Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ortho said:
I agree they still did it without today’s technology. That’s why it is nteresting that Jesus said nothing about it.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t say a lot of things. To my knowledge he never condemned rape or bestiality. Thats because he didn’t need to. If Jesus had made an exhaustive list of does and don’ts I think the New Testament would have been large enough to fill an entire library.

Fortunately, Jesus gave the Church guided by the Holy Spirit his authority to speak on matters of faith and morals on his behalf.
 
Grace_Angel said:
Is there anything this dear cardinal would like to leave as authentic catholic? Or is he the voice Catholics for a free choice? He ought to hang his head in Shame. At that level of heirarchy to speak out against magisterium and church teachings. Shame Cardinal Shame.
Grace angel.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be too quick to condemn the Cardinal. I had thought that Cardinal Tumi was somewhat orthodox in his theology or he wouldn’t be sending some of his seminarians to Sacred Heart in Detroit, where they would be learning moral theology that is faithful to magisteriums teachings.

We all know how the media tends to twist the words of the clergy around so that it says what they want to hear.
 
Bella3502 said:
There would be no one left to support the Catholic Church if all of the people using birth control were excommunicated. The sheer hipocrisy of this thread is overwhelming and tiresome.
Click to expand...
Bella3502, can you clarify what you mean by this statement?

I at first took it to mean that you are saying, if all the people practicing this behavior that is contrary to church teaching were exocommunicated, then there would be nobody left in the church.

And I thought that can’t be right as not all Catholics practice this abhorrent behavior, so people would still be left.

Then I started thinking, perhaps you mean if those who do this were exocommunicated, then all the other Catholics would turn their backs on their faith because of what contracepting Catholics chose to do.

But I thought that couldn’t be right either, as many people don’t support or tolerate this practice nor support others’ choices to do this.

So then I thought with the last sentence (sheer hypocrisy) that you were accusing all Catholics of using birth control?

Which of course isn’t true by a long shot.

:confused: :confused:
 
Julianna said:
bella, bella, bella,…👍
Click to expand...
Julianna
What is so bella bella bella about this comment?
In fact there is nothing Bella about it. It is an unthought through comment. And I like the other poster “Fix” I think it was who said “the church is not about numbers but saving of souls”.
This Cardinal is disobedient. Simple. there is no other explanation possible. And I am sure he believes that he is more compassionate than Jesus himself.He causes scandal.
I am reminded of Our Lady of Akita saying Bishop will be against Bishop. Cardinal against Cardinal. We are at that stage.
Grace Angel.
 
hasikelee said:
So then I thought with the last sentence (sheer hypocrisy) that you were accusing all Catholics of using birth control?

Which of course isn’t true by a long shot.
Click to expand...
Well, USCCB estimate that less than 4% of American Catholics use NFP. The average Catholic family consists of about two offspring. Are you suggesting that Catholics are just not that fertile?

Nohome
 
I don’t think the Church bans the use of condoms to prevent STDs. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter in one of his columns mentioned that virtually every moral theologian he spoke with says that condoms are OK to use to prevent STDs but that there are concerns about the pastoral implications of saying that. In any event, a Vatican council is studying the matter at the request of the pope:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4938076.stm
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan told La Repubblica newspaper that Pope Benedict XVI asked the Vatican’s council for health care to study the issue.
Click to expand...
 
I apologize; I need to correct an error.

John Allen didn’t say that virtually every moral theologian says that condoms are OK to prevent STDs; my recollection was not quite right. Here’s what he actually said:
I should also note that virtually every Catholic ethicist I know believes that in a situation in which an HIV-positive person is determined to have sex, regardless of Church teaching, it’s preferable for that person to use a condom, so as not to add a potential homicide to an already sinful situation. The problem is not so much the clarity of the teaching, but the pastoral judgment about how to communicate it in a way that doesn’t end up promoting promiscuity and reckless behavior.
Click to expand...
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word011306.htm#six

He also says:
It is often a surprise for many people to learn that the church has never officially pronounced on this issue.
Click to expand...
So I think I was right about the Church not banning condoms to prevent STDs.
 
I know there are competing views on this topic, but that the Church has not pronouced does not mean it is licit. Condomistic sex is an evil means. A moral act requires a good intent and a good means.

Some try to claim the condom is an anti viral agent or is licit to use because the intent is not to contracept. That seems a bit disingenuous.

A condom is not therapeutic. It is a prevention. Where has the Church ever said* preventive* techniques are morally acceptable when abstaining is possible?
  • “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser evil to avoid a greater moral evil or in order to promote a greater moral good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14, cf. Rom. 3:8). When comparing greater or lesser evils, the comparison must be between evils of a similar nature. Risk of disease is a physical and not a moral evil, whereas intercourse with a condom is a moral evil. Some theologians hold that the risk of HIV infection is more evil than the use of a condom to reduce that risk. This statement is not doctrinally sound.
  • Code: 
                     To advise or suggest evil is to induce evil and that is always a scandal.[1http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html](http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html#a1)
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
%between%
Click to expand...
Well you have a consultor saying one thing and a Cardinal saying another. Maybe the Cardinal in my story knows more than the consultor. In any event, here’s another article which says that permission to use condoms to prevent AIDS would be nothing new:

cathnews.com/news/605/30.php
Jesuit says Vatican condom concession would be nothing new
Click to expand...
Ethicist Fr Bill Uren of Newman College at the University of Melbourne has said that the mooted Vatican “permission” for Catholics to use condoms to counter the HIV/AIDS epidemic is merely an application of the traditional “double effect” principle of Catholic moral theology.
Click to expand...
 
cor said:
Well you have a consultor saying one thing and a Cardinal saying another. Maybe the Cardinal in my story knows more than the consultor. In any event, here’s another article which says that permission to use condoms to prevent AIDS would be nothing new:

cathnews.com/news/605/30.php
Click to expand...
  • The law of “double effect” requires that if an action has two effects, the action itself must be morally good or indifferent. Since intercourse with a condom is intrinsically evil, the law of double effect does not apply.
Click to expand...
My source is consistent with constant Catholic teaching. When has the Church ever approved of condoms?

By way of simliar example I offer this from the Vatican:
Q. 2.When the uterus (e.g., as a result of previous Caesarian sections) is in a state such that while not constituting in itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman, nevertheless is foreseeably incapable of carrying a future pregnancy to term without danger to the mother, danger which in some cases could be serious, is it licit to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) in order to prevent a possible future danger deriving from conception?
R. Negative.
Q. 3.In the same situation as in no. 2, is it licit to substitute tubal ligation, also called “uterine isolation,” for the hysterectomy, since the same end would be attained of averting the risks of a possible pregnancy by means of a procedure which is much simpler for the doctor and less serious for the woman, and since in addition, in some cases, the ensuing sterility might be reversible?
R. Negative.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_31071994_uterine-isolation_en.html
Click to expand...
So, if sterilization is evil to prevent death, why would a condom be acceptable?
 
Grace_Angel said:
Julianna
What is so bella bella bella about this comment?
In fact there is nothing Bella about it. It is an unthought through comment. And I like the other poster “Fix” I think it was who said “the church is not about numbers but saving of souls”.
This Cardinal is disobedient. Simple. there is no other explanation possible. And I am sure he believes that he is more compassionate than Jesus himself.He causes scandal.
I am reminded of Our Lady of Akita saying Bishop will be against Bishop. Cardinal against Cardinal. We are at that stage.
Grace Angel.
Click to expand...
Grace, just take a gander around the church on Sunday and note all the 2.? children families. I am a cradle Catholic, and I also worked at a Catholic school. With 350 children in grades pre-k - 8th grade…the average number of children per family was 2. The second mass on Sunday…again 2-3 children. Why is that?

As far as condoms go, I cannot believe any thinking person who knowinly has sex with someone who has STD’s or AIDs would just do it without one. It isn’t about bc, it’s about saving your life.
Well, USCCB estimate that less than 4% of American Catholics use NFP. The average Catholic family consists of about two offspring. Are you suggesting that Catholics are just not that fertile?
Click to expand...
Nohome
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can believe that.
 
Maranatha said:
Cameroon: Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

A Catholic Cardinal has approved the use of condoms as a protective measure against HIV/AIDS, provided the couple using them is married.

The 75-year-old Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi told Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Saturday, “If a partner in a marriage is infected with HIV, the use of condoms makes sense.”

Although the Catholic Church considers sex between unmarried couples as immoral, Tumi commented that “possibly there can be a rethink there”

Nonetheless, the cardinal did not expect the Vatican to stray from its traditional stance against the use of condoms
Click to expand...
Oh please, tell me it ain’t so. This man has the potential to become a future pope!!
 
hasikelee said:
Bella3502, can you clarify what you mean by this statement?

I at first took it to mean that you are saying, if all the people practicing this behavior that is contrary to church teaching were exocommunicated, then there would be nobody left in the church.

And I thought that can’t be right as not all Catholics practice this abhorrent behavior, so people would still be left. The overwhelming majority of Catholics of child bearing age, use some form of birth control - and NFP is not one of them. And they don’t consider it abhorrent.

Then I started thinking, perhaps you mean if those who do this were exocommunicated, then all the other Catholics would turn their backs on their faith because of what contracepting Catholics chose to do.

But I thought that couldn’t be right either, as many people don’t support or tolerate this practice nor support others’ choices to do this.

So then I thought with the last sentence (sheer hypocrisy) that you were accusing all Catholics of using birth control?
All Catholics don’t use birth control. (I don’t)

The hipocrisy I spoke of has to do with Catholics trying to tell others not to use birth control. When it comes to this issue, Catholics subscribe to a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.

I just don’t think that “we” practice what “we” preach.

Which of course isn’t true by a long shot.
Again most Catholics, who are controlling the size of their families, for what ever reason, are using artificial birth control.
Click to expand...
 
yugnok said:
I wouldn’t be too quick to condemn the Cardinal. I had thought that Cardinal Tumi was somewhat orthodox in his theology or he wouldn’t be sending some of his seminarians to Sacred Heart in Detroit, where they would be learning moral theology that is faithful to magisteriums teachings.

We all know how the media tends to twist the words of the clergy around so that it says what they want to hear.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed we all know how the media distorts spoken words. However, he has not come out demanding a retraction.
We have also had Cardinal Martini coming out with “stuff” and Cardinal Barragan has been been accusssed of the same condoms for AIDS. This is too important an issue to allow the media to hijack their words. If it printed porkies pies (lies) deamdn a retraction and apology, so that no confusion emerges out of this.
Grace Angel.
 
fix said:
My source is consistent with constant Catholic teaching. When has the Church ever approved of condoms?
Click to expand...
Well there was some kind of approval or at least acquiesence given by the Church for contraceptives in the case of those in danger of being raped – I don’t know for sure if this would apply to barrier methods of contraception such as female condoms:

christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html
Nuns at risk of rape can take the Pill, says Rome
Click to expand...
By Bruce Johnston in Rome
NUNS working in dangerous areas and mentally handicapped women may be given the contraceptive Pill as a defence against rape, a leading Vatican theologian has said…
Click to expand...
The question of nuns taking the Pill as a defence in trouble spots around the world was openly authorised long ago in the case of the Congo by Cardinal Pietro Palazzini - even if the Pope’s authorisation of the prelate himself was never publicised.
Click to expand...
Three years ago, the question was raised again in the case of nuns working in Bosnia. The Pope side-stepped the question and, in a letter to the Bishop of Sarajevo, effectively left the decision up to the conscience of the individual
Click to expand...
So, if sterilization is evil to prevent death, why would a condom be acceptable?
Click to expand...
It’s not all sterilization; it was the particular case of sterilization they asked about to which Rome responded. And the reason why it is illicit is because in that case an intrinsic evil, contraception, is the means to the end of the good of preventing death thereby violating the principle of double effect. In the case of using a condom to prevent AIDS the object of the action is putting a barrier to prevent the passage of the virus. As a result of putting up that barrier, sperm are also prevented from passing through – but that’s a side-effect of the action, not the action itself. It’s not the means to the end and neither is it an end – it’s a foreseen but unintended side-effect – and thus the principle of double effect can justify it. I could be wrong though and would like to see how you respond to this argument.
 
Riley259 said:
Oh please, tell me it ain’t so. This man has the potential to become a future pope!!
Click to expand...
I think this is unlikely. Remember that the original story is two years old, which would make the Cardinal 77 years old now. Its rather old to be chosen to be pope, and, of course, he will be even older the next time we have a new pope.
 
cor said:
Well there was some kind of approval or at least acquiesence given by the Church for contraceptives in the case of those in danger of being raped – I don’t know for sure if this would apply to barrier methods of contraception such as female condoms:

christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html

It’s not all sterilization; it was the particular case of sterilization they asked about to which Rome responded. And the reason why it is illicit is because in that case an intrinsic evil, contraception, is the means to the end of the good of preventing death thereby violating the principle of double effect. In the case of using a condom to prevent AIDS the object of the action is putting a barrier to prevent the passage of the virus. As a result of putting up that barrier, sperm are also prevented from passing through – but that’s a side-effect of the action, not the action itself. It’s not the means to the end and neither is it an end – it’s a foreseen but unintended side-effect – and thus the principle of double effect can justify it. I could be wrong though and would like to see how you respond to this argument.
Click to expand...
Contraception involves consentual sex. Rape is not consentual, thus a contraceptive agent is not the act of contracepting. It would be repelling an unjust aggressor.

As for the double effect that assertion requires the action be good or neutral. Using a condom during intercourse is evil. Simply calling it not evil does not transform the intrinsically evil action into a good one. Also, the condom is not a medical treatment.
  • The nature of an act (its object) determines its morality. Intercourse with a condom is intrinsically disordered, evil in and of itself.
  • The intention of the acting person is important, but it cannot change the nature of the act of intercourse with a condom. It remains an intrinsic evil.
  • The reason why a good intention is not in itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God - thus bringing about the perfection of the person. (Veritatis Splendor, n.80). “…reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature incapable of being ordered to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum) on account of their very object, and quite apart from ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.” (VS, n.80).
  • The law of “double effect” requires that if an action has two effects, the action itself must be morally good or indifferent. Since intercourse with a condom is intrinsically evil, the law of double effect does not apply.lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html#a1
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top