Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Private judgment is really a form of moral relativism. Following your logic I can defend all types of immorality.
 
A married couple NOT having sex in a DEADLY situation, is against the natural law ??? No way.

If you REALLY love your partner,
you are not going to risk - not even the most miniscule risk - exposing him or her to an incurable and FATAL illness.

Abstinence would of course require developing self-discipline, but that is what the grace of the Holy Ghost is for.
 
We commit unnatural acts all the time. We fail to trust everything to God all the time. How? Using any medicine!
It’s natural to die of pneumonia most of the time.
 
This is a silly argument.
There is nothing in scripture opposed to taking medicine for illness.

There is scriptural teaching against frustrating the sexual act, which is what Onan did.
 
jack_hawkins said:
We commit unnatural acts all the time. We fail to trust everything to God all the time. How? Using any medicine!
It’s natural to die of pneumonia most of the time.
Click to expand...
Natural as in the natural moral law… the 10 commandments.
 
do you mean the natural moral law or the 10 commandments?
the ten commandments says nothing about the matter
neither does natural moral law as such
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
This is a silly argument
Click to expand...
Then refute it, instead of arguing ad hominem!
There is nothing in scripture opposed to taking medicine for illness.
There is scriptural teaching against frustrating the sexual act, which is what Onan did.
Click to expand...
Onan showed us the consequences of not fulfilling obligations and duties actually.
 
jack_hawkins said:
do you mean the natural moral law or the 10 commandments?
the ten commandments says nothing about the matter
neither does natural moral law as such
Click to expand...
This is from the CCC:
The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Click to expand...
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.
Click to expand...
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
 
jack_hawkins said:
do you mean the natural moral law or the 10 commandments?
the ten commandments says nothing about the matter
neither does natural moral law as such
Click to expand...
Actally it does.

The Second of the Two Great Commandments - Love thy Neighbor as Thyself.

Under what circumstances do you consider it to be a loving act to potentially expose someone to a deadly infection?
 
jack_hawkins said:
Then refute it, instead of arguing ad hominem!

Onan showed us the consequences of not fulfilling obligations and duties actually.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It involved him not wanting sleep with his sister-in-law to give his brother a child according to an ancient law. To connect it with contraception being wrong is a bit of a stretch (IMO).
 
jack_hawkins said:
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
Click to expand...
A principle in risk management defines ‘risk’ as the potential of loss multiplied by the value of loss.

So the potential of risk in this scenario would be (‘next to zero’) multiplied by the value of one’s wife.

So it does go back to the question, what value does one place on their wife?
 
Fix, your post in reply only serves to confuse and indeed begs the question. It nowhere in those quotes mentions contraception that I can see - nor could it IMO.

Brendan, your definition of risk from a specialist area was not the sense in which I used it, as you would probably know. Can we agree to use the commonly accepted definition?
In any case, the risk is completely beside the point in deciding morality isn’t it?
Your argument re the second of the Great Commandments eg NOT one of the Ten is spurious, and your use of it would imply that if the risk of infection was not present the action would be moral.
 
Brendan said:
A principle in risk management defines ‘risk’ as the potential of loss multiplied by the value of loss.

So the potential of risk in this scenario would be (‘next to zero’) multiplied by the value of one’s wife.

So it does go back to the question, what value does one place on their wife?
Click to expand...
And a principle of statistics is than in any situation where the probablilty is more than zero, over enough trials the probability approaches one.

In other words, if a man with AIDS continues to have sex, the odds are very high that he will eventually infect his partner, condom or no condom.
 
vern_humphrey said:
And a principle of statistics is than in any situation where the probablilty is more than zero, over enough trials the probability approaches one.

In other words, if a man with AIDS continues to have sex, the odds are very high that he will eventually infect his partner, condom or no condom.
Click to expand...
That is demonstrable nonsense, and a misuse of a statistical principle.
Again, beside the point if we are discussing morality.
 
jack_hawkins said:
That is demonstrable nonsense, and a misuse of a statistical principle.
Click to expand...
Excuse me?

The odds in Russian Roulette are five to one. If you play it often enough, you will definitely wind up with a hole in your head. (If you don’t believe me, you’re welcome to try.)😉

The failure rate for condoms is sometimes stated as around 10%. But even if it’s only 1%, continuous use of condoms will ultimately experience a failure.

How many failures does it take to transmit AIDS?
jack_hawkins said:
Again, beside the point if we are discussing morality.
Click to expand...
Indeed we are – in an “if-then” mode. In other words, “**if **comdoms offer protection from AIDS, then . . .”

And showing that the “if” conditions do not hold negates the artument for condoms. A person who has AIDS and has an active sex life puts his partners at risk, condoms or no condoms.
 
Ok, lets discuss why your use of statistics is invalid.
These events are not independent. It is not like rolling a dice.
Secondly, people do not live a sufficiently long time for the probability to approach 1.
As I say, misuse of statistics.
Look at the failure rate for sex workers (who are experienced at using condoms) and the HIV prevalence in sex workers eg in Nevada and the Netherlands.
Any reduction in HIV/AIDS is a good thing surely? Or do you disagree?
You might consider that the risk is not worth taking (this point has been covered before BTW) but other people differ. What about the husband who has extra-marital sex and then infects his wife? Is it better for him to not use a condom, get HIV and infect his innocent wife - or use a condom and not catch HIV? Which option is better?
 
**Agreed. It involved him not wanting sleep with his sister-in-law to give his brother a child according to an ancient law. To connect it with contraception being wrong is a bit of a stretch **

That Onan’s sin was wasting his seed, is the constant interpretation of the Church since the days of the Fathers.
He wasted his seed that one time, and God slew him for it.
If it were really all about his Levirate responsibilities, he could have simply had sex with her at another time in the future and not wasted his seed, and fulfilled his duties at that later date.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
That Onan’s sin was wasting his seed, is the constant interpretation of the Church since the days of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
That’s begging the question tho. They did not interpret it as banning contraception. NB my Bible does not say it was once only but “whenever he slept with her”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top