Does the Vatican recommend that condoms be used ...

[Boojatta]

if there is any question about the sexual orientation of at least one of the parties involved in sex?

Surely the Vatican knows that there have been cases of a woman leaving her husband and replacing him with another woman. If the couple has at least one child, then does the Vatican want laws around the world to mandate that the woman loses custody of her child or children, and that her ex-husband gains custody?

It sounds like a situation that the Vatican would prefer to avoid thinking about. However, the only way to avoid it is by preventing it from arising. Condoms prevent conception.

[HockeyMom]

1. What if the ex doesn't want the kids?

I know of 4 instances where the ex didn't want the kids. The fathers were still young, remarried, and had another family. Of course the CC wouldn't recognize any of this to begin with. No divorce and remarriage.

Maybe the Vactican would prefer these kids to be put up for adoption instead of living with either of their "sinning' parents.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Turned over to the tender mercies

and gentle grooming of the priests.

[intaglio]

3. Firstly "woman gets custody" is noly a fairly recent contruct

and it seems to be prevalent primarily in 1st World countries. Even into the beginning of this century (21st) Spain, Portugal and Italy had a presumption of paternal custody.

Secondly divorce is not acknowledged by the Vatican for Catholic sanctified marriages unless the Papacy gives its approval. Technically a Catholic who has a civil divorce cannot remarry in a church and the Church does not recognise those marriages that occur outside of the Church. Catholic divorces (anullments) are rare as hens teeth, ask Henry VIII. Note; the Newtster is a special case because he had to convert to Catholicism before he could marry Callista, his prior marriages, not being Catholic sanctified, were not marriages in the eyes of the Church.

Third, any form of contraception is a no-no. I believe that if an HIV positive person marries one who is clear then condoms with holes in are allowed for, of course, there must always be the chance of conception with every sexual act; the fact that the holes rather ruin the functionality of the condom for disease prevention is ignored.

I think the phrase that best describes this is "Straining out gnats and swallowing camels"

[Moonwalk]

4. You seem to be trying to get logic out of an institution that relies on the supernatural....

What happens is god's will. So, no. No use of condoms. If kids happen, then god wanted them. And, presumably, such children live with their fathers or in orphanages or foster homes rather than stay with mothers who are going against god's will.

[Boojatta]

5. Can you demonstrate that logic and the supernatural are incompatible?

There is theological writing about the difference between a God who intervenes versus a God who created the universe and its laws and allows it to function without any subsequent intervention from God. However, I've never heard of any that takes every instance of human reproduction as involving intervention from God.

It sounds as though you are writing a parody of, rather than a description of, the Vatican's stance.

[Moonwalk]

8. Since you asked, here's a quick demonstration....

...if you get sick, logic says you do whatever has been reliably demonstrated to make you better like taking certain medicines. The supernatural says you do whatever you think will make you better even if it hasn't been proven to help, EVEN if it has been proven to be detrimental, like not getting a blood transfusion, or not getting medicine to stop the poison of a snake bite. I think that pretty much shows that the two are typically incompatible. Logic and the supernatural rarely go together, ultimately, because the supernatural relies on a logical fallacy: post hoc ergo proper hoc. "After this, therefore because of this." So, if you pray for rain and it rains, the supernatural says that praying brings rain--even if it never happens again.

Most things based on logical fallacies are at odds with logic, yes?

Regarding your other point about deist theologies that speak of a god who doesn't interfere...why bring those up at all? I mean, Catholicism is at the opposite pole isn't it? This is a religion based on holy writings all about god's intervention to the point where he comes to earth, is born and crucified. It's a religion with scores of saints who present evidence of divine intervention with their miracles, and a religion that says that it's priests and holy men are intermediaries between the congregation and god. This doesn't sound to me like a religion that thinks god left after creating the universe and isn't coming back any time soon.

So if that god is always around, always listening, hearing prayers, answering them, caring about what people do, making certain events occur, and disapproving--even punishing those who go against his tenants...why should you be mystified if this religion advocates intervention in all aspects of people's lives, even their private lives?

[Thats my opinion]

6. The best way to lessen abortions is the use of condoms. The Vatican ought o discovder that fact

if they really want to control abortions.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. consistently no to contraception in any form other than 'rhythm'.

No condoms for any sex that can result in pregnancy.

[Heddi]

9. I'm really glad you were banned

thank God (ha ha) we don't have to deal with your nonsensical, bigoted, hateful "exercises in logic" anymore.