Repressive Catholic Church? Can you help with this post?

Here is my post (trying to defend our catholic church) to a post by another person stating that the Doctrine applied back in the good old days when people married very young. If a 25 yr old man waited til he got married, he’d rupture his testicles (I hope I can say this here!) That person also said other things that I refuted with this post:

LOL!
I’m now neurotic and pathological because I adhere to the teachings of the church at this day and age. Our priests are walking around with testicular ruptures as well.

Actually seriously here, do you realise what nocturnal emissions are? They are a safeguard against so-called testicular ruptures. Did you know that for 2 yrs I lived out of town, away from my husband? He did not masturbate, and we saw each other every 4 monts or so for 10 days at a time… yes there was pain initially, he felt like he was walking around with a bowling ball in his pants at times, but gradually, that goes away, and you’re normal again. Testicular ruptures LOL!

In Africa, where there’s an aids epidemic, do you realise that condoms are freely used?? Yes against the Church’s recommendation, but freely and very much used none the less. There was no change in the Aids rate, perhaps condom use tends to encourage riskier sexual practices? Again, underneath it all… morals. Condoms tend to weaken, rupture (there’s that word again… in the right context this time) and then BANG! Some innocent soul who’s trusted in the condom rather than abstinence gets to worry whether they have Aids or not.

Puhleese! There are reasons behind our teachings… it’s not archaic at all… it’s loving and caring in the long run. The problem is, morality has gone down the drain, people think that just because everyone else is doing it, it’s ok and moral to do.

Here is a response from another person, and I don’t know how to answer this because I’m weary, so I knew I could count on you guys to tear her arguement apart for me.

I’m just so tired of defending my faith alone… it seems that all eyes are on the Catholics since the death of our beloved Pope… I’m the ONLY catholic that is on this board, so it’s up to me to refute these claims.

RESPONDING POST:

Loboto, I’m not sure where you are getting your information from regarding condom usage in Africa. This is a coincidence but I recently visited an African assistance center in my state because I’m doing a project on access to health care for African immigrants in the states plus I’ve been researching health care in Africa for about a year now and from what I’ve gathered condom usage is not as common place a you think. This is from the horse’s mouth. Men in many countries in Africa practice sex without condoms and prefer their women to be dry for increased stimulation, which in turn creates lesions in the uterus increasing risk of HIV.

If you are American (or are you Canadian?) or have been following crappy American politics then I’m sure you are aware of the ABC approach that’s been launched by the Bush administration regarding Aids funding in Africa and that certainly doesn’t support condom usage or sex education! It actually works to inhibit it. The Christian right in the States has been working against educating these people about HIV transmission. It’s really terrible.

I was raised Catholic with all the bells and whistles (catholic schools etc). My mother lived in a convent for almost ten years and she and the rest of my family are practicing Catholics. In my personal experience Catholicism is a repressive branch of Christianity though I do know one nun and one priest who are both remarkable people. The nun is a medical doctor actually and is a pleasure to be around. Neither believes God has gender and both have stated that the bible is up for interpretation rather then to be taken literally at every turn (like we all know it’s not ok to keep slaves even though there are passages in the bible that support it). It is hypocritical though to take some of the bible literally and not all of it. Where is the line drawn and who draws that line? I think that’s where catholic followers get a bad rap. There are a slew of issues in the bible that are just plain immoral. Just because the bible permits slave owners to beat their slaves doesn’t mean it’s right. Just because the bible and priests state homosexuality is a sin doesn’t mean that it is. What about people who are not married by a catholic priest? Are they considered to be married? What if they are married by the state? I don’t think the church really recognizes it (which makes that sex premarital sex) but I know plenty of Catholic people who do recognize that marriage. And who is the state to tell me if I’m married or not? It’s all very fuzzy.

Lots of flaws in her post… for example, none of us believe God has a gender! And, of course the Bible is up for interpretation! We’re Catholics, not Fundamentalists. We just don’t believe in everyone’s own personal interpretation. And it is NOT hypocritical (this word is SO overused) to take only part of it literally. We all talk in metaphors, similies, and analogies, don’t we? And are we hypocrites for only taking part of what we say literally? Hardly. And the Church does assume that all marriages are valid, just as she does all Christian baptisms. This person is so off the mark. I’m not sure you will ever be able to convince her, but God bless you for trying!

Thank you JP2fan, anyone else care to help out with the african aids and condoms part?

I can respond to the claim that people married very young in the past. Historians have discovered what they call the “European marriage pattern” which goes back at least to the 15th century (records before that are scantier, so we don’t know when this began). In this pattern both men and women married well into their 20s. (Aristocratic women were married off earlier for dynastic reasons.) Yes, this did cause problems, which is why (as I’ve mentioned on another thread) the Church was OK with legalized prostitution. While condemning it as a sin, the Church saw it as a lesser evil than having hordes of young men running around seducing or even raping innocent young women. While I don’t like the medieval attitude to prostitution (because it sanctions the abuse of women and treats some women as expendable), I think that the basic pragmatism of this attitude is to be followed. After the Reformation everyone was competing for the title of strictest and most moral church, and Christianity came to be seen much more as an instrument of social control. I think a lot of the “repressive” attitudes date from the Reformation, actually. Precisely because the medieval Church had such a harsh attitude toward sex of any kind, it was willing to take a pragmatic attitude toward human frailty.

Edwin

P.S. And why does your friend think that it’s tougher for a 25-year-old than for a teenager? Probably this is because as a woman she doesn’t understand how men work. Male sexual desire peaks around 23, I believe. Teens and early 20s are the toughest period–at least they were for me.

Edwin

Sex is absolutely not something that you have to do in order to continue to live. It is completely optional, always, for everyone, male or female. No one has ever died or been injured from not having sex. :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.