantation is morally equivalent to abortion, even if in reality the subjective guilt of the individual is lessened by ignorance, uncertainty, so forth."

Now, I can understand the moral position but do you really think it's equivalent to abortion? If a woman is taking contraceptives for medical reasons, can she not have sex with her husband? I mean, it seems that the logical thing to recommend the woman would be condom use, but since the woman can't use condoms she is SOL.

I am also fairly certain there are many drugs which are prescribed for medical ills which can change the lining of the uterine wall. Are they equivalent to abortion too? What if a woman knows her uterus cannot sustain embyronic life? Is that, too, equivalent to abortion if she chooses to have sex?

Abortion proponents often criticize the belief that a zygote is an individual (even though zygotes are never aborted). But you equating contraceptives to abortion only gives their criticism weight.

"The legalization of abortion illustrates that it is difficult to be certain about how much of the improvement in birth control methods were a response to pressure from families wanting few children, and how much was due to technological innovations that proceeded largely independent of such demand."

dr. posner,

when speculating on the link, if any, b/w the legaliztion of abortion and the improved birth control methods, you do not consider that one begat the other. i suggest that improved contraception (as well as greater access to it)led to greater demands for legalized abortion inasmuch as recreation intercourse made accidental pregnancy made it precisely that -- accidental. moreover, the 'pill' effectively gave women greater control over their bodies, which was also one of the main arguments advanced in favour of legalized abortion.

Palooka,
Yes, Church teaching allows a married couple to have sexual relations even if the wife is taking oral contraceptives if the contraceptives are being taken for medical rather than contraceptive reasons. It is based on the principle of "double effect." The Internet has many easily searchable sources that can explain this very carefully developed reasoning.

Ok. I'm interested in a thought experiment. Place yourself in the new Pope's position. Accept the premises of the Roman Catholic Church on sexual behavior. How would you use economic analysis to change societal behavior so that it was inline with Church teachings?

"It's a highly spurious argument to posit that someone will engage in pre-marital sex AGAINST Catholic teachings but refuse to use a condom while engaging in that sex BECAUSE of Catholic teachings."

No it isn't. Such people are called "Cafeteria Catholics" because they pick and choose which of the church's teachings they wish to follow. They are a substantial phenomenon, especially in the West.

And whose failing is that? Theirs or the Church's?

This is hardly an argument in favor of forcing the church to adapt its teaching to conveniently fit their lifestyle.

"Rather I considered the general principle that is often used to defend the pope's preachings about pre-marital sex, namely that the pope is just supporting what he believes. I then pointed out that this same principle could be used to excuse the nazi's for their crimes hence it is clearly an invalid principle."

The difference of course is that the Nazi intends to harm people, while the Pope does not. One can argue, convincingly, I think, that moral responsibility requires intent and consequences, not just consequences. The Nazi is morally responsible, regardless of whether we think (or he thinks) his actions are moral or immoral, because he intends to harm others. To my knowledge, at least, the Pope did not intend to harm others.

"And whose failing is that? Theirs or the Church's?

This is hardly an argument in favor of forcing the church to adapt its teaching to conveniently fit their lifestyle."

That's because it explicitly wasn't such an argument. The point was only that it is not "highly spurious" to say that people can do XYZ if lots of people are currently doing XYZ. I don't really care whether doing XYZ is a failing or whether the church should promote or discourage XYZ. People do XYZ all the time, so saying humans can do XYZ is not "highly spurious", it's a fact.

I would tend to agree with you, as a normative, not a desriptive matter, that one should not be a hypocrite, or one should try to avoid hypocrisy. That does not mean, however, that we should hold people to a standard of unrealistic perfection: that would mean that no matter how much one tries, one is doomed to failure. That is not only pessimistic, but also nihilist and fatalist. It posits a good that humans must seek out and then perpetually denies them its realization. I wouldn't start pointing fingers at either the Church or Cafeteria Catholics simply because its/their conception of absolutism fails to reach the point of nihilism. That's like Moslems who blow themselves up callling Muslims who prefer to vote infidels and atheists. I mean, how credible a charge is that? It's a fallacy -- an ad hominem -- and one Peter Abelard famously rejected hundreds of years ago, if I recall correctly.

"No it isn't. Such people are called "Cafeteria Catholics" because they pick and choose which of the church's teachings they wish to follow. They are a substantial phenomenon, especially in the West."

Yes, but the question of pre-marital sex and condom use are linked closely. If one believes the Church is wrong on pre-marital sex, the chances are pretty high they also think the Church is wrong on condom use. I concede the theoretical possibility that someone may believe the Church is flawed in their teachings on pre-marital sex, but not on condom use, but I have yet to encounter such a person.

"I concede the theoretical possibility that someone may believe the Church is flawed in their teachings on pre-marital sex, but not on condom use, but I have yet to encounter such a person."

I am such a person. There you go.

"If one believes the Church is wrong on pre-marital sex, the chances are pretty high they also think the Church is wrong on condom use."

Not really. I think it's commonplace in Brazil for unmarried folks to have anal and oral sex without condoms because they disapprove of contraceptives, but want to avoid pregnancy. In other words, they disagree with the Church on its premarital sex teachings but agree about condom use.

I suppose if you'd like to understand (instead of deny the existence of) the reasoning, it goes something like this: I have avoided paying taxes for one year, but I don't want to avoid paying taxes for two, because the punishment when I finally pay up will be more substantial.

Less reasonable is to posit the "Why Stop Now?" argument: to posit that someone would think, hell, I've already evaded my taxes, so I'm technically a criminal, might as well kill that mailman I never liked.

You seem to be making a "Why Stop Now" argument, which presumes that Catholics are risk-loving in regard to eternal condemnation.

"Not really. I think it's commonplace in Brazil for unmarried folks to have anal and oral sex without condoms because they disapprove of contraceptives, but want to avoid pregnancy. In other words, they disagree with the Church on its premarital sex teachings but agree about condom use."

I think the more likely explanation is that they dislike using condoms, and prefer unprotected anal or oral sex over protected vaginal intercourse. Gotta run for now, but I might post more on this later. If you actually have evidence of the behavior you describe, I'd appreciate if you post it.

"I think the more likely explanation is that they dislike using condoms, and prefer unprotected anal or oral sex over protected vaginal intercourse."

Only if you presume that Catholics are not genuine believers in their professed faith. I would suggest you look up the information on sexual activity in Brazil, much like you should look up "The Doctrine of Double-Effect," which Catholics, even Cafeteria Catholics, actually use for guidance, and which body slams most of your arguments.

"Only if you presume that Catholics are not genuine believers in their professed faith."

I think the scenario under discussion requires the assumption that they are at least imperfect in their acceptance of Church teachings.

I gave you a perfectly valid (in my view, more likely) explanation for the example you provided. Either your explanation or mine is plausible given the information you provided, though I think human nature favors my explanation.

"The Doctrine of Double Effect" as described by a previous commenter seems like an extremely awkward rationalization. If contraception is abortion, and if abortion is the evil the Church believes it is, then the doctrine makes little sense.

"I think the scenario under discussion requires the assumption that they are at least imperfect in their acceptance of Church teachings."

That doesn't mean they must be imperfect in the way you presume.

"Either your explanation or mine is plausible given the information you provided, though I think human nature favors my explanation."

Yes, but your view of human nature and the view of human nature that Catholics share with each other are opposed. That is the point. You are assuming that Catholics think like you. They obviously don't. Case in point:

"'The Doctrine of Double Effect' as described by a previous commenter seems like an extremely awkward rationalization."

John:

I think it's interesting that you make so much sense on the other side of this discussion, but seem to miss the point over here. You make some excellent policy arguments in both places, but the difference is that the Church is free to ignore good policy arguments in favor of devotion to its beliefs.

It really doesn't matter if 95% of the world was infected with HIV, the Church would have no reason to back down from its position on artificial contraception. It's the Word of God!

This hypothetical world might change whether people decide to listen to the Pope (economics and all that...), but the cost of dying of AIDS is insignificant next to the cost of your soul in the Church's eyes.

In sum, you can't expect the Pope to be a pragmatist. Policy arguments don't work.

I'd be interested to see if there is a single case (anectodal or otherwise) where a Catholic believes pre-marital sex is morally permissable but condom use is not.

My conjecture that there are very few individuals that hold this view is not based on my perceptions of rationality, but rather the fact that condom use is one of the marginal, least followed moral teachings of the Church. In large part it is not followed because individuals believe the Church is mistaken, not because it is inconvenient. It seems especially likely a Catholic would hold the view that condom use is moral if they also believed pre-marital sex was moral.

"It really doesn't matter if 95% of the world was infected with HIV, the Church would have no reason to back down from its position on artificial contraception. It's the Word of God!"

In fact, that is NOT how Catholic Social Thought works. The Church in fact does make public policy prescriptions. It does not base its arguments on Scripture or the word of God at all. It makes certain that its arguments fit with the doctrine of public reasons and natural law so that any person, regardless of their sectarian belief, can access, understand, and reasonably agree with the argument. Quite contrary to your assertion, the Church IS in the business of making public policy, and its resort to Eternal Law (scripture, etc.) is less frequent than its appeal to political philosphy and so on. One could even say that the Church is less interested in spreading the Word of God than it is in curbing the evils of utilitarianism and thus promoting human dignity (which is a good independent of faith in Catholicism). One only has to read an evangelium or an encyclical to find this out.

"I'd be interested to see if there is a single case (anectodal or otherwise) where a Catholic believes pre-marital sex is morally permissable but condom use is not."

I already told you that I am one such person.

In sum, you can't expect the Pope to be a pragmatist. Policy arguments don't work.

You can in fact expect the Pope to be a pragmatist. What you cannot expect is for the Pope to be a utilitarian. THAT is the difference.

Very nice site! cheap viagra

Very nice site!

Good, thank you, wonderful
بنت مكه

مركز تحميل