Cardinal talks in favor of Condoms in certain Circumstances

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gunner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gunner

Guest
Fulll Story

news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=544846

Cardinal Murphy O’Connor gives his view on Condoms

The programme aired two extremes of current Catholic teaching. One was that of Cardinal Wamala, Uganda’s top papist. He argued, implacably, that condoms were passports to Hell; as for having unprotected sex, he explained that embracing martyrdom was better than mortal sin. Elsewhere, in Brussels, the Belgian Cardinal Daneels insisted that men in Africa should wear a condom during sex, otherwise it was a sin against the Fifth Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. At such moments, he reasoned, it was no longer a birth-control device, but a protection against death.
Can you split doctrinal hairs like this? Can you argue that one definition of a condom eclipses another? What does the British Cardinal think?

“First, I’d say that it’s right for the Church to preach chastity, that sexual intercourse is for within marriage. But God knows, people just do not live up to ideals. While we can say that, objectively, the use of condoms is wrong, there are places where it might be licit, or allowable, as when there’s a danger of intercourse leading to death. It would be wrong to take a special case and make it a universal law. There is such a thing as objective morality, where things are either right or wrong; but there are also subjective matters that affect whether a thing is slightly wrong or not wrong at all. That’s what we’re talking about in this case. So I would agree with Cardinal Daneels’s position.”

This is the head of the Church in Unitied Kingdom, what can we do with this type of attidude?
 
All things considered, if you are going to commit one mortal sin, sex outside of marriage, then compound it with sinning against the 5th commandment, thou shalt not kill, if oyu have a deadly STD and are going to have sex anyway, the morally ethical thing to do is at least protect the partner from becoming infected. While this whole situation is a moral morass, wearing a condom is less sinful than knowingly transmitting a deadly infection, all else being equal. Of course the ideal is abstinence, but how often do people live up to ideals. That’s why in the course of Christian history, there may have been up to 2 billion people who at some point embrassed Christ, yet there are only a relative handful who have been recognized as saints. In truth, the narrow path of righteousness is hard to walk. I am not justifying or advocating the use of condoms, and I am sure than there were people who were just waiting for a leader of the Church to come out and say “sometimes it is permissible to use a condom”. They don’t care what the reason is, they will justify their immorality. Its like saying, “I believe that life begins at conception, but I don’t have the right to force my beliefs on other people”
 
I think it goes back to the old dilemma "Are there levels to hell? " . If one is living in mortal sin, is it better to prevent yourself and others more worldly problems by commiting more mortal sins. Isn’t the first mortal sin the only one that “counts”, until Confessed?
 
No wonder people become confused when “cardinals” preach, sin is allowable under certain conditions. This issue is a black and white one. Onan found out the seriousness of contraception in God’s view when he spilled his seed upon the ground. As we well know, many churchmen will lead others to the fires of hell along with themselves.
 
The cardinal never said that the use of a condom is permissible or not sinful, he just merely indicated that condom use in the situations mentioned is better than compounding the grave situation by adding murder to it.
 
It’s a tricky one. I am absolutely against artifical birth control, premarital sex, and a huge fan of chastity. Until this thread I thought it was a black and white issue…
The culture in some countries includes some terrible circumstances where women are often forced into having sex.
clearly, this is not a mortal sin for the recipient of forced sex.
Yes, I know St. Maria Goretti died rather than be raped, but often women in these countries are so filled with fear.

It’s a difficult situation, but I guess the church needs to keep its absolute stance on no birth control or the whole thing will crumble. And the bishops need to be unified.
I can understand why the bishop in Africa feels differently, since he sees so many dying, but he must remember his obedience to the Church first over emotion (don’t we all).
This situation desperately needs a lot of prayers.
 
I think that Cardinal is beginning to lose understanding in the meaning of intercourse. I can see if you don’t want to get a disease, but why have intercourse premaritally anyways?

Why can’t people just get married before they make love to each other?
 
40.png
Apologia100:
The cardinal never said that the use of a condom is permissible or not sinful, he just merely indicated that condom use in the situations mentioned is better than compounding the grave situation by adding murder to it.
Click to expand...
Then the cardinal should have said its use is sinful. Lets get it straight and stop apologizing for the weak kneed.
 
I have found responses interesting. I shall be writing to the Cardinal on this issue as I believe his view is in direct contradiction to “Official Church Teaching” and should not be promoted via media as it scandalises the magesterium.

Before I write, does anyone wish to comment on what I should or shouyld not say with relevent quotes/documents
 
**I believe that the cardinal had a point. He was not advocating the use of condoms, but was saying that the greater sin was for someone who knew he had a deadly disease to have sex without one. **

While chastity is the ideal, humans often fall short of ideals…I, for one, would rather see someone use a condom rather than give a deadly disease to another…As another poster has pointed out, in this case the birth control aspect of condom use would be secondary…It would not be the purpose of the use…The prevention of disease would be the purpose.

**Would you rather your child use a condom or pass on or receive a disease that would mean almost certain death? What is the couple is married, and one has AIDS? **

I am not advocating condom use, or artificial birth control in general…Far from it…But, I am saying that there are circumstances when the use of condoms (even within marriage) is not a matter of birth control…That birth control, in some instances is a “side affect”…There the matter of “double affect”…
 
CD4 said:
**I believe that the cardinal had a point. He was not advocating the use of condoms, but was saying that the greater sin was for someone who knew he had a deadly disease to have sex without one. **

While chastity is the ideal, humans often fall short of ideals…I, for one, would rather see someone use a condom rather than give a deadly disease to another…As another poster has pointed out, in this case the birth control aspect of condom use would be secondary…It would not be the purpose of the use…The prevention of disease would be the purpose.

**Would you rather your child use a condom or pass on or receive a disease that would mean almost certain death? What is the couple is married, and one has AIDS? **I would rather see my child dead than commit a serious (mortal) sin. There can be no equivacation on this matter!!!

I am not advocating condom use, or artificial birth control in general…Far from it…But, I am saying that there are circumstances when the use of condoms (even within marriage) is not a matter of birth control…That birth control, in some instances is a “side affect”…There the matter of “double affect”…
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Magnificat:
I can understand why the bishop in Africa feels differently, since he sees so many dying, but he must remember his obedience to the Church first over emotion (don’t we all).
Click to expand...
I’m a little perplexed by this statement. Cardinal Wamala from Uganda said that condom use was intrinsically wrong.
40.png
Gunner:
One was that of Cardinal Wamala, Uganda’s top papist. He argued, implacably, that condoms were passports to Hell; as for having unprotected sex, he explained that embracing martyrdom was better than mortal sin.
Click to expand...
It’s the Cardinals from Brussels and Great Britain who are not in line with Church teaching.
 
A condom is normally a piece of latex. Latex, in of itself, is not a sinful material, nor is the use of materials made with latex, such as surgical gloves. What is wrong is not the use of a particular latex product, but the use of that product for a particular sinful purpose. As an example, knives can be used for preparing food or for murdering people.

I think two questions need to be asked:

What is a sinful use of condoms?
  • and -
Why is that use sinful?
 
Come on, wakeup and smell the coffee…“what’s the sinful use of a condom?”. :confused: A pre-teen could answer the queation.
 
40.png
reoman:
Come on, wakeup and smell the coffee…“what’s the sinful use of a condom?”. :confused: A pre-teen could answer the queation.
Click to expand...
I was asking a serious question. I am more interested in the second question, which you did not respond to.
 
This isnt black and white…

If a homosexual were to tell me he has Aids, and is still gonna persist in having sex without letting the other person know about the disease…I’m gonna FIRST tell him why he shouldnt…but if hat fails, I’d tell him to consider using a condom. Its so easy to quote Onan…give a real life argument for someone who doesnt wanna hear about religion.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
This isnt black and white…

If a homosexual were to tell me he has Aids, and is still gonna persist in having sex without letting the other person know about the disease…I’m gonna FIRST tell him why he shouldnt…but if hat fails, I’d tell him to consider using a condom. Its so easy to quote Onan…give a real life argument for someone who doesnt wanna hear about religion.
Click to expand...
The use of condoms between heterosexuals is bad because it is a perversion of the meaning and significance of a *natural *sexual relationship between a man and a woman. If homosexuals use a condom, there is no such perversion, since there is no natural sexual relationship present. Between homosexuals, condoms have no contraceptive effect.

Therefore, I would propose that it is wrong for heterosexuals to use a condom but not wrong for homosexuals to do so.

Of course, the homosexuals have a problem in that their whole action is sinful whether or not they use a condom.
 
I STILL disagree

The same argument I made can fit a straight person also.

If they have aids, and dont wanna hear about religion, etc, and still persist on having sex…despite my best efforts…I’d ask them to consider using a condom. We just cant say…“its against God, or Church teaching” and walk away…THAT isnt the real world when dealing with a deadly virus and the VERY REAL possibility of an unwanted pregancy or a baby born with aids…its not Black & White…like it or not, we MUST face the reality of choosing the so called “lesser of two evils” What more evil…(besides not trying to convince someone with disease to refrain from sex) just spouting off some scripture and walking away thinking we done our job…or suggesting condoms…so that a pregancy doesnt occur that may either result in abortion or a baby born with aids? For ME…I’d loan the scurge the money for the condoms if it meant saving a baby from a possible abortion or disease.

I “would” like to think I was brave enough to go so far as notify the other person (if I knew them or how to get ahold of them) that so and so has aids.
 
An individual doesn’t have the moral authority to do one evil in order to prevent another evil. Perhaps one’s guilt may be lessened since their motivation is to prevent a greater evil, but the evil that they have done is still objectively evil. If you aid them in their evil act, you are yourself participating in it, and share some of the guilt.

I believe that if the “lesser of two evils” logic is followed, it will lead to horrendous things. Let us say that there is a mother who is psychologically on the brink of disaster, in part due to the many children she has had. Another child will certainly push her over the edge, and she may kill herself and her other children. This couple still decides to have sexual relations but, for safety purposes, uses contraception. However, the contraception fails and the woman becomes pregnant. The lesser of two evils doctrine would call for an abortion. Only one would die, instead of several. It is, after all, the loving thing to do, given the circumstances. . .
 
Instead of us going back and forth…lets stop with the hypotheticals… I already told you what I would do…you disagree, but only reiterate church teaching…please allow me to ask you this then

YOU…are confronted with a person with AIDS…gay or not…they tell you they will continue to have sex and NOT tell their partners… you have exhausted your argument with scripture and God and they dont wanna hear it. Given that you have no way to notify the potential partner, what is your response to that person if they say, I cant afford the condoms…I already have a death sentence and could care less about Heaven or Hell or giving my disease to another (there ARE people out there who do this btw)…buy them for me or I’m gonna risk that other persons life…I know its crazy…but what would you do?

I cant see anyone who could just walk away… my resolve would be thus:

I’d give the scum the condoms, and go to confession just in case what I did was wrong…God knows I did it from a perspective of TRYING to save anothers life…who knows…that person who would have got infected, may have lost all hope upon hearing the news and killed themself…maybe I saved a suicide…either way…I’d buy the condoms and go to confession.

Anyone who would say…well…they should NEVER have had sex outside of marriage to begin with and maybe God is punishing them…is coming from the wrong place in their heart…how many times have WE (me included) in our lives had sex and by Gods grace escaped a serious disease? I would hope nobody thinks like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top