Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
Seriously, latex, at that thickness is permeable to a certain extent. This is the same reason latex balloons don’t remain inflated longer than a few days.
Click to expand...
You are suggesting that gas molecules are larger than a virus? Latex is a suitable barrier to HIV.

Nohome
 
There is good evidence that condoms work, both in laboratory and clinical research. This myth comes from a misunderstanding, where natural membrane condoms were looked at for some reason. Utterly ludicrous anyway.
 
The BBC program Panorama investigated the claims of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who authored an anti-condom document titled “Family Values versus Safe Sex”.

You can read the the findings of Panorama here.
 
Nohome said:
You are suggesting that gas molecules are larger than a virus? Latex is a suitable barrier to HIV.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I presume, then that you did not read my statement about the necessity of examining the permeable cross-section?
 
Dale_M,

Thanks for the link that was some good reading. I was most struck by the fact that not one registered sex worker in Nevada’s legal brothels had been infected (they use a condom 100% of the time–it’s a state rule–no exceptions).

And also by a fact that should have been obvious to me. Condoms get more effective the longer a person uses them because it becomes habitual (like putting on a seat belt before driving) and they get better at it with practice. The sex workers obviously know how to use a condom they are experts at it.

I also didn’t know that condoms are doubled dipped latex (and rotated 180 degrees between dips). This reduces the possibility of tears during the manufacturing process.
 
Brendan said:
I presume, then that you did not read my statement about the necessity of examining the permeable cross-section?
Click to expand...
Read it, chuckled and moved on. Everything is permeable. The HIV virus is huge compared to a latex membrane.
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found “intact condoms… are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus… condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses”.
Click to expand...
guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Nohome
 
cor said:
I believe Catholic moral theologians permit couples to use perforated condoms to help with infertility diagnosis. If it were possible to make a condom that blocked the AIDS virus but didn’t block sperm, would you agree that that at least would be licit? If one wants to block one but it ends up blocking the other as well, then I don’t see how it cannot be justified by the principle of double effect.
Click to expand...
That is hypothetical. Reality is condom use is an evil.
 
This is where I find everything gets bogged down. Some Catholics will say since condoms are evil full stop, then therefore condom use can never be permissible no matter what the circumstances.
Let’s analyse this. A piece of rubber is not intrinsically evil surely? So then surely the purpose to which that piece of rubber is employed is pivotal?
 
jack_hawkins said:
This is where I find everything gets bogged down. Some Catholics will say since condoms are evil full stop, then therefore condom use can never be permissible no matter what the circumstances.
Let’s analyse this. A piece of rubber is not intrinsically evil surely? So then surely the purpose to which that piece of rubber is employed is pivotal?
Click to expand...
Objects are not evil, but actions may be evil. The use of a condom during sex is an evil. It frustrates the procreative aspect of the act. A good intention with an evil means does not make a good act.
 
Nohome said:
Read it again. The cross section of a condom is a rubber band!

Nohome
Click to expand...
You’re not very up on membrane material science are you?

That permable cross section is an engineering term (and actually, a latex structure of a condom and a rubber band are quite different, both in thickness and material)

That said, I have no doubt that the HIV virus is impermanble to the latex used in most condoms (and I have never said anything different)

The largest danger of infection comes from condom breakage, slippage and spills, pretty much the same reasons pregnancies can occur in condom usage.
 
A condom being worn for the prevention of HIV transmission is not evil. How is a condom evil means?
 
I heard (though have no sources on it) that the married couples in Africa already got permission from the Church to use condoms due to the AIDS crisis there. Though I would hope they would abstain as much as possible.

When it comes to people with no diseases using them:

I have used contraception. But I never will again.(Albeit I’m also not married and will definitely not fall into that trap again either) I prayed about it and read verses about how marriage is a sacrament and found great reasoning in not following the world.(Great Book: Rome Sweet Home by Kimberly and Scott Hahn)

As Christians, we claim to put all of our trust into God. By using contraception, we are telling Him the exact opposite. “God I trust you, just not with this!” :confused: Makes no sense to me. If I’m going to be a Christian I’m going to be one 100%. Not half Christian and half following the hell bound world. Purposefully limiting God is a sin to me. I could no longer, in good conscious, use contraceptions and still profess faith and trust in God. It would be a lie. Just my two cents added. I will that pray someday soon those using NFP will rise to much more than 4%!
 
IMHO, evil is, a husband with HIV not using a condom during sex with his wife. and visa versa, a wife with HIV, who does not insist her husband use a condom during sex.

If the couple is “married”…and one, or the other has HIV, to risk “infecting” and death of their spouse and bringing an HIV positive child into the mix, when it could have been prevented, is promoting evil upon the “innocent”…that being the spouse and the child.

The church should recognize “this” circumstance. To ask a “married” couple to “abstain” from sexual relations IMHO is against natural law and totally absurd.

In the case of casual sex outside of marriage…there is no arguement…you shouldn’t be doing it outside of sacramental marriage. But again, that goes on deaf ears.
 
As Christians, we claim to put all of our trust into God. By using contraception, we are telling Him the exact opposite. “God I trust you, just not with this!” Makes no sense to me. If I’m going to be a Christian I’m going to be one 100%. Not half Christian and half following the hell bound world.
Click to expand...
I believe you’re missing the point. I’m not talking in any way about half measures, or doing what I believe is wrong.
Did Jesus throw himself off the cliff when tempted? No he responded to the Devil by telling him that you shouldn’t test God. Do you hold poisonous snakes up like some people in the Bible Belt (and no doubt elsewhere) do? Would you trust the Scripture that assures us we can?
If we jump in front of a bus we get knocked down. We live in a created world that works with rules of cause and effect. This is not to say that miracles can’t and don’t happen, of course.
Wives do get infected with HIV by husbands that have sinned. In the lack of highly active anti-retroviral therapy, death is inevitable. It is often a prolonged uncomfortable death.
 
Julianna said:
IMHO, evil is, a husband with HIV not using a condom during sex with his wife. and visa versa, a wife with HIV, who does not insist her husband use a condom during sex.

If the couple is “married”…and one, or the other has HIV, to risk “infecting” and death of their spouse and bringing an HIV positive child into the mix, when it could have been prevented, is promoting evil upon the “innocent”…that being the spouse and the child.

The church should recognize “this” circumstance. To ask a “married” couple to “abstain” from sexual relations IMHO is against natural law and totally absurd.

In the case of casual sex outside of marriage…there is no arguement…you shouldn’t be doing it outside of sacramental marriage. But again, that goes on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
And that assumes that the condom will not break or spill or slip off.

I can’t figure out too can’t figure out why a husband would want to take a chance of infecting his wife. And that includes ANY type of sex with her.

There really is no such thing a ‘safe sex’ when you’re HIV infected. There is only ‘reduced chance of infection’ sex.

It’s still Russian Roullette, only with 1 bullet in the revolver instead of 5.

And that is still 1 bullet too many.

And no, abstinence in this situation in not agains the Natural Law, in fact, it is the fullest practice of the Natural Law. One does not willing place their spouse in such danger.

Why is it so hard to belive that humans can actually controll their passions when safety is a concern?

Julianna, I find your sig line really ironic in light of your post. Would it not be more benefical on a man’s children to take what ever steps are necessary to insure that their mother does not become infected? Even if it means celibacy.

Would not a loving father, who knows he is infected and will probably die, what to make absolutly, 100% certain that the children will still have a mother.

Or would he place his trust in his children’s future in a condom that might slip off or break.
 
so your argument is purely on grounds of efficacy? in which case then it is purely a matter of personal choice
have you actually seen the figures for married couples using condoms when one partner is infected?
 
jack_hawkins said:
so your argument is purely on grounds of efficacy? in which case then it is purely a matter of personal choice
have you actually seen the figures for married couples using condoms when one partner is infected?
Click to expand...
No, there is also the argument based on the condom being a denial of the Unitive aspect of the marital act. It remains incomplete becuase there is no full union.

And even looking at it from an efficacy argument, then it is ALL a personal choice, even sex without ‘protection’. Really all one is doing is reducing the chance, not eliminating it either case.

It then becomes “How much is my wife’s life worth to me”

And no, I have not see any specific figures, but it would follow that it would substantially greater that similar couples who practice abstinence.

I have seen the CDC figures for condom failures in pregnancy situations (2-3%), which are markedly higher than the pregnancy figures for couple who live abstinate lives 😉
 
And no, I have not see any specific figures, but it would follow that it would substantially greater that similar couples who practice abstinence
Click to expand...
actually, it wouldn’t follow at all!
I will try and find specific figures, but the transmission is next to zero actually
it is a totally spurious argument that because something doesn’t reduce the risk to zero, it is not worthwhile
British Medical Journal 2004
 
jack_hawkins said:
A condom being worn for the prevention of HIV transmission is not evil. How is a condom evil means?
Click to expand...
Because it frustrates the act. It transforms a natural act into an unnatural act. We know this:
  1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act…
    vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Click to expand...
A condom separates those to things. Even a good intention cannot make that separation good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top