Calling all Catholics and / or Theologians

[flarewearer]

Just a theoretical question really, today I had a 2 hour lecture on using contraception as a method on in-situ, non-lethal control of wild animal populations. The question came up about where the Catholic church would stand on this, and noone was able to answer it. So, in theory, is it yay or nay to artificial contraception of animals?

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[exnihilo]

In Catholicism, animals are not deemed to have souls, therefore nothing they do could imperil their soul. So I'd guess it's a yay - but then I'm not a Catholic.

Actually, thinking about it, that's no answer at all, because the animal isn't using them, we're administering them. Nevertheless, I'd imagine the answer would be that it's okay for us to so, because the animals were all given to us by God to do with as we please.

[macgamer]

I would have to agree with the above comment.

The reason why the Catholic Church is against contraception for humans is that it goes against God's purpose for the gift of sex, which is for procreation and an expression of love between and married man and woman. Contraception demeans this gift and it demeans the sanctity of Marriage.

[Pan]

Why don't animals have souls (according to Catholics)?

[hr]

"Last time you gave me a pie, I cut into it, and birds flew out of it, hitting me in the face and chin. I was confused. It was a trick pie"

[donkey]

Quoting Pan from 17:22, 22nd Nov 2005
Why don't animals have souls (according to Catholics)?

Man was made in the image of God, but raccoons weren't.

[DrAlex]

Surely if we say it's ok, then God agrees by Dogmatic law...what you hold true on Earth, so shall I in heaven and all that...

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting macgamer from 17:19, 22nd Nov 2005

Contraception demeans this gift and it demeans the sanctity of Marriage.

Does sticking it in her pooper?







Sorry;-)

[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[ezra]

The reason why the Catholic Church is against contraception for humans is that it goes against God's purpose for the gift of sex, which is for procreation and an expression of love between and married man and woman. Contraception demeans this gift and it demeans the sanctity of Marriage.

Ok, a couple of questions:

i. why did God, in his infinite wisdom, create us to be horny all the time - even when there's no possibility of conception? [i.e. surely it can't just be for procreation]
ii. why is the rhythm method - which also tries to prevent conception - allowed, and barrier methods not?
iii. which was invented first: sex or marriage? (put another way: people had been at it for years before they started getting married)

[Senethro]

Quoting Bitterandtwisted from 18:25, 22nd Nov 2005

Quoting macgamer from 17:19, 22nd Nov 2005

Contraception demeans this gift and it demeans the sanctity of Marriage.

Does sticking it in her pooper?

Is this the bit where I say gb2gbs?

[flarewearer]

Quoting ezra from 18:29, 22nd Nov 2005
i. why did God, in his infinite wisdom, create us to be horny all the time - even when there's no possibility of conception? [i.e. surely it can't just be for procreation]

The human male may be "horny all the time", but he would only would only 'make advances' to a female in season in our distant ancestor. The human female is only receptive and fertile for a small period in a monthly cycle. This is because humans are evolved from a social, polygamous animal that evolved in a stable environment; e.g some form of equatorial, forest dwelling hominid.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[ezra]

The human male may be "horny all the time", but he would only would only 'make advances' to a female in season in our distant ancestor.

Wrong. Chimps, for instance, mate even when it's impossible to conceive; they do it for fun, or for social purposes. I suppose it depends partly on how distant an ancester you are talking about.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting ezra from 19:03, 22nd Nov 2005

The human male may be "horny all the time", but he would only would only 'make advances' to a female in season in our distant ancestor.

Wrong. Chimps, for instance, mate even when it's impossible to conceive; they do it for fun, or for social purposes. I suppose it depends partly on how distant an ancester you are talking about.

Those bloody Bonobos! That was a wildlife documentary I did NOT need to watch in the same room as my granny.

[hr]

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do little.

[ezra]

come to think of it, what about marriage where one of the partners is sterile? in that case, procreation is impossible; but sex is surely permissible in that context? or maybe CRAZY DOGMATISTS WOULD HAVE TO DISALLOW IT.

sorry. i don't mean to offend. it's just a thought

[Jason Dunn]

Quoting ezra from 19:03, 22nd Nov 2005

The human male may be "horny all the time", but he would only would only 'make advances' to a female in season in our distant ancestor.

Wrong. Chimps, for instance, mate even when it's impossible to conceive; they do it for fun, or for social purposes. I suppose it depends partly on how distant an ancester you are talking about.

Chimps are not our ancestors.
However, chimps and humans are descended from the same ancestral stock, in which males may or may not have waited for females to go into oestrus. Current thinking is that the ancestral state was not for females to declare ovulation, as is currently the case, and as such it is probably correct to say that males have always been "horny all the time."

[Raindance]

OK, back to the original question!

I was brought up a Catholic although I'm proud to say I'm not one now. I was told ages ago that Pope JP2 said that animals did have souls although it might not be true.

The question of animal contraception is one of stewardship I think, (if you're Christian that is) i.e. as humans, we're the ones who should be looking after the world so if it's beneficial to keep animal populations down through any method, then so be it.

Amen

[hr]

Die Dulci Freure

[donkey]

Quoting ezra from 19:50, 22nd Nov 2005
CRAZY DOGMATISTS WOULD HAVE TO DISALLOW IT.

I hardly think Catholics can be called crazy dogmatists. They just think sex is a natural gift of God, not to be interfered with.

Anyway, certainly their beliefs aren't as crazy as thinking there are beings on each planet of the solar system, their intelligence proportional to their distance from the sun...

[flarewearer]

Quoting ezra from 19:03, 22nd Nov 2005

The human male may be "horny all the time", but he would only would only 'make advances' to a female in season in our distant ancestor.

Wrong. Chimps, for instance, mate even when it's impossible to conceive; they do it for fun, or for social purposes. I suppose it depends partly on how distant an ancester you are talking about.

Yes, as said above; Chimps are not our ancestors, although we do share a common ancestor. We therefore share the common ancestor that displays the sexual behaviour I outlined earlier in answer to your question. And a bonobo is one unusual, discrete subspecies of chimps that are the exception to the rule, the sexual behaviour exhibited here is a behavioural trait, and to anthropomorphise it into just shagging all the time for the sake of it would not be good zoology.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[ezra]

I hardly think Catholics can be called crazy dogmatists. They just think sex is a natural gift of God, not to be interfered with.

sounds like crazy dogma to me. the same kind of crazy dogma which says that it's better to contract HIV than to use a condom.

[donkey]

Quoting ezra from 20:11, 22nd Nov 2005

I hardly think Catholics can be called crazy dogmatists. They just think sex is a natural gift of God, not to be interfered with.

sounds like crazy dogma to me. the same kind of crazy dogma which says that it's better to contract HIV than to use a condom.

well, I think you know that that's not something they present as dogma, but is a consequence of dogma.

I might as well say that I think it's a crazy dogma that using credit cards is immoral (ala Blackburn's argument), when actually what I think is that it's a crazy dogma that rationality is the basis of ethical philosophy.

[macgamer]

Read Pope Paul VI's Encyclical "Humanae Vitae".

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_ ... ae_en.html