All Religion is Bad.

[andyandy]

and just to show that it's not a either/or All Catholics good/all catholics bad, this is a very level headed and reasonable critique of the Catholic position on condoms, by a Catholic group

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) which shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women's well-being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives.

Important Roman Catholic leaders such as the late Cardinal John O’Connor and Bishop James McHugh, who was a special advisor to the Holy See Mission at the United Nations, have frequently claimed that condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS. In addition, anti-family planning organizations such as the American Life League and Human Life International have aggressively questioned the efficacy of condoms. They argue that condoms should not be promoted as a way to fight AIDS because the virus that causes AIDS is small enough to pass through latex condoms, or that condoms have an unacceptably high “failure rate” (the frequency which condoms break or slip off), or that condoms are not reliable because they don’t prevent all sexually transmitted diseases.

Such claims that condoms should not play an important role in halting the spread of HIV are unfounded, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and leading AIDS researchers. Condoms opponents have seized on the fact that condoms are not 100% perfect in preventing AIDS to further their arguments that abstinence and sex within marriage are the only ways to prevent AIDS.

Condoms, like all contraceptives, are not 100% foolproof. Most condom failure is due to human factors such as the failure to use condoms consistently or incorrect use of the prophylactic.1 Many of these problems can be corrected through safe sex education, which opponents of condoms also oppose. Poorly manufactured condoms, which are sometimes found in the developing world, or those stored at excessive heats for long periods of time, can also fail. Non-latex condoms, such as those made of sheepskin, are not adequate protect against AIDS because HIV can pass through the larger pores of these condoms.

Claims that latex condoms allow HIV to pass through are unfounded. The pores of latex condoms are too small to allow HIV to pass through. Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea.2

While condoms are not foolproof, they are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. According to the CDC, studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that “even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.3 The CDC recently issued prevention guidelines for state health departments that state “correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections.4 On August 16, 2001, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization issued a statement that said that condoms were “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.5

snip

Cates concludes: “Deliberate attempts to characterize the evidence as demonstrating the ‘ineffectiveness of condoms’ constitute a misunderstanding of what the report states. Moreover, such misrepresentation can undermine the public’s confidence in condoms, thereby leading to nonuse and to further spread of STIs and HIV.”9

http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm

 

[ceo_esq]

There is a fatal flaw to your argument. The example makes the Catholic Church look like Mothers Against Drunk Driving when in fact the Church claims moral authority and claims to speak on behalf of god. It is this moral authority that causes the inconsistent moral decisions of the adherents.

I'm not sure how this is a flaw, much less a fatal one, in anything I've said. Nothing in my argument depends on whether it's MADD, the Sierra Club, some Luddite sect, or anyone else doing the campaigning.

Also, I have some misgivings about the suggestion that it is someone else's moral authority that causes moral free agents to make inconsistent moral decisions.

People accept that the church is the moral authority and it is their intent to follow all of the rules. However, when the do make a mistake they don't make reasonable decisions at that time. It's very morally confusing. If a person in a moment of weakness fornicates should he or she wear protection?

I think the Church would probably say that anyone who has the presence of mind to reflect on such a question before fornicating should be redirecting that faculty toward the overriding moral question at hand. I expect that the Church would disavow and reject a moral analysis based on the formulation of a hypothetical in those terms, and I can accept that. The Church is uncompromising in this way, which no doubt complicates both the task of criticizing it and the task of following it - but if we're going to be critiquing the other side's position, I think we have to begin by taking that position as presented on the terms given by the other side.

No, because you are setting up a false dichotomy and the church's model creates moral dilemmas for fallible humans when they make a mistake.

If a Catholic falls, and commits adultery or fornication should he or she then practice safe sex?

As noted, I suspect that the Church would say that the "fornicating with protection versus fornicating without protection" scenario presents a faulty dilemma. At the very least, I think total responsibility for the person's choices at that point might legitimately be laid on the conscience of the individual in question.

Again, holistic is a non-sensical term. It assumes that there is something besides the objective methods of modern medicine and health care.

Again, I was not applying the term to the Church's teaching; I was using it to describe a method of analyzing and critiquing any complex (multi-element) position. This has nothing to do with assumptions about medicine or healthcare.

 

[Herzblut]

the program i was refering to was that which was embarked upon from the mid 1980s - and had achieved qualitative success by the mid 1990s.

So? The ACP program in Uganda is still ongoing. What's your point? Your statement "The decline in HIV is a success, dating back to the mid 1980s", without further qualification, is factually wrong.

what are you refering to? Publicised notion of what?

The notion of the RCC towards Christmas gifts, of course. Or what are we talking about all the time? You imply that statements of the RCC in Uganda have been much different during the 1980s and 1990s from what they are today. How else could you justify your judgment that what the Archbishop of Uganda says today "is certainly not what is responsible for that decline - indeed it is a position that threatens that rate". Please explain.

The comment that HIV passes through condoms is simply not true - it is ascientific, at best disingenous and at worst simply deceit.

Bad reasons fallacy.

Argument A for the conclusion C is unsound.
Therefore, C is false.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/badreasn.html

when we say that condoms have a "5% perfect use failure rate" that does not mean that every time you use a condom correctly you will have a 5% chance of the condom failing - but that in a year of typical use, 5% of people will have had such an experience.

Wrong. Firstly, it must of course be "..but that in a year of perfect use..". Secondly, please provide evidence for this definition of "failure rate". I never heart about it.

Immediately it should be clear as to the difference with HIV - using a condom correctly with someone you have a one night stand or brief fling with is overwhelmingly likely to be an effective method of preventing HIV infection

It is also immediately clear that avoiding such one night stands in the first place is an even better method of preventing an HIV infection.

please. We weren't comparing different methods -

You are.

No - ignoring societal and physical realities is what the abstinence only programs do.

Same as condoms only programs.

So is your argument going to be conducted along the lines of, "Italy's a Catholic country and that has a low rate of HIV"? Sub Sahara is not western europe, religious influence is far more pronounced.

Now it's getting stupid, andyandy. You have to compare comparable countries, of course. E.g. countries located in sub-sahara.

Remember I'm not saying that the Catholic church is 100% culpable - but that there is some culpability. That means somewhere between 0% and 100%. You are arguing with me, so can i presume you regard culpability for the AIDS epidemic at 0%?

Please, I know you are not stupid. You simply must see that I am not presuming anything, in contrast to you.

Herzblut

 

[ceo_esq]

and just to show that it's not a either/or All Catholics good/all catholics bad, this is a very level headed and reasonable critique of the Catholic position on condoms, by a Catholic group.

Unless we're inclined to accept the very lowest criterion (self-identification) for Catholicity, I'm not sure that we would be justified in describing that particular group as "Catholic".

 

[Herzblut]

I'm sorry? Could you expound or explain?

You seem to imply that Africans are an ignorant bunch of blokes, except to what the pope says. That's weird.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure how this is a flaw, much less a fatal one, in anything I've said. Nothing in my argument depends on whether it's MADD, the Sierra Club, some Luddite sect, or anyone else doing the campaigning.

You are making a comparison. That comparison fails because the church holds moral authority and claims to speak for god. The adherents accept that the church is the moral authority and speaks for god.

Also, I have some misgivings about the suggestion that it is someone else's moral authority that causes moral free agents to make inconsistent moral decisions.

I'm not sure why this is difficult. What does one do when one is presented with a dilemma.

• You accept that the church is a moral authority.
• You accept that fornication is immoral
• You accept that condom use is immoral.
• You succumb as Kant says, "to the pleasures of the flesh".
• Do you also follow the church's proscription against condom use?

Seems like a pretty straight forward dilemma to me. Can you answer it?

I think the Church would probably say that anyone who has the presence of mind to reflect on such a question before fornicating should be redirecting that faculty toward the overriding moral question at hand.

But Kant concedes that such reflection is bound to fail. For the church to do also would be to deny facts. Again, we know by empirical studies that those who have been taught that fornication and condom use are wrong are more likely to contract STD's.

• This would square with my position.
• If health is the ultimate goal then the Church's position is failing.

I expect that the Church would disavow and reject a moral analysis based on the formulation of a hypothetical in those terms, and I can accept that. The Church is uncompromising in this way, which no doubt complicates both the task of criticizing it and the task of following it - but if we're going to be critiquing the other side's position, I think we have to begin by taking that position as presented on the terms given by the other side.

This is the problem. It is empirical that the Church's position causes greater harm yet they see that the greater moral sin is fornication and adultery and not contracting AIDS.

As noted, I suspect that the Church would say that the "fornicating with protection versus fornicating without protection" scenario presents a faulty dilemma. At the very least, I think total responsibility for the person's choices at that point might legitimately be laid on the conscience of the individual in question.

And I would say again, CDC and WHO studies illustrate that the net effect of Church teachings is that more people who follow the church will contract AIDS.

Again, I was not applying the term to the Church's teaching; I was using it to describe a method of analyzing and critiquing any complex (multi-element) position. This has nothing to do with assumptions about medicine or healthcare.

And I'm trying to demonstrate why the term is at best meaningless and at worst misleading in any context.

 

[Herzblut]

Unless we're inclined to accept the very lowest criterion (self-identification) for Catholicity, I'm not sure that we would be justified in describing that particular group as "Catholic".

But, what other "higher" criteria do you have in mind?

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

You seem to imply that Africans are an ignorant bunch of blokes, except to what the pope says. That's weird.

Why is that weird? Church's are very effective at disseminating information and propaganda.

Let me say that I do not for a moment think that there is inherently anything ignorant about Africans. Sadly many of them find themselves in a state of ignorance due to circumstances including but not limited to poverty and corrupt governments.

Have you been following Randi's commentary on this issue?

 

[Herzblut]

I'm not sure why this is difficult. What does one do when one is presented with a dilemma.

• You accept that the church is a moral authority.
• You accept that fornication is immoral
• You accept that condom use is immoral.
• You succumb as Kant says, "to the pleasures of the flesh".
• Do you also follow the church's proscription against condom use?

Seems like a pretty straight forward dilemma to me. Can you answer it?

Dilemma? When you already disregarded the church's position regarding fornication why the hell should you care about what same church says about condoms? That makes no sense at all.

Secondly, the RCC has no particular attitude like "condom use is immoral" that I am aware of. Instead, the RCC moral talks about marital, artificial contraception. Regarding prostitutional sex etc. the RCC says that using condoms does not add "extra evil" to these acts. See one of my former posts where I also provided a link.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

Dilemma? When you already disregarded the church's position regarding fornication why the hell should you care about what same church says about condoms? That makes no sense at all.

Why does it make no sense? You assume that once a person make a mistake he or she gives up all other moral influence. That's simply not true. Many people who fall seek forgiveness and confess their sins. The temptation that Kant talks about is one of lust not not breaking the rules. The falling Catholic isn't trying to throw out all he or she believes. That person is simply trying to satisfy a sexual drive.

Secondly, the RCC has no particular attitude like "condom use is immoral" that I am aware of. Instead, the RCC moral talks about marital, artificial contraception. Regarding prostitutional sex etc. the RCC says that using condoms does not add "extra evil" to these acts. See one of my former posts where I also provided a link.

I'm not going to go looking for your links. I know the church's position. At such a moment the individual only knows that the church is against condum use.

ABC News

Will Pope Green Light Condom Use?
Vatican Mulls Limited Exception To Condom Ban To Help Fight Against AIDS

"We are conducting a very profound scientific, technical and moral study" on how to deal with married couples when one is infected with HIV, he told Vatican Radio.
He said the study would be presented to Pope Benedict XVI, "who with his wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit will take a decision and tell us where we are going."

While the Vatican has no specific policy concerning condoms and AIDS, the Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against contraception. It advocates sexual abstinence as the best way to combat the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

The issue was reignited last week when a one-time papal contender, retired Milan Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, said in comments published in Italian newsweekly L'Espresso that condoms were the "lesser evil" in combating the spread of AIDS.

It's interesting that Church is considering a change due to aids. I guess THEN it will be a legitimate issue but until then it has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS.

Here's a hint, if it really has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS the church wouldn't be considering it.

 

[Herzblut]

Why does it make no sense? You assume that once a person make a mistake he or she gives up all other moral influence.

It's one and the same moral influence / moral authority. Namely the church. You're talking nonsense.

I'm not going to go looking for your links. I know the church's position.

Your wrong presentation of this position testifies the opposite.

At such a moment the individual only knows that the church is against condum use.

Sorry, now it's getting completely absurd. Not only you "know" what people are ignorant about. Now you also "know" what individuals know. Such a confabulation is not worth considering.

It's interesting that Church is considering a change due to aids.

You overread the word "married" in how to deal with married couples, didn't you? Such a selective perception is not facilitating understanding. Oh, I just read in your link that "the Vatican has no specific policy concerning condoms and AIDS, the Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against contraception". As you will remember, this is what I said before, RF.

BTW, you're not posting anything new. I already mentioned it. I also posted the current status of this investigation, your link (dating April 06) is outdated.

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

It's interesting that Church is considering a change due to aids. I guess THEN it will be a legitimate issue but until then it has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS.

Don't hold your breath. Cardinal Lopez Trujillo is now saying they were misquoted and there is no study being done and none was called for by the pope.

“There is a need to control births in order to avoid creating insoluble problems that could arise if we were to renounce our responsibilities to future generations. Increases in the life span and advances in medical care have made it unthinkable to sustain indefinitely a birthrate that notably exceeds the level of two children per couple. In other words, this is the requirement to guarantee the future of humanity.”

“Our planet is threatened by a multitude of interactive processes: the depletion of natural resources, climatic changes, population growth from 2.5 billion to over 6 billion people in just 50 years, rapidly growing disparities in quality of life, destabilization in the ecological
economy.”

Both of the above statements were made by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is the official science academy of the vatican. Why then does the vatican not heed the advice given. Why does it fight all efforts to address the issues identified by its own advisors, including the UN, state governments, the EU, etc.

Why is the vatican so stoneage in it's thinking?

 

[Herzblut]

Why is the vatican so stoneage in it's thinking?

The vatican is not against birth control / family planning.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

I think the Church would probably say that anyone who has the presence of mind to reflect on such a question before fornicating should be redirecting that faculty toward the overriding moral question at hand. I expect that the Church would disavow and reject a moral analysis based on the formulation of a hypothetical in those terms, and I can accept that. The Church is uncompromising in this way, which no doubt complicates both the task of criticizing it and the task of following it - but if we're going to be critiquing the other side's position, I think we have to begin by taking that position as presented on the terms given by the other side.

As noted, I suspect that the Church would say that the "fornicating with protection versus fornicating without protection" scenario presents a faulty dilemma.

In my post #368 I cited a source saying the following

“One fundamental question is whether this is something that is always wrong or not—what in church lingo we would describe as intrinsically evil,” says Williams, an American moral theologian. “It’s almost counterintuitive, because the church sees no added evil with the use of condoms in cases of prostitution, or casual relationships with multiple partners or homosexual relationships. Even though the church would never say this in principle, on a pastoral level anybody would say if you are going to a prostitute, it’s already a moral evil, but use a condom.”

This "no added evil" claim ought to be cross-checked, but why should I do everything?

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

The vatican is not against birth control / family planning.

Condoms are a form of birth control the vatican is against. Abortion is a form of family planning the vatican is against.

Better for you to claim that they are not against ALL forms of birth control or family planning.

Do you not see the contradiction in your argument here as opposed to your argument that not all religion is bad?

 

[RandFan]

It's one and the same moral influence / moral authority. Namely the church. You're talking nonsense.

Declaring it nonsense doesn't make it so. I've explained why humans make mistakes and when they do it doesn't mean they suddenly reject all moral influence of the church.

It is you that are talking nonsense.

Besides, the findings of the CDC and WHO support my contention and not yours.

Your wrong presentation of this position testifies the opposite.

This is just rhetoric.

Sorry, now it's getting completely absurd. Not only you "know" what people are ignorant about. Now you also "know" what individuals know. Such a confabulation is not worth considering.

This is more rhetoric.

You overread the word "married" in how to deal with married couples, didn't you? Such a selective perception is not facilitating understanding. Oh, I just read in your link that "the Vatican has no specific policy concerning condoms and AIDS, the Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against contraception". As you will remember, this is what I said before, RF.

BTW, you're not posting anything new. I already mentioned it. I also posted the current status of this investigation, your link (dating April 06) is outdated.

?

You are not making sense. I don't care that it is not new. It demonstrates that Catholic Church realizes that there stand is a problem. Duh.

You are not making a counter argument. In fact you are not saying anything.

My point stands.

• The WHO and CDC hold that abstinence only teaching is infective.
• The Catholic Church is reconsidering it's position and would only do so if there were a reason to do so.

End of story.

You see, that IS argument. Premises that lead to a conclusion. You are just flapping your lips and not saying a damn thing.

 

[Herzblut]

Declaring it nonsense doesn't make it so. I've explained why humans make mistakes and when they do it doesn't mean they suddenly reject all moral influence of the church.

You make an empirical claim. Provide evidence by e.g. demonstrating that amongst all people practicing high-risk sex the prevalence/infection rate shows a bias towards Catholics. (Because of the alleged additional negative "moral influence of the church" that does not act upon non-Catholics.)

It is you that are talking nonsense.

Declaring it nonsense doesn't make it so.

Besides, the findings of the CDC and WHO support my contention and not yours.

Which findings support you in how far? Which other findings don't support you?

You are not making sense.

Declaring it senseless doesn't make it so. Hey, I begin to love this nonsense phrase!

It demonstrates that Catholic Church realizes that there stand is a problem. Duh.

No, it doesn't.

My point stands.

• The WHO and CDC hold that abstinence only teaching is infective.
• The Catholic Church is reconsidering it's position and would only do so if there were a reason to do so.

Point, what point? That's all self-evident and meaningless. It doesn't touch the complex problem at all.

Herzblut

 

[ceo_esq]

You are making a comparison. That comparison fails because the church holds moral authority and claims to speak for god. The adherents accept that the church is the moral authority and speaks for god.

In theory, yes, but that's not a relevant distinction. I never specified anything about the anti-automobile campaigners; feel free to assume that those who heed them believe they have all the moral authority you'd like. It doesn't affect any part of my argument.

I'm not sure why this is difficult. What does one do when one is presented with a dilemma.

• You accept that the church is a moral authority.
• You accept that fornication is immoral
• You accept that condom use is immoral.
• You succumb as Kant says, "to the pleasures of the flesh".
• Do you also follow the church's proscription against condom use?

Seems like a pretty straight forward dilemma to me. Can you answer it?

I don't know what one does in those circumstances. But it seems to me that whatever one does then, one is acting against the express and vigorous counsels of the Church and that one's actions cannot therefore reasonably rest on the conscience of the Church.

But Kant concedes that such reflection is bound to fail.

Even assuming arguendo that this is so, why should I care what Kant concedes or doesn't?

Again, we know by empirical studies that those who have been taught that fornication and condom use are wrong are more likely to contract STD's.

You may know that, and may also know if there is a causal relationship, but I certainly don't.

• If health is the ultimate goal then the Church's position is failing.

It's my impression that the ultimate, though not necessarily the sole, goal is salvation. You'd have to consult the mission statement or whatever.

This is the problem. It is empirical that the Church's position causes greater harm yet they see that the greater moral sin is fornication and adultery and not contracting AIDS.

...

And I would say again, CDC and WHO studies illustrate that the net effect of Church teachings is that more people who follow the church will contract AIDS.

I am prepared to believe that this is the case, but I do not know it to be so. Why don't we simplify the inquiry in the following way: you select what you think is the most reliable, most comprehensive, best-controlled study available supporting your thesis. Provide a link to something as close as possible to a primary source. Then we will critically examine it together to see what it can tell us about causation in this regard.

And I'm trying to demonstrate why the term is at best meaningless and at worst misleading in any context.

Yes, but you are trying to do so by suggesting things like "It assumes that there is something besides the objective methods of modern medicine and health care", which I already pointed out has nothing to do with the term as I used and applied it. As I used it, there is a holistic way of critiquing a sales contract or a piece of tax reform legislation. Nothing to do with medicine or science at all.

 

[andyandy]

So? The ACP program in Uganda is still ongoing. What's your point? Your statement "The decline in HIV is a success, dating back to the mid 1980s", without further qualification, is factually wrong.

please stop being disingenuous. The quote I made was directly followed by the linked source in which the further qualification was given. Why be contrary purely for the sake of being objectionable?

The notion of the RCC towards Christmas gifts, of course. Or what are we talking about all the time? You imply that statements of the RCC in Uganda have been much different during the 1980s and 1990s from what they are today. How else could you justify your judgment that what the Archbishop of Uganda says today "is certainly not what is responsible for that decline - indeed it is a position that threatens that rate". Please explain.

After saying that Christophe Pierre made a statement last year discouraging young people from using condoms, you counter with the fact that there has been success in Uganda's HIV/AIDS program. I show you that actually this program's success has been through using an integrated approach which incorporates condom use. Thus what Chrisophe Pierre says now is not something which you can simply dismiss by saying that Uganda's HIV/AIDS rate has been declining.

Bad reasons fallacy.

Argument A for the conclusion C is unsound.
Therefore, C is false.

What do you disagree with?

We have scientific evidence that HIV does not pass through latex condoms due to "tiny little holes" as Cardinal Trujillo says. His comment is not true. I said this meant that he was being disingenuous or dishonest - i'll be charitable and add woeful ignorance to the list. Do you believe that his comment is true? No. His argument is false and can be dismissed. Show me an argument that isn't false and we can discuss that.

Wrong. Firstly, it must of course be "..but that in a year of perfect use..". Secondly, please provide evidence for this definition of "failure rate". I never heart about it.

That is what the failure rates mean.

Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%. In 100 users who use a condom correctly and consistently, the lowest estimated failure rate would be 3 pregnancies in one year. In 100 typical users however, the estimated failure rate is 14 pregnancies in one year. The large difference between these two failure rates can be attributed to incorrect and inconsistent use of the condom. Therefore it is crucial that a condom is used every time one has intercourse, and is used correctly. The condom is even more effective when used with additional spermicide.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html

Do you really think a failure rate of 10% means that every time you have sex there is a 10% chance of failure? Wow.

With regards to the perfect use strawman - this is a moot point you keep clinging to - even with a 10%-15% yearly failure rate, due to the specific spread of HIV through general population by multiple sexual partners and societal and physical realities, it is an incredibly important part of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Abstinence only programs have been shown in scientific studies to have no effect on HIV/AIDS rates both in the developing and developed world.

It is also immediately clear that avoiding such one night stands in the first place is an even better method of preventing an HIV infection.

of course. But it's rather naive to assume that they won't happen. In any case we have scientific evidence that abstinence only programs have no effect on sexual behaviour.

Same as condoms only programs.

what is it with this strawman? I have said throughout that condoms should be used in an integrated approach together with sexual education and warnings with regards to risky sexual behaviour. Show me the "condom only" programs you're referring to. There is no dogma from the end of the health professionals actually carrying out what is scientifically shown to work - and what works are integrated programs. However I can show you plenty of "abstinence only" programs which are carried out contrary to scientific knowledge.

This is the crux of the matter - should the response to HIV/AIDS be governed by scientific knowldege or by dogma? I would very strongly argue the former. If the scientific studies show that abstinence only programs are the best way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and that condoms should not be used, then i would advocate that approach. But they don't. They show very clearly that the opposite is true.

 

[andyandy]

Unless we're inclined to accept the very lowest criterion (self-identification) for Catholicity, I'm not sure that we would be justified in describing that particular group as "Catholic".

If you believe that every catholic who disagrees with the vatican with regards to contraception is "not a true Catholic" then I think you'd find more "not true Catholics" than "true Catholics"

In 1995, 70% of all U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age used some form of contraception. Since 64% of all women, regardless of faith, use contraception, the proportion of Catholic women who contracept is actually slightly higher than women at large.[17

http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-contraception.html

It seeems rather strange to draw a catholic/not catholic prophylactic dividing line.