Africa.

[Ilroy]

I just look at the Roman Catholicism section on the bbc website, and it lists the following:

’But the Church does not condemn things like the pill or condoms in themselves. What is morally wrong is using such things with the intention of preventing conception. Using them for other purposes is fine - for example, using the pill to regulate the periods of a woman who is not in a sexual relationship is not wrong.
The Church teaches that using artificial contraception is wrong because:

it is against ‘natural law’
it breaks the natural connection between the procreative and the unitive purposes of sex
it turns sex into a non-marital act
it gives human beings the power to decide when a new life should begin - that power belongs to God
it leads to widespread immorality
it damages the institution of marriage
it reduces male respect for women
it gives human beings the idea that they can have complete power over the body’

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_5.shtml

So why wouldn’t using condoms in a country like Africa, with a HIV epidemic, be okay? Women/Men in Africa would not want to use condoms so that they could prevent having children, they would want to stop the spread of HIV. From what I have read (listed above), it would be not be a problem.

Look at the underlined part above…that’s the key to your quote. Putting on a condom if you are not having sex is perfectly fine. It’s when you have sex with a condom on that you are using it as artificial birth control, even if it is primarily being used to help prevent hiv.

 

[BSHoop96]

My problem is people identifying themselves as Catholics in their profile and then asking very unCatholic or naive questions in order to ensnare credulous Catholics who are either lurking or posting.As a Catholic you should not have to be told extremely elementary things about your faith.As a Catholic you have a duty and responsibility to know these things or become knowledgeable.I suggest that you start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church or at least the compendium.
Again, I ask the question which I have been asking all afternoon-ARE you a baptised PRACTISING Catholic or not?If so my apologies but Holy Moley do you need some Catachesis!If you are NOT a Catholic please change your profile.The problem is some anti-Catholics post here as “Catholics” in order to question the faith and perhaps draw other weak, credulous and naive Catholics away from the True Faith of Catholicism and I RESENT deceit and underhandedness.Surely if you are a Catholic you can understand my concern.Over to you.

This is unfair. The way she worded the first post making it sound like the Church “wanted to spread HIV/AIDS” I believe was unintentional. I say this from reading her later posts. Apart from that what has she said that makes you doubt her so? She isn’t slamming the Church. She’s questioning. She didn’t say she uses birth control personally. For questioning this you accuse her of needing to learn more about her faith and trying to weaken the faith of others. Good grief. This is a place to discuss. She’s hasn’t been disrespectful. She hasn’t been hostile unless I missed it.

I’m Catholic. That doesn’t mean I can’t wonder about the wisdom of this in Africa. It doesn’t make me a bad Catholic. It makes me struggling to understand. Geez…give people a break.

 

[Soutane]

I have been baptised, and have had Confirmation. I am not a poser. I am asking a legitimate question here. This forum is not just for know-it-alls. I hope that doesn’t sound rude! People post here, because they don’t know something and they want to know the answer. Just like me. Tell me one question that I have posted that is…wrong? I am doing Bible study, I sometimes have valid questions, regarding the Bible, things I read online etc. I should be able to ask without accusations being thrown at me that I’m somehow doing something wrong, or being fake!

Well I guess I’m batting 1000 here.I accept what you are telling me-that your are a practising Catholic and therefore offer my humblest apologies.You are not a poseur but others have for the reasons I mentioned in my last post.Again,I am sorry and do hope that you’ll forgive me.

 

[Soutane]

This is unfair. The way she worded the first post making it sound like the Church “wanted to spread HIV/AIDS” I believe was unintentional. I say this from reading her later posts. Apart from that what has she said that makes you doubt her so? She isn’t slamming the Church. She’s questioning. She didn’t say she uses birth control personally. For questioning this you accuse her of needing to learn more about her faith and trying to weaken the faith of others. Good grief. This is a place to discuss. She’s hasn’t been disrespectful. She hasn’t been hostile unless I missed it.

I’m Catholic. That doesn’t mean I can’t wonder about the wisdom of this in Africa. It doesn’t make me a bad Catholic. It makes me struggling to understand. Geez…give people a break.

This was not about “Africa”.My concern was a string of questions in this and other posts that were naive in the extreme and did not seem to be coming from a Catholic perspective.Whether you are aware of it or not anti-Catholics have posed as Catholics to ask “naive”,insincere questions in order to lure credulous uneducated,gullible Catholics from the Catholic Church and it SEEMED to me that this could have been another one of those cases.HOWEVER,Lemonbeam has assured me that she is a practising Catholic and is attempting no subterfuge and I accept that at face value and have proffered suitable apologies which I hope she is big enough to accept.Perhaps in future you could review a whole thread without wagging your finger at what you ASSUMED was the issue of contention under discussion.Thanks in advance.

 

[lemonbeam]

Well I guess I’m batting 1000 here.I accept what you are telling me-that your are a practising Catholic and therefore offer my humblest apologies.You are not a poseur but others have for the reasons I mentioned in my last post.Again,I am sorry and do hope that you’ll forgive me.

Thank you, it is okay

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Months ago we had a thread on this topic and here is something that I have not yet seen addressed fully.

Lemonbeam, if Christianity’s focus was on alleviating suffering and preventing physical death, then I could see a bit of a point in arguing, “But people are dying and this could save some of them”.

Even there, one has to consider that the ends NEVER justify the means, if the means are evil. You can’t do something evil just because the end result for one person–or even for many–will be ‘good’. You can’t kill a rapist in order to stop him from raping somebody. Certainly if he does it is tragic, but to murder him to stop it is as wrong and tragic as it is for him to rape.

But the thing is, Christianity’s focus is NOT on 'alleviating suffering and preventing physical death".

Christianity’s focus is on Christ. Christ is our Savior, and He gave us the way to go to Him. It is narrow because it is focused, not on the ‘goods’ which are changeable, like those of earth, but on those which are unchangeable, eternal, ever-lasting. . .'treasure which the moth will not destroy and thieves will not steal".

Christ wants us to help others, but not if that help damages or destroys their (or our) immortal soul. “What good is it to enter Gehenna whole. . .if removing what caused you to sin would have gained you heaven instead?”

Our sights are on higher goals. We are all (as another poster said, in touching on this point) bound to die someday. Nothing we can do will preserve our life beyond a point of ‘natural death’. So acting as though the moral imperative for a Christian was to provide individuals with ‘life’, at any cost, whether it involved any kind of moral wrong, is one of the most twisted concepts this very privileged society has come up in modern times. It’s a sample of the ‘quality of life’ argument. . .certain groups are to be sacrificed (like the unborn) if they interfere with the quality of life of others. And now, certain moral truths (like the evils of contraception) are likewise on the chopping rack, because it is argued that they ‘interfere with the quality of life’ of some.

The ends do not justify the means. If I could save 1000 people from death by wantonly killing one person, I could not morally do so. Only relativists bent on ‘quality of life’ rather than ‘obedience and trust in God’s will’ would argue that hey, 1000 is so much MORE than 1 that of COURSE it would be the moral thing to kill 1 to save 1000.

 

[Robertsxxx]

My problem is people identifying themselves as Catholics in their profile and then asking very unCatholic or naive questions in order to ensnare credulous Catholics who are either lurking or posting.As a Catholic you should not have to be told extremely elementary things about your faith.As a Catholic you have a duty and responsibility to know these things or become knowledgeable.I suggest that you start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church or at least the compendium.
Again, I ask the question which I have been asking all afternoon-ARE you a baptised PRACTISING Catholic or not?If so my apologies but Holy Moley do you need some Catachesis!If you are NOT a Catholic please change your profile.The problem is some anti-Catholics post here as “Catholics” in order to question the faith and perhaps draw other weak, credulous and naive Catholics away from the True Faith of Catholicism and I RESENT deceit and underhandedness.Surely if you are a Catholic you can understand my concern.Over to you.

So it’s wrong for somebody to ask questions? Dos their faith/religious affiliation or none matter? They came to a specific forum asking questions, yet instead of being educated on the subject they get shunned just because they are not a certain way. REal nice…

To lemonbeam: I feel that you’re struggling with: if the Church is supposed to spread God’s message of love & hope & help people, but at the same time this “medication” can prevent a disease that is killing thousands of people. Yet the Church is chosing to follow it’s own values & teachings & the way they spread this message results in many people being dead or taught that condoms shouldn’t be used.
Simply put: A conflict between the “good message” of the Church & the results that message actually achieves or, in this case, the harm that is done.
Is that what you are struggling with?

 

[LilyM]

Let me ask all those who have a problem with people not being permitted to use condoms in an AIDS-ridden society a couple of questions …

Poverty kills as many Africans as AIDS does. For that matter it kills as many people in EVERY country as AIDS would do.

This poverty could certainly be alleviated very quickly, and many lives saved as a result, if enough of us in the developed world went and robbed our local banks and used the proceeds of that theft to constructively help the poor.

So would you or I be justified in robbing banks for this end - to save all those people who are dying of poverty? Should the Church teach us that it’s morally fine to go out and rob banks - as long as we use that money for the poor and dying and not for ourselves?

 

[Robertsxxx]

So would you or I be justified in robbing banks for this end - to save all those people who are dying of poverty? Should the Church teach us that it’s morally fine to go out and rob banks - as long as we use that money for the poor and dying and not for ourselves?

I seriously fail to see the point of the analogy you were trying to make Can you make it more explicit?

 

[LilyM]

I seriously fail to see the point of the analogy you were trying to make Can you make it more explicit?

Allow me to spell it out.

Very simply - the achieving of a good end (the elimination of poverty-related death and suffering) does not justify the use of immoral means (robbing banks).

So the achieving of a slightly different good end (the elimination of AIDS-related death and suffering) does not justify the use of what are worse than immoral, what are INTRINSICALLY immoral, means (condoms).

Do you need any further explanation?

 

[script77]

I lived in Nigeria for many years. The slogan to help stop AIDS (which is not an epidemic in
Nigeria at just over 3%) was ABC: A-Abstinence, B-Be Faithful and C-Condoms.
My local parish on Lagos, Our Lady of Fatima, harped on A for unmarried, B for the married and not C. l was part of the health promotion team there.
The problem was that the USAID and GHAIN, who supplied most of funding for the HIV/AIDS project propagated virtually only a condom message.
l know that once someone has contracted HIV, they’ve gone beyond the A solution, but not B and C.
But harping on C encourages more unmarried sex and not telling people enough of A and B increase their willingness to take sexual risks with or without condoms…Besides lots of scientific reports are not convinced that condoms actually prevent the spread of HIV…

 

[Robertsxxx]

So the achieving of a slightly different good end (the elimination of AIDS-related death and suffering) does not justify the use of what are worse than immoral, what are INTRINSICALLY immoral, means (condoms).
?

But the immorality of condom use is a Catholic Teaching, which not even many other Christian branches agree with.
Furthermore, they are taking part in activity that does not concern them & does not happen in the country they reside in.
I understand your point from a Catholic perspective though. Basically, saving human lives does not justify going against God’s Laws as defined by your denomination.

 

[LilyM]

But the immorality of condom use is a Catholic Teaching, which not even many other Christian branches agree with.
Furthermore, they are taking part in activity that does not concern them & does not happen in the country they reside in.
I understand your point from a Catholic perspective though. Basically, saving human lives does not justify going against God’s Laws as defined by your denomination.

Every single branch of Christianity did agree that it was immoral until the 1930s. You really think God changed His mind about what was moral and did a complete backflip on contraception shortly before WW2? Why?

God’s moral laws are really for everyone - you wouldn’t let an atheist get away with robbing banks just because THEY didn’t think it was immoral, would you?

You’d be obliged to try to teach them WHY robbing banks was morally wrong, and most likely also obliged to prevent them robbing, if possible. Even if they didn’t accept your reasoning, no?

And since when are we just responsible for what happens in our own country? Remember Jesus’ parable - the good Samaritan was from a different country to the wounded man he helped, that wasn’t any reason for him to not help since he was able.

I think if anyone dies anywhere in the world and we can (within moral bounds) help to prevent it, it’s our obligation to at least try.

 

[dawid]

I want to know if it is true. Did the Catholic Church tell African people that they should not wear condoms, to spread the infection of HIV. Please answer. Thank you.

The Church’s teaching here in Africa remains the same - sex outside marriage is not moral.

Promiscuity increases the HIV infection rate.
Abstinence would reduce it.

The general impression I am left with from the proponents of condom use is that morals are a relative matter, that you should enjoy yourself as you see fit and that you should limit the consequences of your actions as far as you can.

The Church cannot condone that approach!

 

[BSHoop96]

This was not about “Africa”.My concern was a string of questions in this and other posts that were naive in the extreme and did not seem to be coming from a Catholic perspective.Whether you are aware of it or not anti-Catholics have posed as Catholics to ask “naive”,insincere questions in order to lure credulous uneducated,gullible Catholics from the Catholic Church and it SEEMED to me that this could have been another one of those cases.HOWEVER,Lemonbeam has assured me that she is a practising Catholic and is attempting no subterfuge and I accept that at face value and have proffered suitable apologies which I hope she is big enough to accept.Perhaps in future you could review a whole thread without wagging your finger at what you ASSUMED was the issue of contention under discussion.Thanks in advance.

I have read the whole thread. Her original question was about the Church’s stance on condom use “in Africa”. Being in Africa is what throws so many different consideratons into the pot that people sometimes struggle with this issue in this particular situation.

So you nicely apologized to her but just couldn’t refrain from making a rather tacky 'ASSUMPTION" to me for defending the OP. Btw, you’re smiley face does make it a tad insincere.

 

[BSHoop96]

Btw, **you’re **smiley face does make it a tad insincere.

Whoops, meant “your” not “you’re”. Committed my own grammatical pet peeve.

 

[VociMike]

To lemonbeam: I feel that you’re struggling with: if the Church is supposed to spread God’s message of love & hope & help people, but at the same time this “medication” can prevent a disease that is killing thousands of people. Yet the Church is chosing to follow it’s own values & teachings & the way they spread this message results in many people being dead or taught that condoms shouldn’t be used.
Simply put: A conflict between the “good message” of the Church & the results that message actually achieves or, in this case, the harm that is done.
Is that what you are struggling with?

I would put this a different way. The Church is concerned with our earthly lives and situations, but she is vastly more concerned with our eternal lives and situations.

 

[VociMike]

I understand your point from a Catholic perspective though. Basically, saving human lives does not justify going against God’s Laws as defined by your denomination.

But you see, it is exactly the saving of human lives that is the work of the Church (with the grace of God, of course). That is, the true and eternal saving of human lives.

 

[Robertsxxx]

But you see, it is exactly the saving of human lives that is the work of the Church (with the grace of God, of course). That is, the true and eternal saving of human lives.

I understand from a Catholic perspective; however, if they are wrong, they have just indirectly killed a great deal people & are continuing to.
Furthermore, just because those people will not use condoms, or even remain abstinent that does not promise eternal life in heaven.

 

[VociMike]

I understand from a Catholic perspective; however, if they are wrong, they have just indirectly killed a great deal people & are continuing to.

Well, if they are wrong then perhaps God doesn’t exist and who the heck cares if these puny, insignificant bags of DNA who are just polluting the planet live for 25 years or 75? So that argument surely cuts both ways.

Furthermore, just because those people will not use condoms, or even remain abstinent that does not promise eternal life in heaven.

True. Just because we take a loaded gun away from a 5-year old doesn’t mean that when he’s 7 he won’t ride into traffic and get killed. But we still take the loaded gun away.