I am not arguing. Your responses seem to indicate that there was a technicality involved but that the spirit could still be fulfilled.
And** this **is not what the Church teaches either.
Whatever semantics you want to use is fine. It is what it is.
Sure. There are NOT just two options as you claim. I am not a theologian so their may be other options I am missing but two others that come to mind are to reduce the amount of times they make love to minimize her adverse reaction or to live as husband and wife but without having intercourse.
Because the condom doesn’t treat the condition.
Being married without having a sexual relationship IS what I meant when I said living as brother and sister. So that is the same thing.
Semantics. Eliminating contact with the allergen is still a form of treatment for allergies.
But you are asking **why there was a difference **in Church teaching. The difference is that the unintended consequence can be tolerated for some treatments. Since this isn’t a treatment (the underlying condition remains completely unchanged), the same reasoning that is used for taking hormones that also are contraceptive does not apply.
No, it is not the same thing. Many couples are happily married and are unable to have sex anymore for one reason or another. They are not living as “brother and sister” and it is really insulting that you would equate a marriage where sex is not currently occuring to a non-marriage.
Those are two choices but they aren’t the ONLY two choices. They might be the only two choices that you would accept but that is not the same as saying they are the only two choices the Church would allow.
I think you are straying into medical information here. Not all allergic reactions are the same. Many allergic reactions are cummulative and many others decrease with increased exposure. For example, I am allergic to cats but only since I no longer have one in my home. When I had cats, I had no problems. Now that my only contact with them is when I visit a cat owner’s home, I have a very strong allergic reaction. Only a trained allergist can advise this young woman as to what the options are for her allergy.
Said with love, if you’re bothered by adult discussions about sexuality, perhaps you’d better not click on threads with the word semen in the title.
Exactly. Some folks get a little sqeamish about certain words, but the OP has real questions that they’d like answered. There’s no rule that one has to read and comment on every thread
.Again, Semantics. Sorry if I worded it in a way that you didn’t like or would find insulting. Bottom line is, I meant a married couple that don’t have sex.
No, they are not the only 2 choices that I would accept. However, since the Church apparently doesn’t allow condom use in this case, they are the only 2 choices the Church would allow. Either deal with it/find a cure/treatment, or stop having sex. If you believe the Church has other options out there, you are free to list a few. Otherwise it’s no use telling me there are other options when you can’t even list any yourself.
Ok.
You know, I was thinking too about the fact that the Church considers it licit for a woman who has been raped to take the morning after pill (as long as conception hasn’t occurred yet) in order to prevent a pregnancy.
Re: The Church and the morning after pill: Where did you read that!? I’m not sure that is accurate. Do you have a source?
Yeah, I found it on my own in the meantime. Sorry
The condom proscription actually does seem different to me.