F
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually no Christian religion accepted contraception until the Church of England did in 1933 and then only under limited circumstances. Contraception has been condemned throughout the entire history of our church. Since we are not a Sola Scriptura Church the fact of one does not believe there is biblical support is irrelevantWhile the Catholic Church condemns contraception, the biblical reference for it is rather weak. Only one instance in Genesis, is the hint of contraception condemned and that is where Onan practiced coitus interruptus because he didn’t want to impregnant his dead brother’s wife according to ancient Jewish law. Hardly applicable now IMO. Since then condemnation only come from opinions from various church leaders throughout history until the Church came out in 1968 with it’s Human Vitae.
E
estesbob
Guest
Has the Church stated this? I am not disputing you-in fact I would tend to agree with you but has the Church formally declared that the principle of double effect does not apply here?Because it is not double effect.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
Folks who disagree that condoms are effective in preventing AIDS don’t disagree with me; they disagree with the CDC. I’m just the messenger. That is their right. I simply think it is important for people to know what the CDC says. Then when they hear contrary opinion they can decide if they want to believe the CDC or some other source.How condescending.
Because I refuse to accept an approach to fighting AIDS that ENABLES destructive behavior, I and blind and have no ears to hear. Pot, meet kettle.
I wonder if you consider that possibility that others can hear AND comprehend you and still disagree. Nah, that might mean you aren’t infallible. Can’t have that…
One does not have to accept that condoms are an acceptable approach to fighting AIDS to acknowledge that they are effective. That has nothing to do with eyesight or hearing.
It is very obvious that others hear and reject the CDC. Just read these forums.
M
mikew262
Guest
I think I just said the same thing. I said that Scripture mentions it weakly and that Church leaders have condemned it. I don’t totally agree with the Church on this, but I do recognize this is current doctrine.Actually no Christian religion accepted contraception until the Church of England did in 1933 and then only under limited circumstances. Contraception has been condemned throughout the entire history of our church. Since we are not a Sola Scriptura Church the fact of one does not believe there is biblical support is irrelevant
F
fix
Guest
The best I can offer at this time is this:Has the Church stated this? I am not disputing you-in fact I would tend to agree with you but has the Church formally declared that the principle of double effect does not apply here?
**Church ‘will not budge one inch’ on issue of condom use, says Cardinal Lopez Trujillo
**
**
E
estesbob
Guest
Thanks!The best I can offer at this time is this:
E
estesbob
Guest
I have misgivings about the ban on contraception that is not an abortificant BUT as a Catholic I accept it and adhere to it. I also dont know what “current” doctrine means.I think I just said the same thing. I said that Scripture mentions it weakly and that Church leaders have condemned it. I don’t totally agree with the Church on this, but I do recognize this is current doctrine.
M
mikew262
Guest
“Current” doctrine was a reflection on what this thread is all about. The article stating the Church was maybe re-thinking it’s current teaching on condom use, which it should in my opinion. Obviously, “Current” doctrine says no to it.I have misgivings about the ban on contraception that is not an abortificant BUT as a Catholic I accept it and adhere to it. I also dont know what “current” doctrine means.
E
estesbob
Guest
Th point is they cant change “doctrine”. The question is can condom use where AIDS is involved be justified under the Doctrine’s of the Church? I think a case could be made for it but i dont think it is going to happen.“Current” doctrine was a reflection on what this thread is all about. The article stating the Church was maybe re-thinking it’s current teaching on condom use, which it should in my opinion. Obviously, “Current” doctrine says no to it.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
I think condom use would probably be considered an application of doctrine. I doubt there is one doctrine addressing condoms, another addressing IUDs, another addressing pills, and another addressing Norplant. Each of these would be a derivative application of a core doctrine which would be applied as changing conditions warranted.Th point is they cant change “doctrine”. The question is can condom use where AIDS is involved be justified under the Doctrine’s of the Church? I think a case could be made for it but i dont think it is going to happen.
E
estesbob
Guest
The doctrine is clear- ABC is wrong. There are no changing conditions that can change that doctrine. That is the great strength of the church-it doesn’t bow to the cultural mores of the day. The only way that condom use for AIDS sufferers could be approved would be under the double effect principal. I doubt if that’s going to happen.I think condom use would probably be considered an application of doctrine. I doubt there is one doctrine addressing condoms, another addressing IUDs, another addressing pills, and another addressing Norplant. Each of these would be a derivative application of a core doctrine which would be applied as changing conditions warranted.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
Of course there are changing conditions to which doctrine must be applied. Someone invented condoms. That changed conditions. Then someone else invented the pill. That changed conditions. Each time, the core doctrine was applied to changed conditions. If someone else makes a new discovery that same doctrine will be applied to the new conditions.The doctrine is clear- ABC is wrong. There are no changing conditions that can change that doctrine. That is the great strength of the church-it doesn’t bow to the cultural mores of the day. The only way that condom use for AIDS sufferers could be approved would be under the double effect principal. I doubt if that’s going to happen.
Widespread AIDS is also a changed condition. I presume Church authorities will apply various doctrines to the new condition. In the Sixties, the pope apponted a BC commission to examine the changed conditions brought on by the pill.
That’s how people work when they have core doctrine and a changing world.
E
estesbob
Guest
And the changes in Church Doctrine after the advent of the pill were???Of course there are changing conditions to which doctrine must be applied. Someone invented condoms. That changed conditions. Then someone else invented the pill. That changed conditions. Each time, the core doctrine was applied to changed conditions. If someone else makes a new discovery that same doctrine will be applied to the new conditions.
Widespread AIDS is also a changed condition. I presume Church authorities will apply various doctrines to the new condition. In the Sixties, the pope apponted a BC commission to examine the changed conditions brought on by the pill.
That’s how people work when they have core doctrine and a changing world.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
There was no application of Church doctrine to the pill prior to its existence. After its existence and examination, the doctrine was applied to the pill. So, an application of the doctrine existed in 1970 that did not exist in 1950.And the changes in Church Doctrine after the advent of the pill were???
The basic doctrine from which such application was drawn did not change, but the doctrine was applied in a new manner to meet new conditions.
If someone came up with a meditation that could suppress ovulation, I would expect the Church authorities to examine that changed condition and appropriately apply their doctrines.
More intresting would be a meditation that kept cancer at bay but suppressd ovulation. Another changed condition.
E
estesbob
Guest
So the answer is “none”There was no application of Church doctrine to the pill prior to its existence. After its existence and examination, the doctrine was applied to the pill. So, an application of the doctrine existed in 1970 that did not exist in 1950.
The basic doctrine from which such application was drawn did not change, but the doctrine was applied in a new manner to meet new conditions.
If someone came up with a meditation that could suppress ovulation, I would expect the Church authorities to examine that changed condition and appropriately apply their doctrines.
More intresting would be a meditation that kept cancer at bay but suppressd ovulation. Another changed condition.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
Disagree. I’d say each application of a doctrine expands its scope, our understanding of the doctrine, provides precedent that didn’t exist, and lays a foundation for future application of yet unknown conditions. So, the doctrine provides information not previously available. That’s a change from a prior state.So the answer is “none”
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, the pill has been available for nearly 50 years. Not only that, at the time it was becoming widespread in availability. . .we got Humanae Vitae.
Condoms have been available for at least a couple of hundred years; rubber condoms (latex) are only the latest variation on the ‘sheathes’ used which were of varying materials like silk. And yet there was no ‘change’ in the core doctrine to ‘adjust’ to this over decades if not centuries.
Finally, and I’d like this to be perfectly evident, the whole premise of this thread and that article is ‘backwards’. What ** should** be said is this:
After centuries of opposition, the secular viewpoint is attempting yet again to change absolute morality, as safeguarded by the Church established by Jesus Christ, to conform to whatever relativistic, politically correct, expedient and enjoyable , cause, or that it would prefer to truth.
Condoms have been available for at least a couple of hundred years; rubber condoms (latex) are only the latest variation on the ‘sheathes’ used which were of varying materials like silk. And yet there was no ‘change’ in the core doctrine to ‘adjust’ to this over decades if not centuries.
Finally, and I’d like this to be perfectly evident, the whole premise of this thread and that article is ‘backwards’. What ** should** be said is this:
After centuries of opposition, the secular viewpoint is attempting yet again to change absolute morality, as safeguarded by the Church established by Jesus Christ, to conform to whatever relativistic, politically correct, expedient and enjoyable , cause, or that it would prefer to truth.
E
estesbob
Guest
So show us where this doctrine has ever changed.Disagree. I’d say each application of a doctrine expands its scope, our understanding of the doctrine, provides precedent that didn’t exist, and lays a foundation for future application of yet unknown conditions. So, the doctrine provides information not previously available. That’s a change from a prior state.
H
HoppityRedux
Guest
I agree the core doesn’t change. The applications and understanding do.Yes, the pill has been available for nearly 50 years. Not only that, at the time it was becoming widespread in availability. . .we got Humanae Vitae.
Condoms have been available for at least a couple of hundred years; rubber condoms (latex) are only the latest variation on the ‘sheathes’ used which were of varying materials like silk. And yet there was no ‘change’ in the core doctrine to ‘adjust’ to this over decades if not centuries.
Finally, and I’d like this to be perfectly evident, the whole premise of this thread and that article is ‘backwards’. What ** should** be said is this:
After centuries of opposition, the secular viewpoint is attempting yet again to change absolute morality, as safeguarded by the Church established by Jesus Christ, to conform to whatever relativistic, politically correct, expedient and enjoyable , cause, or that it would prefer to truth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.