Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[jack_hawkins]

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.

You are missing the point. Why are condoms violating the unitice aspect of the marital act?
Why is wearing a condom a rejection of what God gifted the person with?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Non sequitor. The point is, “Patient Zero” was a real man, and he really did behave as described – and eye-witnesses so stated on camera.

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.

So how come people who examined, treated, and had sex with the man all stated on camera what he did?

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

Nohome

And none of this addresses the point – that some people with AIDS deliberately and knowingly infected others.

 

[mikew262]

God, grant me patience!

 

[setter]

You are missing the point. Why are condoms violating the unitice aspect of the marital act?
Why is wearing a condom a rejection of what God gifted the person with?

By corrolary, advise someone to put a bag over their head before kissing their spouse …how does this create unitive …and is not the person turning purple by suffocating the “gift” that God has given them …contraceptive intercourse like wise acts as a barrier against fully giving one’s self to one’s spouse,and hence fully unifying, and has the same effect of suffocating the soul from God’s life giving grace.

 

[jack_hawkins]

By corrolary, advise someone to put a bag over their head before kissing their spouse …how does this create unitive …and is not the person turning purple by suffocating the “gift” that God has given them …contraceptive intercourse like wise acts as a barrier against fully giving one’s self to one’s spouse,and hence fully unifying, and has the same effect of suffocating the soul from God’s life giving grace.

HUH???
Any thing sensible to say, because that definitely did not contribute anything to the debate - at all.

 

[setter]

HUH???
Any thing sensible to say, because that definitely did not contribute anything to the debate - at all.

I admit that my shots do not always hit everone’s target …I concede the floor to one who can speak your language.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Sorry, I must apologise for being too harsh
actually your analogy reminds me of a lecture I had once when the microbiologist compared the use of condoms for oral sex to eating a sandwich with the cling-film - too much information for all concerned!

 

[setter]

Sorry, I must apologise for being too harsh
actually your analogy reminds me of a lecture I had once when the microbiologist compared the use of condoms for oral sex to eating a sandwich with the cling-film - too much information for all concerned!

No offense taken …it is good to get my daily slice of humble pie (minus the plastic saran wrap of course ).

 

[jack_hawkins]

TY for your forgiveness - although I feel it is I who needs the humble pie

 

[fix]

You are missing the point. Why are condoms violating the unitice aspect of the marital act?
Why is wearing a condom a rejection of what God gifted the person with?

Have you read what the Church actually teaches on the matter?

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[jack_hawkins]

your post is begging the question

 

[fix]

your post is begging the question

From the same document:

Observing the Natural Law
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

 

[Nohome]

Non sequitor.

Translation, true.

And none of this addresses the point – that some people with AIDS deliberately and knowingly infected others.

I don’t doubt this for even a moment, as for patient zero, he likely never heard of AIDS when it killed him.

While Gaetan Dugas was a real person who did eventually die of AIDS, the Patient Zero story was not much more than myth and scaremongering. HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel.

avert.org/origins.htm

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

I think it is not the sexual aspect, but the medical issue that has raised new concerns. The Church will always need to be redefining and adjusting to some fields, like technology and bioethics. In the modern world, every year brings new challenges and questions that did not exist in the previous generation.

Exactly:thumbsup: Hey wait a minute, we agree on something?

But the one thing we do not need is a single cardinal revisiting, redefininig and changing moral teaching. The collective wisdom of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is needed.

Numerous cardinals have spoken out. What is hard to figure out is that media reports say that the Pope himself will have something to say on the subject. Yet reading these stories they are found to be void of anything other than speculation.

Nohome

 

[fix]

Exactly:thumbsup: Hey wait a minute, we agree on something?

Numerous cardinals have spoken out. What is hard to figure out is that media reports say that the Pope himself will have something to say on the subject. Yet reading these stories they are found to be void of anything other than speculation.

Nohome

IMO, it is becuase many wany the Vatican to “change” their positon. Note how many stories claiming a “change” is in the works. I say it is mostly propaganda.

I think this makes sense:

cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm

 

[vern_humphrey]

Translation, true.

Translation, non sequitor.

I don’t doubt this for even a moment, as for patient zero, he likely never heard of AIDS when it killed him.

That may be technically true. He may have died before the disease was named.

But it’s also true that health workers warned him it was a dangerous disease, and he openly defied them, telling them he’d have sex when he wanted to.

And his former partners testified he did taunt them – showing them the Karposki’s Sarcoma on his chest and telling them now they had it, too.

The lesson is clear – the spread of AIDS is due to the wilful,selfish behavior of those who carry HIV.

 

[Nohome]

The lesson is clear – the spread of AIDS is due to the wilful,selfish behavior of those who carry HIV.

In some cases. The issue is far more complex than you are willing to admit.

Back to the topic, which is condoms, do you feel they make this behavior more willful, more selfish? Could it maybe be the lesser of two evils?

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

IMO, it is becuase many want the Vatican to “change” their positon. Note how many stories claiming a “change” is in the works. I say it is mostly propaganda.

If you are correct, then history will repeat itself. This is not unlike all the hype in advance of Humane Vitae when everyone speculated that the church would allow some forms of birth control.

Nohome

 

[setter]

In some cases. The issue is far more complex than you are willing to admit.

Back to the topic, which is condoms, do you feel they make this behavior more willful, more selfish? Could it maybe be the lesser of two evils?

Nohome

There is a third way which does not entail choosing the lesser of two evils – abstinence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In some cases. The issue is far more complex than you are willing to admit.

I fully understand the complexity of the issue – including the fact that faithful wives have been infected by faithelss husbands, that people got AIDS through contaminated blood, and so on.

But the bottom line is, AIDS was spread by the wilful,selfish behavior of those who carry HIV.

Back to the topic, which is condoms, do you feel they make this behavior more willful, more selfish? Could it maybe be the lesser of two evils?

No. It is merely an endorsement and encouragement of that sort of wilful, selfish behavior. No one who is in the at-risk category has a right to wear a blindfold. They have a duty to know their status and must take full responsibiliy for their behavior. All have a duty to refrain from spreading the disease – and there is only one way to accomplish that – stop the behavior that spreads AIDS.