According to Deutsche Welle, "One year after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican, in a reversal of church doctrine, is prepared to allow the use of condoms to combat AIDS." Thank God!
The Vatican appears to be "leaking" this information in advance of the official announcement worse than the Bush administration with classified information. The logic behind the change appears twofold: One, if an innocent woman lives in a culture where she cannot refuse the advances of her HIV husband, she should not be forced to risk her life and to endanger the welfare of her children. Two, AIDS is a worldwide disaster and while the church cannot advocate condom usage, they can point out that causing the death of another is a worse sin than condom usage.
For those of us who are not Catholic, this change is a bare minimum. Having grown up in the Catholic church, though, I understand that this is a giant leap for them. Pope Bendict XVI dare not make much more change at one time, even if he were so inclined (which I doubt).
There will be problems for the Catholic Church, especially among the hard-liners in America. Condom failure rates have been exaggerated to the point where the quoted odds of contracting HIV with condom usage are an order of magnitude greater than without condom usage! There seems to be an approach among Christians to controlling teenage sexuality by equating sex with death. I keep trying to point out that when people find out they've been lied to, the results aren't good. One cannot serve the Truth by making common cause with the Father of Lies.
I guess to me, the issue of using condoms to prevent transmitting HIV is rather personal. Years ago, I was attacked by a confused HIV+ patient and severely exposed to the AIDS virus. Life was interesting enough without having to worry about theological questions like this.
I, for one, welcome the Catholic Church's change in their stance on using condoms to protect people from HIV. I wish the change would go further, but I'm also a realist.
And if the Vatican announcement comes out contradicting Cardinal Martini and other sources…well, let's all pray that doesn't happen.
If you’d like to get blogging Catholics’ responses to this issue, check out the St. Blog’s Parish Aggregator.
as i have been reading, they say the are considering “letting” condoms be used by “married” couples where one of the people have hiv/aids! oh, whoopie! yes, there’s compassion, there’s care. no, thanks, i was born and raised catholic, attended catholic scool til high school. they can keep there pronouncements. i have grown up and moved on, thankfully.
Sherry, do you have even the slightest clue why the Church forbids contraception? Did you bother to understand 2000 years of Church teaching before deciding that you knew better after a few measly decades of life? I’ll give you a hint. It’s not because the Church holds a dim view of sex. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. The Church has a very high view of the holiness of sex. For more details, I whole-heartedly recommend “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.
i was raised catholic, spent 8 years in catholic school , my husband spent 12, all the way through north catholic/ pre girls/ suit and tie/mass every morning, i was in jr high when vatican 2 came in, believe me, i know my catachism.
you are intitled to your opinion as i am mine, but to actually debate condom usage when your husband or wife has hiv is not only foolish, it’s deadly!
i have more than a clue, nor am i rude!
you, being a man,will never know what it is to have a child, nor will you ever have to risk health or life having one. yes, as a man and a father you understand your role, but for the catholic church or any church or faith to try to impose it’s beliefs on others via government programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies or diseases by insisting on abstinence alone is arrogant and wrong. perhaps you would like hindus or buddists or mormans or neopagans to dictate to you. i haven’t a problem with the catholic church telling it’s faithful what they see fit, but i do have a problem when it leeches it’s way into non catholic life.
hiv/aids didn’t stay where it first started out, even tho president reagan was convinced that it would(and obviously , wasn’t too concerned)and so it just kept on and on and on.
why should someone not infected chance infection because they are catholic? there are women around the world and here in our country that are not in a postion to deny their husbands.
yes, i tend to ramble, sorry about that, but perhaps, after you’ve lived a bit longer, you might see things less in black and white and realize that you do not have all the answers, neither does the pope, no matter how good a man. i don’t know which religion or if any is the right one and neither do you. that is why they call it “faith” you have faith, you “believe” but you do not know. we will know after death, til then, you believe, you might be wrong you know.
one last thing, you can address me by my name, as i use my real name and can be found via my blog, i stand by my convictions, you on the other hand, can lecture me about the church’s stance on the sacred nature of sex, which actully comes in part from the torah and the blessing of sex between married couples,(who now use birth control) especially on the sabbath(one of my friends from catholic school converted and became a jew,she is quite happy and i have been friends with her and her family for over 30 years now, we discuss many things)
you, are “funky dung!” as in ……!
use your real name.
Guys and Gals: Easy!
Sher — F.D.’s real name is well known, having been printed in the newspaper (along with a photograph of an alien about to erupt out of his chest while sitting next to a fat old guy) as well as in his blog.
Still, I permit pseudonyms here. If I had any sense, I’d be using one, but I obviously don’t. I don’t find the use of a pseudonym to be a valid argument against anyone. Is my last name anywhere on this blog? I forget.
I believe I only know you through your blog, but I also believe you are a good person. I know F.D. from meeting him and even some kind phone calls on his part. I may strongly disagree with him, but I know him to be a good person as well.
No one here’s a monster. Of course, tomorrow they pump me full of radioactive tracer — who knows what’s going to happen then? I’m hoping for flight or the ability to climb walls. In real life, the Hulk’s pants would fall off, even if he’s wearing Sansabelt trousers. I’d like to avoid that, if I can.
F.D.: It’s only been 1980 years, technically, give or take a couple. Jesus was born ~6 B.C., there’s no year zero, and His death and resurrection happened 33 years later, more or less. Strangely, you claim that nearly 2000 year history and then refuse to acknowledge the apostolic calling of the first person Christ appointed to preach the Good News — the Apostle to the Apostles, as the early church fathers said. The church was only hours — maybe minutes old! I think the claim to history loses all credibility at that point.
You realize that the canonical example we’re discussing — an innocent wife unable to refuse the advances of her HIV+ husband — is rape. I’m not sure how practical getting these bastards to wear condoms would be — if they would wear condoms, they wouldn’t be HIV+. But if a wife can get her rapist husband to accept a condom, or permit her to use a female condom, she should as a matter of self defense.
I’ve made no secrets of my own position on the matter, and in this case we’re talking very practical experience.
What advice would the Catholic Church give to a garden variety rapist? Obviously, they would try to dissuade him from rape. But they’d also tell him to not use a condom if he does rape someone!
For years, the Roman Catholic church treated rape as less sinful than masturbation (see Augustine and required penances in the Middle Ages). I know people who have been raped because of that — they needed release, and they took the “less sinful” way out. That’s why I’m not thrilled with the use of the “lesser sin” argument in the current discussion.
Sure, the Catholic Church calls sex holy, but then they get very, very weird. I honestly believe they lost any claim to authority they might have had. They need to earn that authority back, and so far they’re nowhere near doing it.
The Chruch’s position on condoms to be dangerous and destructive. I’m trying to talk myself out of calling it “evil,” but I don’t know how successful I’ll be.
oh, i’m not losing my temper, i’m just saying i know the church’s position on sex and birth control and i disagree. i’m not coming at this from say, a space alien’s view of the catholic church.
funky dung can rejoice in his sacred sex and i’m happy for him. he’s entitled to his views, (i hold the act in very high regard as well)but when the catholic church and other christian sects push their views on others, via gov programs and funding or push their views onto the “faithful” making their lives hard or intolerable, that is just cruel.i suppose technically, it’s rape if a man is so overbearing and hard to live with that the wife just gives in, tho many women just don’t see it as such, they see it as just the wiser course of action versus… as opposed to the knuckle dragging husband that comes home and beats up his wife first, both are rape, but the former goes on more than one might think. i’m 54 years old and i have met a lot of people in my life time and bad behavior and bad marriages come in all socioeconomics/races and creeds.
the fact that reagan let the aids epidemic get the foothold that it has through what i feel was blatant ignorance and prejudice just upsets me, coupled with the epidemic in africa and our insistance on tippytoeing round condoms and birth control due to faith based lobbies is forcing ones religious views on people and killing a lot of them in the bargin.
i am guessing funky dung is quite a bit younger than i am, but i can recall quite well when i was young hearing the old”wages of sin is death…” crap. yeah, well, i don’t think people deserve to die because they do not subscribe to the majority faith OR because they made a mistake or because they got a bad blood transfusion before the testing was mandated etc. nor do i think a scared frightened girl, not one, ever again, should die due to a back alley butcher, would abstinence be the best way, you betcha, but death or disease or an unwanted pregnancy shouldn’t be the result of someone’s “moment of weakness” if you will.
if one doesn’t believe in condoms or birth control or what have you, fine, i’m all for their freedom to follow their belief and faith in thier home, in their church, but don’t force it on the rest of the world. if you want to lead, lead by example, not by fear of hell.
so, in all respect, and in no way, any anger, i just thought i’d reply, say where i’m coming from. and yes, i can understand not using real names, but if one is going to delve into such personal topics, of such importance than i feel the use of your given name is only right. : )
Dear Sherry,
I’m not sure I follow you.
You say that ‘Reagan let the AIDS epidemic get the foothold’. This is a pretty sweeping statement, especially considering that Reagan didn’t have AIDS as far as I know.
You say that ‘it’s just cruel’ when the ‘Catholic Church and other Christian sects push their views on others via government programs or fundings’. This is just a weak accusation. I guess nobody’s views are being pushed through school distribution of condoms and referrals to abortion clinics. We need to stop bickering about who’s pushing whose views on whom, and start talking about what is a proper view. I’m not advocating a theocracy here, but it seems naturally human to me that abstinence is a lot more effect than condoms for preventing the spread of STD’s (not to mention the emotional, psychological, sociological, and other effects that reverberate from sexual promiscuity).
EV,
What Sherry means by “Reagan let the AIDS epidemic get a foothold” is that his medical advisers were telling him the public had to be warned about the disease, transmission routes, and how to avoid it — including condoms. Eventually C. Everett Koop, with Reagan’s reluctant permission, sent out a message to every house in the United States. By then, though, the disease had made great inroads in the United States.
Statistically, we know that abstinence does not work as well as condoms. The failure rate is higher. Children who take an abstinence pledge will delay sexual intercourse, but those that do wind up breaking that pledge are less likely to have planned for it, thought it through, do not use condoms and wind up with a higher overall rate of STDs. Kids that are taught everything, including contraceptive usage, delay intercourse even longer and, when they finally do have sex, are more likely to have talked with their partner about STDs and use condoms and are less likely to wind up with STDs.
Condoms do work better than abstinence. As a Christian, that bothers me, but I also tend to be very practical — the old “Hammer Time” theology. (Where is that “make chocolate unleven with a hammer post? I can’t find it.)
Current abstinence education does not work any more than the D.A.R.E. program prevents drug use. It just makes parents think the problem’s gone away.
thank you rob, you put it better than i ever could. what you say is the truth, but if someone chooses to teach abstinence only to their children or decide on it for themselves, that is their right. i only argue that making policies via one’s religious beliefs can have some very bad outcomes. of course i never meant that reagan had aids, or that he somehow spread it personally, even koop has admitted recently that he feels guilt over waiting so long to warn the public about aids and to point out that 1. it was not just a gay or iv drug users disease (and there were plenty of people around at the time that were callous enought to say, so what, they deserve it)and 2. communicable diseases do not stay in one area or one group.
now they have come up with a vaccine for hpv which is the main, from what i’ve been hearing, cause of cervical cancer, but there are some groups out there that do not want it included in the vaccination package because it might promote promiscuity by taking away a risk factor(i kid you not!) that’s the old”wages of sin” mentality. that isn’t christian that i can see, in any way, shape or form.
as i say, i respect any religion and anyone’s right to practice it as long as they hurt no one. most major faiths have the same basic tenents in slightly different words and it all comes down to do unto others…
i have friends of many different faiths and some that have none at all. that is their right and in the end, we will each of us find out the truth of it. til then, we all share the same world. we need to give each other the respect we deserve. would you want someone else to impose their ideas of what their god sees as proper? isn’t that what the taliban does ?
as i say, you don’t want to use a condom, fine, don’t restrict the sale or the distribution for others.
Dear Rob & Sherry,
Thank you for some of that background–I wasn’t as familiar with the history. I still think it’s a bit of a stretch to somehow lay the US AIDS epidemic on the man Ronald Reagan. As if those who engaged in sex etc. don’t have a significant culpability for their actions. To me it seems somewhat like saying, “the government didn’t tell me using cocaine could be potentially harmful, and now I have brain damage and it’s their fault.”
But more to the point at hand, I hear the “compassion” argument that condoms should be distributed so that disease doesn’t spread. But it sorta rings as a false compassion–if you truly care for someone, you don’t assist them in pursuing immorality. That only further damages them. You tell them the truth about immorality and support them in making right decisions. It’s almost like giving a teen a condom is like saying, “you shouldn’t steal from others, but if you’re going to do it, here’s how not to get caught” or “you shouldn’t lie in the courtroom, but here’s a way to cover your tracks”. As a Christian, somehow I don’t see the one who said ‘If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery with her in his heart’, also saying, ‘but if you’re going to have sex with her anyway, at least use a condom to protect yourself.’
And as far as the Vatican so-called “reversing its position on condoms”, my guess is that we will not see a change in the moral stance of the Church (mostly because morality doesn’t change over time). The argument suggested seems to be an “ends justifying the means” approach, which isn’t very solid morally. I’ll wait to hear the official word.
EV –
I lived through the history. I did not blame the entire epidemic on Ronald Reagan, but I did point out that it is far greater than it would have been. I suspect you are a Christian — if so, then you should know that if a watchman announces an attack by an enemy and the people refuse to respond, it is the people’s fault. If the watchman fails to call out a warning, the guilt falls on the watchman. Reagan prevented the watchman from calling out a warning.
By your other argument, your air bags should not go off if you are speeding in your car. Your doctor should not treat you for heart disease. We accept precautions to minimize the dangers other sins, but then turn around and when it has to do with sex, we get all weird.
The Roman Catholic church’s stance on birth control is not one I accept. I’m even far less likely to accept its stance on condoms.
Tell me what you would have the woman who is being raped by her HIV+ husband do — would you at least let her try to talk him into wearing a condom? Or do you let her die and let what typically happens to her children happen?
You might want to read my “Deb” series. Among other things you will learn is that, because of the damage Ronald Reagan and his ideological crew did, I came close to contracting HIV. I was abandoned by my church — and trust me, at the time, your church would have been no different. To protect my wife and my marriage, we used condoms (and some other things the Roman Catholic church frowns on). To you, this is all theoretical. To me, it’s a part of my life.
you wrote:
if you truly care for someone, you don’t assist them in pursuing immorality. That only further damages them. You tell them the truth about immorality and support them in making right decisions. It’s almost like giving a teen a condom is like saying, “you shouldn’t steal from others, but if you’re going to do it, here’s how not to get caught” or “you shouldn’t lie in the courtroom, but here’s a way to cover your tracks”. As a Christian, somehow I don’t see the one who said ‘If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery with her in his heart’, also saying, ‘but if you’re going to have sex with her anyway, at least use a condom to protect yourself.’
that’s not true, you know it. yes, you teach you child what is right and what is wrong. you hope that they will not make mistakes, but a wise parent realizes that yes, they probably will make some mistakes in life, just as we all still do, even as adults. that is why you explain about disease and condoms etc. truthfully. the price of a youthful mistake should not be disease or death. to say that it should be, makes us no better that those that would bury a sinner up to their shoulders and then stone them to death. pain and death is the result no matter. not giving kids info is like throwing a stone. yes, it’s that ugly because there are diseases out there that are THAT ugly and death is death. think about losing your child, think about if you could have prevented their death.
no, i’m not saying to hand out condoms with a wink and a nod. i’m saying explain everything, honestly, pros and cons, morally and socially, explain the life altering consequences of bad dicissions without making into an all or nothing argument. if you choose to not talk with your child, to just say, “because the church says so”, or that” virginity is a gift for your wedding night” fine, it’s your right as a parent, but if i send my kid to public school and i have a different view of sexuality, i want that school (in the appropriate class) to give my child the medical facts, all of them. i want her or him to know everything that is up to date in disease prevention and contraception and in sexual health, when to have your first gyn visit, facts on testicular cancer(i know a kid that got it when he was 20 so it can happen)
i’ll take care of my child’s religious training and morals. i want public school to teach facts, plus a little on how to treat your fellow man would be nice, given that list business in the news. how to act in a kindly mammer, how put yourself in another’s shoes,that might be nice, but truly, i can teach that at home, evidently, either no one taught their kids that or that old bugaboo “peer pressure” came into play. i may be older, but i can still recall wanting so badly to fit in somewhere, be a part of some group back then. all those kids have is their reality, their experiences in what? 15 /17 years. that’s not a lot of life time for most to really make a wise choice at all times. what do they have to compare with? they haven’t lived through enough to have things to compare with.
anyway, as i say, you want to follow catholic teaching on the subject, or some christian teachings that is your right, this is america, thabkfully. i just don’t want religious policy dictating federal health issues.
I did not state nor imply that the Church should dictate government policy. That said, Catholics are among the governed, from whom democratic republics derive their power, so Catholics have a right (and civic duty) to influence government policy by voting and running for office.
As for the Church thinking about changing its position, people within and without the Church are rather confused on the matter. This is not the same as the 1930 Anglican decision to allow condom use in marriage. That decision denied the procreative aspect of the marital act. If the Church OKs condoms for those married individuals infected with HIV, it will be because the law of “double effect” applies. The intention is not to render intercourse infertile, but to prevent the spread of a terminal illness. Contrary to news reports and gleeful press releases from heretical groups like Catholics for Free Choice, the Church has no intention whatsoever of changing the core of her sexual moral teachings.
Thank you Dan Brown.
Seriously, though, apostle means “one who is sent”. That is not the same as episcopos (overseer/bishop) or presbyteros (elder/priest). Those who are sent are apostles, but not all apostles are bishops or priests. Jesus dissolved the Levitical priesthood, which was based on familial lineage, and replaced it with the apostolic priesthood, which is based on the laying on of hands. I do not know why the Lord chose to only have men in the Twelve, but he did. With them he instituted the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal that replaced all other sacrifices, and to them he gave the power to bind and loose sins.
Anyhow, for a fuller explanation of how I feel the Church should/will adapt to the modern world, read this post.
and that is fine by me, truly, i am all for religious freedom. you can believe what you choose, or believe nothing at all. i do however take a very dim view of tying religious views onto health and reproductive issues for everyone else, including 3rd world countries that are in crisis with aids and starvation issues.
just as a few years ago, tho i disagreed with the church when they refused to marry a man and a woman in south america because he is a parapalegic and can not function normally, i feel it was well within their teachings to deny the sacrament of marriage, and the couple married in a civil ceremony, but it hurt them and especially his aging very devout mother.
i am not about to tear down the catholic church or any other. no one is forcing anyone to belong to any faith. just don’t try to dictate specific tenents on the rest of the world or the rest of us here.
as i said, if you feel the need, teach by example.
Dear Rob,
I agree that if Reagan had knowledge of the spread of AIDS, consciously withheld that from the public, thereby contributing to the spread, he does share some culpability. What I do not agree about is that failing to promote a campaign of condoms somehow increases the gravity.
No, I am not arguing that airbags shouldn’t function for speeders, or a doctor shouldn’t treat a glutton for heart disease. It’s a natural reaction when we sin to want to cover our tracks and hedge against consequences. But it’s a little different helping someone who has fallen, and helping someone fall.
Dear Sherry,
This sounds good, but I’d rather not have the school educate my child in the how-to’s of immorality. Yes, having them teach about the affects of alcoholism is one thing, but instructing them in how to use a bong is quite another. Similarly, teaching them about the affects of AIDS is one thing, but instructing them in how to use a condom is quite another.
I’ve never known a holy person to assist a friend down the path of sin.
This is such an ironic statement which brings me back to an earlier point. Who is dictating whose tenents on whom here? For the sake of illustration, ‘Don’t try to dictate your beliefs that condom usage should be promoted on the rest of us. If you feel the need, teach by example.’ This just basically devolves into a pointing match. Let’s talk about the issues.
EV,
We are not a Catholic country. Reagan had the duty to ensure everyone knew all the ways to stop HIV. That was his duty. Just because your religion believes condoms are evil does not mean they are believed to be by everyone.
Again, I ask:
Tell me what you would have the woman who is being raped by her HIV+ husband do — would you at least let her try to talk him into wearing a condom? Or do you let her die and let what typically happens to her children happen?
you wrote:
“No, I am not arguing that airbags shouldn’t function for speeders, or a doctor shouldn’t treat a glutton for heart disease. It’s a natural reaction when we sin to want to cover our tracks and hedge against consequences. But it’s a little different helping someone who has fallen, and helping someone fall.”
there’s a big difference between “covering your tracks” and dying because of a mistake or even as you view it “a sin”. that’s where the churches “hate the sin/love the sinner” little saying is shown to be nothing but lip service to many people. you don’t condemn a person to death for having been tempted into premarital sex, or driving over the speed limit, let alone the others in the car that are not the one driving, some of which my be children. this is not a catholic country, nor is it a christian one, for which you should be glad, if it were, then it follows that if at some future date, the majority in this country becaome muslim or another faith, well, then you will be in a muslim country because the precident for a theocracy will have been set. even if we were to declare ourselves christian, still, face it there are many christian sects that do not get along except when banding together for a specific ,usually political reason.
when my daughter was in about 6th grade, i guess, she’s 33 now. our pastor had to send home a warning in the sunday bulletin about jimmy swaggert. i was waiting for that because i had chanced upon his show while channel surfing and was so appaled i watched the whole show and continued to tune in just to see how long he could go with the catholic bashing.
he went pretty far for pretty long, never did stop, the sex scandal did him in, not the hate speech and lies.
he had a guy on these panel discussions every week who claimed to have been catholic. they would go on and on about the catholic church being a pagan church that worshiped the goddess astarte while pretending to the outside world she was really the virgin mary, blah, blah and worse!
no one stopped him, no one could, because he was too powerful and he was considered a rightous man, a christian! by the way, he is back on the air, but i can’t stomach to even stop for a moment and listen. getting too old.
anyway, do not think that this country if declared, especially nowdays, to be christian, that you would not find yourself, me too for that matter, in a sort of irish troubles situation at best.
i still say, to get back, giving kids info on heath issues is NOT helping them sin. i have 1 child, i wouldn’t put her in harm’s way by being smug enough to think that she would “never” make a single mistake! better she would at least know how to try to protect herself than use nothing at all!
and i’ll give you a little insight into a teenage girl’s thought processes, it was this way years ago and from the kids i’ve spoken with, it still is. girls that think sex is terribly sinful, will often, especially if they haven’t had sex as a health issues class, “let themselves get carried away” by “love” and then confessing afterwards. it is all romantic silliness and it shouldn’t lead to sickness or death, unless you are one of those” wages or sin is death” kinda people.
in which case, i have nothing more to say to you, only that i hope you never have to watch someone die or bury a child.
i hope for your part, that things always go well in your life because you seem a harsh person, in the guise of a religious one.
the government, with regard to condom usage would not be dictating a religious tenent, only recommending a way to cut the odds on speading disease .THAT is their job, the catholic church in forbidding condom usage or artificial birth control to thier members are stating their tenents to their members, fine, but that shouldn’t be a public health policy, it is a religious doctrine.
you can tap dance with words all you want but you and i both know it is doctrine of the catholic church, it isn’t even a given for all christian sects.
issues? there shouldn’t be any. the catholic church, indeed any faith, should tend to it’s faithful and not to goverment health issues that end up affecting people globally in the long run. how’d you like to have been the mothers or fathers, a few years ago, before the blood sceening was better, whose hemopheliac sons died from aids. they never sinned. were they “collateral damage’??
i pray, honestly, that you are never confronted with any terrible event that came about due to someone else’s convictions and have them smugly parrot some other faith’s beliefs at you. we’ve already seen what that can bring.
me, i will believe how i believe and i will defend your right to practice your faith, but i don’t want any faith to cause harm. the church’s idea that not telling kids the ways to protect themselves as well as they can barring abstinence, will stop them from “sinning” well, that’s your business but don’t try to stop my or any other “public” school from full health classes or from having clinics in poor areas, high disease areas or anywhere in any country from teaching sex ed and birth control. that’s forcing your specific religious beliefs. you know it, i know it.
Dear Rob & Sherry,
I’m not advocating a Catholic theocracy. Religious freedom is a part of Catholic teaching (unlike Islam, to my knowledge). I guess my points are thus:
1) I am undecided in the moral implications of condom usage in the scenario of an HIV husband raping his wife. My analysis goes something like this: a) condom usage is a contradiction of the sexual act, b) fornication and rape are a contradiction of the sexual act, c) so using a condom during either doesn’t somehow make either moral. I’m interested to hear how the issue is addressed in the document cited in your post.
2) You can’t discount an argument just because it corresponds to a religious belief. For example, murder is considered immoral in Catholic belief, but that doesn’t mean it’s somehow disqualified from being made civil law. Yes, certain things are a matter of faith and to make them law would contradict religious freedom (e.g. a civil law requiring Mass attendance would be ridiculous). But certain other things are a matter of natural law and common sense, and they are worthy of inclusion in the civil law.
3) According to your comments, I am apparently a ‘harsh person’ who lives in the ‘theoretical’ for opposing condom usage. However, I ache for the individuals who are deceived into believing that using a condom somehow protects them against the consequences of fornication. This teaching disorders priorities, elevating disease prevention above human dignity. When will we tell people the truth?
I appreciate your willingness to engage me in discussion, and though it may not be apparent, your thoughts have helped me to understand the issues better. I think we may have reached the end of fruitful exchange, and are just restating our positions, but I will read any replies you post, though I may not comment in return.
Thank you both, and God bless.
My analysis goes something like this: a) condom usage is a contradiction of the sexual act, b) fornication and rape are a contradiction of the sexual act, c) so using a condom during either doesn’t somehow make either moral.
As it stands with the Catholic church, the woman cannot ask her husband to use a condom. She must accept being infected and dying. This is illogical, cruel, and morally wrong. She has the right to self-defense.
In many places in the world, the Roman Catholic church is powerful enough that they are essentially in control. Even in this country, Catholics are attempting to get stores to ban the sale of condoms, as well as “morning-after” pills. Plan B is not an abortificent, but because it is birth control, Catholics are attempting to make it unavailable, even to non-Catholics.
about condoms, no i realize and sex ed teaches that condom usage is not 100% effective as either birth control or as disease prevention, but it is better than nothing at all.
yes, murder is a civil crime, but then, not everyone considers the prevention of a sperm fertilizing an egg as somehow thumbing their nose at GOD nor do i believe that GOD could render that specific condom defective if GOD truly wanted someone to be pregnant. GOD is certainly mighter than a condom. i’m not being a smart alec here, i believe that GOD is perfectly capable of doing anything GOD wants, at anytime, always was, always will be.
GOD does not need anyone to stop condom sales at drug stores or morning after pills! that is a religious belief being pushed on others.
me, i think GOD doesn’t need mormons banging on my door either, or witnesses, or the knights of columbus(yeah i know they don’t, just making a point)GOD doesn’t need protestants and catholics blowing each other up in ireland and england, GOD, i think i can safely say, doesn’t want car bombs or suicide bombers or hijackers either!
frankly, GOD loves us, but doesn’t need us. we need GOD.
you can read all the bible passages you want, for every one you find and interpert your way, someone can find one to contradict it.
i get the feeling that, it was meant to be that way. that is why “faith” and “belief” are what they are.
i have studied a lot of the worlds religions, odd how most of them have the same basic tenents, just in slightly different languge. most of them also call for peace and understanding and a tolerence for other faiths. 1 thing most all of them have in common is some form of “the golden rule”
but somehow, we being the type of creation that we are, we always have to insist on our way or else through out the ages, because of greed, or ambition, or ego, rarely only out of a sincere belief that we are “bringing people into the light” so to speak. we take our faults and use the holy books of the world as an excuse to bring grief to each other. that’s our failing, not GOD’S.
so fine, you believe as you will but keep it out of the bedrooms and private lives of those not of your faith.how does it go? “be in the world but not of it?”
me, i’m done now, i just wanted to say my piece, i did not think i’d change anyone’s mind, nor, has anyone changed mine.
i hope you have a blessed life and that you never have to make a moral/religiously based choice that you regret later.
i also hope that perhaps you find that as i said, letting your life be an example instead of trying to legislate doctrine with comparisions of laws against murder to attendance at mass is the wiser, but harder choice.
I really wish you’d stop saying that. The jury’s still out on that. If you repeatedly say its not abortifacient, it won’t magically be so anymore than it’d magically be incontrovertably abortifacient if I repeatedly said it was. There’s credible research on both sides, so for either to be dismissed because it is inconvenient to one’s argument is dishonest.
FD:
None of the experiments have shown it to be an abortificient. The biochemistry indicates that it should not be. The idea that it might be started back when they didn’t understand how birth control worked.
On what basis can anyone claim it is an abortificient? It “might” cause an abortion once in an absurd number of times, somewhere in the statistical margins? Using that same basis, do you realize what all would have to be banned for all women? It’s absurd.
I stick by my statement.
UPDATE: Looks like official word is out–as expected there is no reversal on the Catholic Church’s teaching on condoms.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6641
If this is correct, then the Roman Catholic church will add to a great evil. Shame on them.
Uh, no. The Catholic Church does not add to a great evil by promoting chastity and fidelity rather than the aparatus of sin. She proclaims the truth to humanity, even when humanity does not want to hear it. She tells them that the ends do not justify the means; that you cannot do evil that good may result. Why is there such a disorder of priorities? Is not the eternal soul more important than the body (cf. Mt 5:27-30)? Why then are we so willing to sin against God in the name of health?
And Rob, you asked earlier what I would suggest in the scenario of a HIV infected husband raping his wife. I would suggest chastity and fidelity. If I had an opportunity to influence someone in those circumstances, it would be to bring this truth, not to hand them a condom. How can our actions be inconsistent with our words? (”You shouldn’t do this, but here’s what you’ll need to get it done”).
There was a point in the past couple years where I wondered if I would eventually wind up becoming Catholic. The church was the only church for so long that one has to wonder if God would permit such egrigious error to continue.
In reading the monstrosity that you and your church would perpetrate upon the women (and children) in this position, the question has changed significantly.
I now find myself wondering if Christianity itself is false. In my heart, that is the new battleground.
It is worth noting that because of the principle of double effect, condom use can be licit for the spouses of HIV-infected individuals, without the Church needing to change a single teaching. In fact, that’s the main point to be drawn from all this hubbub. The majority of those clamoring for a change in the Church’s teachings regarding contraception are selfishly using the HIV/AIDS issue as a way to sneak cacodoxy through through the back door. This isn’t about helping or saving people; it’s about people who can’t comprehend being “in the world, but not of it”.
F.D.,
Check the link to the Catholic News Agency article. They are saying that double effect does not work in this case, that any form of contraception is intrinsically evil.
“The cardinal told RCN that the Vatican ‘maintains unmodified the teaching on condoms’ and said the recent statements by Italian Cardinal Maria Martini ‘are nothing more than his own personal opinions which do not reflect [Church] teaching.’”
So we have one cardinal’s word against another. I’ll continue to wait for the official document on the matter.
[...] UnSpace - (But Chloe Still Rules!) » Will the Catholic Church Ease the Stance on Condoms? “According to Deutsche Welle, ‘One year after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican, in a reversal of church doctrine, is prepared to allow the use of condoms to combat AIDS.’ Thank God!” (tags: Catholic Christianity contraception condom sex) [...]