Now wait a minute. First of all, up until the Anglican/Episcopal Church broke away in the 1930s, it was universally held among churches and religious that "safe sex" in terms of contraception in any form, whether it be the Pill or condoms or IUDs or diaphragms, was wrong. Even back then, critics of contraceptives argued that it would lead to the degradation of society by destroying the family, lead to an increase in the objectivication of women, and devalue the human life, all of which (surprise) are happening as we speak. The human life is seen as an inconvenience to be avoided at all costs, when in reality it is the most natural consequence of sex. By removing the consequence from the act, all you do is lead to a self-seeking indulgence of lust. Sex is meant to be the fulfillment of the wedding vows, by giving yourself as a faithful, whole, FRUITFUL gift. It's an all or nothing deal. By removing any possibility of being fruitful, you also say that you aren't giving yourself wholly or faithfully, and by doing that you turn the vows said at the altar into a lie. And if you're not going to be faithful AFTER marriage, why be faithful to your future spouse BEFORE marriage? Once again, if all sex becomes is a selfish indulgence of lust, women generally become mere objects to be used for self-gratification rather than partners in a holy union. Women don't like it either, and they often turn to sex as a means of emotional gratification rather than physical. Granted, even in a distortion of the truth, there is still a glimmer of it left. Yet none of these are a whole gift of self, a faithful gift of self, or a fruitful gift of self. All anyone wants is love in this world, but sex that is abused and improperly treated is just a counterfeit.
Oh, and as for "getting everyone infected," I would imagine the rates of STDs are considerably higher now than they were before condoms. Besides, most can be transmitted by contact other than genital (herpes, anyone?), and condoms, which are semi-porous, don't stop viruses like HIV that are smaller than sperm and can pass through the membrane.
Why are we against contraception? Gee, I can't imagine.
reply
share
this_is_the_way_the_world_ends
18 years ago
regardless of any of that, it's simply ignorant to say, "I don't believe with the catholic church on birth control, therefor a movie about the pope is gonna suck."
I'm not catholic, and I was totally interested. Personally, even if you are against the pope, I think you should educate yourself and not just rant off about how stupid he is without any actual knowledge.
Now, the movie may be biased in some ways, but it's still a better foundation for learning that just spouting ignorance. (Not aimed at you, IQ-but posters before you.)
When did having an uninformed opinion and staying uninformed become something to brag about?
If you have a strong oppinion for or against the pope, you could be interested in this movie. If you're curious because you don't know that much about him, you could be interested in this movie. Only poeple who really don't care would think the movie was 'a waste of time.'
Being as the POPE is a greatly influential person in world events, I don't see how a movie about him could be considered a waste of time by anybody with a brain, whether they love him, hate him, don't personally care, don't know, or anything in between.
reply
share