> The ability of the human body to express truth through the sexual union of married couples is acclaimed. The moral wrongness of using artificial means to manipulate such a significant aspect of the created body is explained.

Please take a moment to reflect how much damage this type of thinking has done in the world.

This book isn't just useless and misguided, it's positively evil.

Without having read the book or arguing for one side or the other, I have to point out that you aren't attempting to meet with the argument or even attack the premises. Instead, you're looking at the conclusion and declaring that, in effect, it is immoral to even argue for that position. This is dogmatism; this is wrong; this is antithetical to sound and rational behavior (to be clear, "this" is your argument, not his!). In short, you /might/ even say that what you've just done is... evil.

"The abillity .... is acclaimed". Is it? A claim to backup a claim. (Or is that acclaim to backup a claim.)

Just out of curiosity what damage ?

Death.

> It follows that many of those who died from AIDS would still be alive today had the Catholic Church abandoned its condom ban in the 1980s, as it became clear that condoms were (and still are) the most effective practical measure to prevent the spread of the disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

Also forbidding sane family planning and the prevention of unwanted offspring, where lack of necessary resources causes even more disease and more death.

People undeterred by the catholic church's prohibition on sex outside marriage are unlikely to be reluctant to wear condoms because of doctrinal concerns, I'd have thought.

Theoretically, yes, but sadly the reality isn't quite like that. Passion/desire often trumps doctrine, and doing something that one thinks one shouldn't do can have all sorts of nasty consequences, ranging from teen pregnancy to untreated STD's.

Having been an Evangelical Christian and 'assistant teen pastor' in a previous life, I've seen this in action in many different areas of life. People constantly did things they believed were wrong, and the combination of not being prepared or informed about those things and feeling ashamed about it afterwards led to a lot of suffering.

This doesn't really seem relevant to a modern view of the world.

Really? Lectures given a mere 30 years ago are now irrelevant? You make me feel old.

They were irrelevant even 30 years ago. Unfortunately their impact isn't.

They were from the leader of one of the largest religions of the world–which still represents roughly 17% of the world population. I'd say they are still relevant and part of what Numberwang refers to as a "modern view of the world".

BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the content of those lectures. Only that dismissing them because you think the modern world doesn't hold those views is silly. And, yes, I'm aware that more recent pontiffs have expressed different views.

just to know what are this different views by more recent pontiffs.

I'm aware that some people think they're relevant (and that fact is relevant), I'm just pointing out that the teachings themselves are not.

You seem to be confusing "relevant" with "correct".

The teachings are most definitely relevant, if for no other reason than that perhaps a billion people worldwide consider the teacher to be directly important to them.

Being outdated is about content, not publication date.

I haven't read any of that, but isn't the pope commenting on sexuality a bit like a bedouin commenting on marine biology?

believe it or not but you do not to have direct experience to be able to produce judgment. In fact researcher should have distance from the subject he/she is investigating.