After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift

[CelticSword]

Found this in the UK’s Guardian Unlimited today. Read the full text of the article here.

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI’s “health minister” is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

The recommendations, which have not been made public, still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made.

The rethink, commissioned by Pope Benedict following his election last year, could save millions of lives around the world. It is likely to be raised today when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his first full discussion with the Pope at an audience in the Vatican.

Campaigners and organisations involved in the fight against Aids have long been pressing the Vatican to change its stance on condoms, which they believe obstructs attempts to save millions of lives. Last year the head of HIV/Aids at the World Health Organisation initiated talks with the Vatican to see if any movement could be made on the issue.
guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,1954760,00.html

If the Pope goes ahead with allowing the use of condoms in limited circumstances, I suspect the secular media will think that they have gotten their foot in the door to “reform” the Church. They will say,“Finally! Now that you’ve seen reason on AIDS, lets talk about birth control, women priests, and gay marriage. We’ll make a respectable, progressive 21st century institution out of you yet!”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Vatican view on condoms has not changed at all–condoms used for contraception are forbidden, as all contraception is an act of intrinsic evil. This new tactic of arguing that the ‘intent’ of the couple is not contraception but protection from illness is fatally flawed from its conception (pardon the pun).

Somehow I fail to see the same ‘mechanism’ which admittedly is flawed enough to have a less than 100% protection against pregnancy and STDs being ‘permitted’ to married couples because one of them has AIDS or HIV.

Benedict, God bless him, is an intelligent man. He understands that he has to look at so-called ‘new’ techniques, techologies, etc. just so that he can be absolutely sure that he thoroughly understands the situation. But he is not going to be swayed into doing anything against the Church teaching. No, not Benedict. . .nor any other Pope. The gates of hell will not prevail.

 

[jediliz]

Condoms will NEVER be allowed.

If your husband loved you, why would he have to use a piece of rubber to show it? He can’t give himself to you completely?

 

[Dale_M]

Condoms will NEVER be allowed.
If your husband loved you, why would he have to use a piece of rubber to show it? He can’t give himself to you completely?

I think the concern of the Church leaders who favor the change is that one person in the marriage may be HIV infected and the other person not infected. In these cases, a condom could be seen as life saving.

In recent years, the case for condoms as a defence against Aids has been taken up publicly by several Roman Catholic leaders. The Belgian cardinal Godfried Daneels broke the taboo in 2004 when he said it was morally different from using a condom for birth control.

The following year, the Pope’s own theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier signalled doubts within the papal household and argued that the Roman Catholic “theology of life” could be used to justify a lifting of the ban. “The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said. “And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.”

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a former archbishop of Milan who was considered a candidate for the papacy, said earlier this year that a married person with HIV was “obliged” to protect his or her partner from the disease.

guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,1954760,00.html
(this link seems to be the article cited by CelticSword, if you want to read the original text)

 

[MrIrish]

I think the concern of the Church leaders who favor the change is that one person in the marriage may be HIV infected and the other person not infected. In these cases, a condom could be seen as life saving.

It could be life-saving, or the condom could break and now sex becomes a death sentence.

One thing I have never understood is why people in such circumstances absolutely must have sex. Is their marital bond so weak that the marriage will fall apart if they don’t have intercourse? What’s more important - “getting it on”, or preventing your spouse (or yourself) from contracting a fatal disease? No one ever seems to address this question.

 

[carol_marie]

It could be life-saving, or the condom could break and now sex becomes a death sentence.

One thing I have never understood is why people in such circumstances absolutely must have sex. Is their marital bond so weak that the marriage will fall apart if they don’t have intercourse? What’s more important - “getting it on”, or preventing your spouse (or yourself) from contracting a fatal disease? No one ever seems to address this question.

I agree with you… I don’t get it either.

I also wonder something similar when someone says that if they get pregnant again they will probably die … so now they MUST use artificial contraception. To me, that’s like making the choice: possibly spend eternity in hell OR go without sex.

It’s a no-brainer to me. Don’t get me wrong… sex is good - but it’s not THAT good.

 

[Wolseley]

The only reason to allow a condom is to prevent the spread of AIDS, which is the same reasoning the Church uses to allow the removal of a body part that has gangrene: the lesser eveil prevents the greater evil.

But you can trust the drive-by media will screw up the reporting of this, just like they did when they “de-sainted” St. Christopher back in the 1970’s.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS. Really, they don’t.

Condoms break. Condoms fail.

What people when they say “condoms prevent the spread of AIDS’” is “people are going to have sex anyway. So give them condoms and the risk of any **one ** sexual act of spreading AIDS goes down.” Doesn’t stop, doesn’t prevent. . .just, possibly, ‘slows down’ for a few selected individuals. And in fact, the rate might stay exactly the same or even pick up. Married couples who now abstain might feel encouraged enough to ‘risk’ the act with a condom–and become infected. Oh well. . .

But there is still the risk. In sober fact, the ‘way’ to prevent the spread of AIDS (do not flame, I am not ‘promoting’ this or advocating it as Catholic doctrine). . .

The way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to prevent anyone infected from any activity that involves the spread of bodily fluids. . .totally.

That means, no sex at all. Not even with condoms, because there is still a risk.

No IV drugs at all. Not even ‘clean’ needles, because there is still a risk.

If one were able to enforce the above, AIDS would be gone within two generations at most.

But nobody is going to advocate this. It is ‘too hard’, too ‘punitive’.

So instead people will try to put band-aids on pumping arterial wounds. We’ll try to ‘lessen the risk’. We’ll wait for miracle drugs. ** We’ll do anything other than change the behaviors that lead to transmission of the disease, directly or indirectly. **

 

[gnjsdad]

After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift

This Guardian headline is misleading, if one goes on to read the story. It makes it seem as if the Vatican is about to revise Church teaching. It’s not news that some in the Church want to legitimate the use of condoms. I believe the “reformers” are in for another letdown.

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI’s “health minister” is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

The recommendations, which have not been made public, **still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made. **

I have highlighted all the qualifiers in the story. I will make a flat prediction: Pope Benedict will reject the “recommendations” of the Vatican “health minister” and affirm what the Church has always affirmed: that the use of artificial contraceptives is always morally evil.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I agree with you… I don’t get it either.

I also wonder something similar when someone says that if they get pregnant again they will probably die … so now they MUST use artificial contraception. To me, that’s like making the choice: possibly spend eternity in hell OR go without sex.

It’s a no-brainer to me. Don’t get me wrong… sex is good - but it’s not THAT good.

Prior to the availability of “birth-control” when a family wanted or needed to limit children they avoided sex. In some cultures the needs of the man were placed first. Women were just objects to be used. This was wrong no matter how you look at it. But, the so called cure for this situation is not the “pill”, “abortion” or condoms. The cure is more education men and women and a true commitment to each others needs.

The conditions in which women and children live will never change as long as “feminism” and “pro-choice” are used interchangeably. Feminism should be a celebration of our gender not a repudiation of it.

Feminism should allow a women to choose to stay home with her children or not. Not to allow her to kill her children.
Feminism should provide a support system for women and their families. Not break up those families.
Feminism should allow a married woman that wants or needs to work a support system. Not a denial of their special needs. Not a denial of the place of the father in that home.

Most of all IMHO FEMINISM should never be used to belittle the men and fathers in our lives. It should be a source of strength to us all adults & children.

---

If my husband or I had a condition that could put the other in danger of death I believe we would refrain from sex. (and yes sex is fun and wonderful in our married life) But, sex is not what our life together was ever based upon. Our relationship was and is based on liking each other and wanting to be with each other. Condoms put the act of sex before the intimate loving of being friends. IMHO.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

This Guardian headline is misleading, if one goes on to read the story. It makes it seem as if the Vatican is about to revise Church teaching. It’s not news that some in the Church want to legitimate the use of condoms. I believe the “reformers” are in for another letdown.

I have highlighted all the qualifiers in the story. I will make a flat prediction: Pope Benedict will reject the “recommendations” of the Vatican “health minister” and affirm what the Church has always affirmed: that the use of artificial contraceptives is always morally evil.

I agree. People have been saying stuff like this for years. It seems with the past few papal elections all the liberals get hyped up and think the new pope will “see the light” of their wicked ways and agree with them.

 

[Reepicheep]

“Vatican view on condoms begins to shift”.

No it doesn’t. They just wish it would.

 

[chicago]

If your husband loved you, why would he have to use a piece of rubber to show it?

So animal baloons are out?

 

[Eireann]

"A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth." Pope Benedict XVI

I hope not.

 

[Wolseley]

The way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to prevent anyone infected from any activity that involves the spread of bodily fluids. . .totally.

So, if the strung-out druggie with HIV from using dirty needles gets into a shootout with the police and catches a bullet, he’s going to be spreading infected blood all over the place.

How do we prevent this?

That means, no sex at all. Not even with condoms, because there is still a risk.

No IV drugs at all. Not even ‘clean’ needles, because there is still a risk.

If one were able to enforce the above, AIDS would be gone within two generations at most.

Would it? Or would it just go dormant, like flu or bubonic plague, waiting in the blood and tissues of the animal population to burst forth again at a later date? That’s where AIDS came from to begin with, after all—monkeys in equatorial Africa.

But nobody is going to advocate this. It is ‘too hard’, too ‘punitive’.

So instead people will try to put band-aids on pumping arterial wounds. We’ll try to ‘lessen the risk’. We’ll wait for miracle drugs. ** We’ll do anything other than change the behaviors that lead to transmission of the disease, directly or indirectly. **

What do we do with infants born with this stuff? Or people infected by hospital mistakes? What do we do with the druggies, as above? Shoot them all?

Not everybody contracts this disease through illicit sex or illicit drug use. For those people, their “behavior” had nothing to do with it. So what do we do with those people? Put them in cages? Freeze-dry them? Sacrifice them to volcanoes? What?

 

[MrIrish]

So, if the strung-out druggie with HIV from using dirty needles gets into a shootout with the police and catches a bullet, he’s going to be spreading infected blood all over the place.

How do we prevent this?

Would it? Or would it just go dormant, like flu or bubonic plague, waiting in the blood and tissues of the animal population to burst forth again at a later date? That’s where AIDS came from to begin with, after all—monkeys in equatorial Africa.

What do we do with infants born with this stuff? Or people infected by hospital mistakes? What do we do with the druggies, as above? Shoot them all?

Not everybody contracts this disease through illicit sex or illicit drug use. For those people, their “behavior” had nothing to do with it. So what do we do with those people? Put them in cages? Freeze-dry them? Sacrifice them to volcanoes? What?

What the heck are you talking about? No one is advocating killing AIDS patients, putting them in cages, or freezing them. In fact, the Catholic Church, through its hospitals, is one of the greatest providers of health care to people with this affliction!

I don’t see what children born with AIDS or people who contract it accidentally have anything to do with the discussion here. Or, for that matter, your bizarre idea about contracting AIDS via blood splatter. Incidentally, the only reliable way to prevent infants being born with AIDS is for HIV-positive people not to have sex! And for those who get AIDS by sticking a needle in their arms…well, there is an obvious solution to that problem.

Anyhow, this thread is about people who, as a consequence of a bad personal choice, either by consensual sex or, as you reminded us, through illegal IV drug use, contract AIDS.

 

[hasikelee]

So instead people will try to put band-aids on pumping arterial wounds. We’ll try to ‘lessen the risk’. We’ll wait for miracle drugs. **We’ll do anything other than change the behaviors that lead to transmission of the disease, directly or indirectly. **

Well, there is this tribe in Africa that circumcises their boys at age eight…

So anyways, the whole family travels out into the wilderness far from the village, and then they circumcise the boy(s). For the next two weeks, no outside contact is allowed, no animals allowed, they must all abstain from sexual intercourse and may not eat red meat.

This is a religious custom that also stops the spread of disease. These people that haven’t even heard of a tv or toothpaste have more common sense than the majority of Americans.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Condoms will NEVER be allowed.

If your husband loved you, why would he have to use a piece of rubber to show it? He can’t give himself to you completely?

Perhaps “giving himself completely” has different meanings for different folks. Is there any reason for a couple to accept other folks’ definitions of what it means to give? Perhaps there are many things about an individual couple’s relationship that are nobody else’s business.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I agree with you… I don’t get it either.

I also wonder something similar when someone says that if they get pregnant again they will probably die … so now they MUST use artificial contraception. To me, that’s like making the choice: possibly spend eternity in hell OR go without sex.

It’s a no-brainer to me. Don’t get me wrong… sex is good - but it’s not THAT good.

Should couples care if anyone else “gets it?” It’s perfectly legitimate to speculate on such things, but it’s also perfectly legitimate to ignore such speculation.

 

[HoppityRedux]

But condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS. Really, they don’t.

Condoms break. Condoms fail.

What people when they say “condoms prevent the spread of AIDS’” is “people are going to have sex anyway. So give them condoms and the risk of any **one ** sexual act of spreading AIDS goes down.” Doesn’t stop, doesn’t prevent. . .just, possibly, ‘slows down’ for a few selected individuals. And in fact, the rate might stay exactly the same or even pick up. Married couples who now abstain might feel encouraged enough to ‘risk’ the act with a condom–and become infected. Oh well. . .

But there is still the risk. In sober fact, the ‘way’ to prevent the spread of AIDS (do not flame, I am not ‘promoting’ this or advocating it as Catholic doctrine). . .

The way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to prevent anyone infected from any activity that involves the spread of bodily fluids. . .totally.

That means, no sex at all. Not even with condoms, because there is still a risk.

No IV drugs at all. Not even ‘clean’ needles, because there is still a risk.

If one were able to enforce the above, AIDS would be gone within two generations at most.

But nobody is going to advocate this. It is ‘too hard’, too ‘punitive’.

So instead people will try to put band-aids on pumping arterial wounds. We’ll try to ‘lessen the risk’. We’ll wait for miracle drugs. ** We’ll do anything other than change the behaviors that lead to transmission of the disease, directly or indirectly. **

The CDC disagrees. Here is what it says at two different places in the same referenced document.

“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

“Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm