Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[vern_humphrey]

Om my gosh. C’mon, I haven’t met one young adult or teenager in all my counseling, protesting and general school/work life that believes a condom only reduces the risk.

You’ve got to be kidding me. People these days are so naive and unknowledgeable in science and reasoning that you can’t even give them a statistic. I told one girl at my work that condoms only possible reduce the risk of HIV, not prevent it entirely and she couldn’t beleive it. Thought I was tripping on a rainbow.

Maybe in your small community of math and science minded professionals do you find a segment of the population that pays attention to facts. Seems the rest of the world believes the little commercials on tv and the counselors at school who pass out condoms with lollipops and cards that say “i saved a life.”

Nohome, if you had AIDS, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your uninfected spouse?

And that’s the bottom line. This isn’t about “public health.” It’s about providing a thin veneer of cover for those who are willing to risk other people’s lives for their own pleasure.

 

[mikew262]

It is a forum committed to the study and advancement of Catholicism.

I don’t agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But I would not go on a Mormon forum and attack their beliefs. That would be both arrogant and counter-productive.

If you cannot come on this forum and openly discuss issues, and that includes maybe questioning why the Church does something, then you might as well shut it down and change it to a Catechism site.

BTW, I’m not attacking anything, I’m questioning and disagreeing at times.

 

[Nohome]

Om my gosh. C’mon, I haven’t met one young adult or teenager in all my counseling, protesting and general school/work life that believes a condom only reduces the risk.

And of course your experience is the norm, not the exception?

You’ve got to be kidding me. People these days are so naive and unknowledgeable in science and reasoning that you can’t even give them a statistic. I told one girl at my work that condoms only possible reduce the risk of HIV, not prevent it entirely and she couldn’t beleive it. Thought I was tripping on a rainbow.

I once saw a cat that was blue (seriously), but not all cats are blue. If people are truly this ignorant, do you seriously think you can teach abstinance only?

Maybe in your small community of math and science minded professionals do you find a segment of the population that pays attention to facts. Seems the rest of the world believes the little commercials on tv and the counselors at school who pass out condoms with lollipops and cards that say “i saved a life.”

Nope, some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met sign their name with Ph.D.

Nohome, if you had AIDS, would you engage in sexual intercourse with your uninfected spouse?

I can’t answer that, you see, I got married as a virgin and have only ever had sex with my wife. I’ve never had a blood transfusion, so I guess that is out of the question too. How would you answer the question?

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

BTW, I’m not attacking anything, I’m questioning and disagreeing at times.

Well knock it off! We will have no free thinking in this forum!

Nohome

 

[pnewton]

If you cannot come on this forum and openly discuss issues, and that includes maybe questioning why the Church does something, then you might as well shut it down and change it to a Catechism site.

I only object when I get childish responses like “yawn”. It is hard to show respect in the face of adolescent behavior. Also, what you say is true in many areas, but in areas of internal matters, I do not think anyone here gives credence to those outside the Church. Not that there may not be anything of value, but as faithful Catholics, nothing that is said will override the catechism. In that sense, a Catholic site is a catechism site.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you cannot come on this forum and openly discuss issues, and that includes maybe questioning why the Church does something, then you might as well shut it down and change it to a Catechism site.

That’s your opinion. The site is to debate and learn Catholic issues – not to attack them, or seek to advance anti-Catholic agendas.

BTW, I’m not attacking anything, I’m questioning and disagreeing at times.

If you’re questioning, the answers were posted here many pages back. You have only to read them. If you’re disagreeing, what is your purpose? This site does not control Catholic doctrine.

 

[Dale_M]

Perhaps I missed it but does that link say the Pope will actually make a statement on the subject?

No it doesn’t, nor have I read it anywhere.

Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the condom ban for HIV prevention two years ago. Given the recent review which has attracted media attention, I assume that Pope Benedict would either back Pope John Paul’s stance or else announce a re-analysis. But this is just my guess. He could also simply shelve the report.

 

[Nohome]

“Patient Zero,” the Canadian airline pilot who is thought to have introduced AIDS into the US was said to stand over his sex partners afterwards, show them his Karposki’s Sarcoma, and taunt them, telling them they now had the same disease he had.

Patient Zero is a myth.

AIDS (the disease) is surrounded by an enormous tide of irrationality and folklore which sometimes threatens to rise up into the public health process and swamp it. It is a good idea to have as few myths floating around as possible. Mr. Shilts and Dr. Darrow should both repudiate the “patient zero” story.

nybooks.com/articles/4227

Nohome

 

[jack_hawkins]

fix, your statement about not using condoms even when a woman is infertile is ridiculous because

1. if a woman is infertike, how is a condom splitting the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse, the very basis of your position?
2. why did you choose the term subjective infertility when I made no comment to support that?
   if you believe having no womb is “subjective” infertility, then you have a lot to learn

 

[fix]

fix, your statement about not using condoms even when a woman is infertile is ridiculous because

1. if a woman is infertike, how is a condom splitting the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse, the very basis of your position?

Because the Church uses the term procreative to mean open to procreation regardless of whether conception may or may not happen. Two sterile married people would still be wrong to use a condom. The marital act is always unitive and procreative unless intentionally severed.

I will find some links to explain this more clearly and I am sure others will provide a better explanation.

1. why did you choose the term subjective infertility when I made no comment to support that?
   if you believe having no womb is “subjective” infertility, then you have a lot to learn

I was using them in a philosophical sense as in objective versus subjective fertility. As way of an example an 92 year old women who is no longer fertile is subjectively infertile while objectively she is still open to procreation during the unhindered act.

 

[Brendan]

fix, your statement about not using condoms even when a woman is infertile is ridiculous because

1. if a woman is infertike, how is a condom splitting the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse, the very basis of your position?

All ABC is a rejection of the unitive aspect of the marital act. The Unitive facet of the marital act is not about any emotional closeness, it is a celebration of the Unity brought forth in marriage ( that is why pre-martial sex is never Unitive, there is no unity there at all)

As Christ said “the two shall become as one” in marriage.

Marriage, and thus the marital act is a full acceptance of the person AS GOD CREATED THEM.

That means their fertility. Using a condom, even when one party is infertile, is a rejection of a gift that God gave them, and in doing so, rejects part of that person that God has deemed good. This is where it differes from natural means. God created menopause, God created cyclical female cycles. All of those are part of God’s plan from the begining. What ABC does it to disrupt that, it’s a rejection of God’s design of the marital act.

Sex should never be about rejection, and that is what ABC usage is. Rejection is not unity.

Pope John Paul II made this very clear in his Theology of the Body.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Patient Zero is a myth.

nybooks.com/articles/4227

Nohome

You are aware that 60 Minutes did a segment on “Patient Zero?” They interviewed doctors who had examined and spoken to him, as well as some of his sex partners.

Were all those people lying?

 

[fix]

1. How can sexual intercourse be said to be essentially generative when most acts of intercourse are infertile? And if it cannot be essentially generative then the inseparability thesis collapses…

Certain types of behaviour have what we might call a built-in significance because of the role such behaviour plays in human life. We can respect that significance or we can seek to negate it.

Normal sexual behaviour is one such type – it is generative behaviour; it has the built-in significance of being generative/procreative behaviour because of the central role it plays in human life – of being a cause in the generation of human beings. As far as human performance is concerned it remains generative behaviour in being left to be normal sexual intercourse by those who engage in it, whether or not it is fertile. Fertility is not precisely a state of affairs brought about by our behaviour but is a function of conditions which are produced independently of performance, by hormonal changes, for example.

… The Church does not teach that in engaging in intercourse one has to be acting with a view to procreating, an objective one could realistically have in mind only when one was fertile. What she teaches is that sexual intercourse will not make for an authentic unity of two-in-one-flesh if those engaging in it set out to negate its built-in significance as generative/procreative behaviour. And they negate that significance in setting out to render infertile any sexual activity which might otherwise be fertile. They do not negate its significance as generative (its “procreative significance”) by having intercourse when they happen to be infertile, since fertility is not required for the act to be of the generative kind. This brings us to the second objection…
http://www.linacre.org/contra.html
linacre.org/contra.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think this is worth pursuing. Here’s what the article cited on “Patient Zero” says:

The cluster is a myth. There is very little evidence that Gaetan was “patient zero” for the US or for California.

(My emphasis)

Note the bolded word. The cluster is a myth. Gaetan is** not** a myth. He was a real man. He really did have AIDS. He really did knowingly pass it on to his sexual partners – and gloat over them and taunt them after sex.

Now here’s what I originally said:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
“Patient Zero,” the Canadian airline pilot who is thought to have introduced AIDS into the US was said to stand over his sex partners afterwards, show them his Karposki’s Sarcoma, and taunt them, telling them they now had the same disease he had.

Note the phrase “is thought to have introduced AIDS into the US.”

 

[mikew262]

That’s your opinion. The site is to debate and learn Catholic issues – not to attack them, or seek to advance anti-Catholic agendas.

What do you think we are doing? We are debating/discussing!!! I’m not attacking or advancing anti-anything. :banghead:

You just have a problem with anybody that doesn’t think exactly like you, which was pointed out earlier by somebody else.

We are getting off subject here, so I won’t respond anymore to this silliness.

 

[jack_hawkins]

How bizarre. How on earth can wearing a condom be birth control when the couple CANNOT have children?
And how can a couple be “open” to having children when the woman has no womb?
It is completely illogical to say that wearing a condom is still dividing the unitive from the procreative when the couple are infertile.
This is absolutely the realm of the twilight zone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What do you think we are doing? We are debating/discussing!!! I’m not attacking or advancing anti-anything. :banghead:

Constantly attacking the Church’s position on a matter that is decided and is perfectly clear is not “debating/discussing.” It’s a childish tantrum.

You just have a problem with anybody that doesn’t think exactly like you, which was pointed out already by somebody earlier.

No, you have a problem with anybody that doesn’t think exactly like you – to the point of arguing against settled Church doctrine.

We are getting off subject here, so I won’t respond anymore to this.

A small favor, for which I am truly thankful.

 

[fix]

How bizarre. How on earth can wearing a condom be birth control when the couple CANNOT have children?
And how can a couple be “open” to having children when the woman has no womb?
It is completely illogical to say that wearing a condom is still dividing the unitive from the procreative when the couple are infertile.
This is absolutely the realm of the twilight zone.

Jack,

If you think you can refute what the Church teaches in this issue then I suggest you first correctly state what She teaches, rather than substitute your teaching for Hers.

See my point? You have created a type of straw man argument.

 

[Nohome]

You are aware that 60 Minutes did a segment on “Patient Zero?” They interviewed doctors who had examined and spoken to him, as well as some of his sex partners.

Were all those people lying?

If 60 Minutes did a segment criticizing the Catholic position on condoms you would be the first to call it main stream media of little value.

There is indeed a person who was identified as patient zero. He was a flight attendant, not a pilot. The researcher who identified him has since said retracted his work saying that AIDS had come to the USA way before this man, possibly as early as 1975, way before the time of patient zero. The mistake was due to a misunderstanding about the lag time between infection and the showing of the disease.

The story titled the “Band Played On” was the work of a journalist who caught on to the investigation of patient zero. He did a lot to villianize this man and it has since been determined to be fiction. I’m not familiar with the 60 Minutes story, but it is likely based on the work of this journalist. If it is the work of Randy Shilts, it is highly suspect.

Don’t get me wrong, the person identified as patient zero was promiscuous, but it is untrue the he brought AIDS to America.

Nohome

 

[Brendan]

How bizarre. How on earth can wearing a condom be birth control when the couple CANNOT have children?
And how can a couple be “open” to having children when the woman has no womb?
It is completely illogical to say that wearing a condom is still dividing the unitive from the procreative when the couple are infertile.
This is absolutely the realm of the twilight zone.

Jack,

Everything I wrote was how condoms are a violation of the Unitive aspect of the marital act. It involves a rejection of what God gifted the person with.

Rejection isn’t unity.