Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[Maranatha]

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

 

[yochumjy]

Maranatha:

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

I don’t suppose this could have been reported wrong or taken out of context… I can only hope! If not…

 

[abcdefg]

allafrica.com:

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

This statement is too scary, I need the context to verify it, yet the source didn’t provide any.

 

[Roman_Army]

He is wrong! Hopefully, the source is not reliable and nothing but a false rumor. The use of condoms in such a case is gravely immoral because of the fact that the couple is still capable of having babies (even thought they’d be infected). Also, it would be immoral even if they couldn’t have kids because they need to leave the possibility open. It would also be immoral to willfully infect one’s spouse. The only moral and sure way to deal with such cases is through chastity. Condoms can break and they only further promote risky sex. He as a Cardinal should know better, he should preach in a more orthodox manner.

 

[Guar_Fan]

Sex within marriage is healthy and normal. If one partner has an incurable sexually transmitted disease it only makes sense to allow condoms. I think the situation is similar to skipping Sunday mass if one is ill. Missing Sunday mass is a sin, but its excusable if you are trying to protect the health of others.

 

[Genesis315]

Guar Fan:

Sex within marriage is healthy and normal. If one partner has an incurable sexually transmitted disease it only makes sense to allow condoms. I think the situation is similar to skipping Sunday mass if one is ill. Missing Sunday mass is a sin, but its excusable if you are trying to protect the health of others.

Wrong. There is a perfectly moral alternative to condoms in such a situation: abstinance. Plus, attending Mass on Sunday is a discipline of the Church and so she can grant dispensations (Mass during some eras of the Church wasn’t even offered every Sunday). Contraception is intrinsically evil however and this is immutable.

 

[CatholicCid]

Makes one wonder, if the illness was so great enough to cause one to want to contracept to protect their partner, why would they even want to take that chance? Condoms aren’t always 100% effective in stopping STD’s, and it only takes one time to pass a disease along to your ‘loved’ one.
Why would they not go that 100% sure fire way and abstain as Genesis315 suggested?

 

[Franze]

I think that it´s a false rumour.

 

[Leeta]

Since condoms have naturally occurring voids or holes which are many times bigger than the AIDS virus, it is only a matter of time before the non-infected partner becomes infected if condoms are used.
So how is it an act of love to infect the spouse? Abstinence is the only loving response to such illness.

The Cardinal appparently subscribes to the idea that the matital embrace must be carried out at all costs, even at the cost of the life of the other spouse. Now is that Love?
There have been many cases of saintly married couples freely embracing continence for the sake of the Kingdom. Well, here is an opportunity for those couples with such an illness on the part of one spouse to do the same. Now if only our priests and bishops who themselves have embraced celibacy would show and encourage such couples how to live continently instead of believing the lies of the world about the marital embrace.

 

[Guar_Fan]

Genesis315:

There is a perfectly moral alternative to condoms in such a situation: abstinance.

But isn’t it unrealistic to expect the average couple to abstain from sex for the rest of their lives?

Contraception is intrinsically evil however and this is immutable.

“Evil” seems to be a rather strong word to use. I think we need to weigh intentions and weigh the good gained. If the intention is to prevent disease (a fatal, incurable disease) rather than to contracept I think it is important to allow for the use of condoms. After all, the goal is to promote life.

 

[jimmy]

Maranatha:

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

This Cardinal has strayed into disobedience of the Church. He is teaching against the Church. The Church will not rethink anything, and it should not.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Guar Fan:

But isn’t it unrealistic to expect the average couple to abstain from sex for the rest of their lives?.

No. We have the ability to control our actions. Also, God gives us the grace to do difficult things.

“Evil” seems to be a rather strong word to use. I think we need to weigh intentions and weigh the good gained. If the intention is to prevent disease (a fatal, incurable disease) rather than to contracept I think it is important to allow for the use of condoms. After all, the goal is to promote life.

By definition, evil is the lack of good. For an action to be morally acceptable, three criteria must be met:

1. The desired result is good. (Preventing disease is good.)
2. It must be done with the proper intention. (Protecting the health of a person is good.)
3. It must be done in a “good way.” (Using condoms is not good.)

All three criteria must be met for the action to be morally acceptable. It is never acceptable to perform evil to achieve good.

 

[Nohome]

Elizabeth B.:

No. We have the ability to control our actions. Also, God gives us the grace to do difficult things.

Have you been to Africa? Have you had a chance to apreciate the culture? Do you understand what it means to be a woman in Africa?

Women are considered the property of their husband, bought with a dowry. She may wish to abstain, but it isn’t up to her. The “marital act” is all too often more like rape than anything else. Even if the Church allows condoms I doubt that these AIDS infected men would comply. Condoms cost money they would rather spend on food.

I haven’t been to Cameroon, but I can tell you about Nigeria and Benin. Poverty only begins to describe the reality of such places. Leadership is corrupt beyond comprehension. Many may call themselves “Catholic”, but it really is a mix of ancient culture and catholic ritual. It’s an animal existence that depends on the Church for the things civilized society should provide.

I would cut this Cardianl some slack. He has seen things that most of the western world can’t comprehend. AIDS is spreading faster than the Church in Africa. It is very pharisaical to criticise this man from the western perspective. We should listen.

Nohome

 

[fix]

Nohome:

It is very pharisaical to criticise this man from the western perspective. We should listen.

Nohome

Why? If the report is accurate he is calling for something counter to the truth?

 

[Nohome]

fix:

Why? If the report is accurate he is calling for something counter to the truth?

Because people are going to die. What is more important, upholding the institutional church or preserving life?

Nohome

 

[allhers]

Nohome:

Have you been to Africa? Have you had a chance to apreciate the culture? Do you understand what it means to be a woman in Africa?

Women are considered the property of their husband, bought with a dowry. She may wish to abstain, but it isn’t up to her. The “marital act” is all too often more like rape than anything else. Even if the Church allows condoms I doubt that these AIDS infected men would comply. Condoms cost money they would rather spend on food.

I haven’t been to Cameroon, but I can tell you about Nigeria and Benin. Poverty only begins to describe the reality of such places. Leadership is corrupt beyond comprehension. Many may call themselves “Catholic”, but it really is a mix of ancient culture and catholic ritual. It’s an animal existence that depends on the Church for the things civilized society should provide.

I would cut this Cardianl some slack. He has seen things that most of the western world can’t comprehend. AIDS is spreading faster than the Church in Africa. It is very pharisaical to criticise this man from the western perspective. We should listen.

Nohome

Now, IF what you say is true, that they wouldn’t use them anyway, then this whole conversation is moot and IF what some Cardinal said above is true, he is wrong. No slack needs to be cut anyone who says and teaches anything that is not true.
By the way, the Church isn’t an institution either.

 

[fix]

Nohome:

Because people are going to die. What is more important, upholding the institutional church or preserving life?

Nohome

Obeying Christ is important. That contraception is intrinsically evil is not some conjured up law, but revealed by our Lord. The salvation of souls is the mission of His Church.

 

[cathgal]

“Preserving life”? Better to preserve ETERNAL life than a mere short life.

 

[Roman_Army]

Nohome:

Have you been to Africa? Have you had a chance to apreciate the culture? Do you understand what it means to be a woman in Africa?

What does this have to do with an infallible and mandatory doctrine? It is my understanding that the papal encyclicals made clear that contraception is wrong even in such cases.

Nohome:

Women are considered the property of their husband, bought with a dowry. She may wish to abstain, but it isn’t up to her. The “marital act” is all too often more like rape than anything else. Even if the Church allows condoms I doubt that these AIDS infected men would comply. Condoms cost money they would rather spend on food.

Maybe instead of promoting condoms and risky sex the Cardinal should teach them about how wrong their culture is and that women aren’t property and point to the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph for guidance. As you stated they wouldn’t comply with using condoms, so why not teach them the right thing to do then?

Nohome:

I haven’t been to Cameroon, but I can tell you about Nigeria and Benin. Poverty only begins to describe the reality of such places. Leadership is corrupt beyond comprehension. Many may call themselves “Catholic”, but it really is a mix of ancient culture and catholic ritual. It’s an animal existence that depends on the Church for the things civilized society should provide.

Well, this has very little to do with the issue we’re dicussing. Hmmm… are you suggesting that since we here in the US are rich we can be more chaste, but they can not? Wasn’t the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, Jesus, and even many of his disciples chaste? It is my understanding that they were among the poorest of the poor too.

Nohome:

I would cut this Cardinal* some slack. He has seen things that most of the western world can’t comprehend. AIDS is spreading faster than the Church in Africa. It is very pharisaical to criticise this man from the western perspective. We should listen.

Nohome

Oh again, so since we’re so rich and intelligent here in the West we are more capable of being chaste and the poor Africans should be exempt from all laws? Think about it. This issue has nothing to do with class or intelligence. It has to do with what the Cardinal is supposed to be preaching.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Nohome:

Have you been to Africa? Have you had a chance to apreciate the culture? Do you understand what it means to be a woman in Africa?

Women are considered the property of their husband, bought with a dowry. She may wish to abstain, but it isn’t up to her. The “marital act” is all too often more like rape than anything else. Even if the Church allows condoms I doubt that these AIDS infected men would comply. Condoms cost money they would rather spend on food.

I haven’t been to Cameroon, but I can tell you about Nigeria and Benin. Poverty only begins to describe the reality of such places. Leadership is corrupt beyond comprehension. Many may call themselves “Catholic”, but it really is a mix of ancient culture and catholic ritual. It’s an animal existence that depends on the Church for the things civilized society should provide.

I would cut this Cardianl some slack. He has seen things that most of the western world can’t comprehend. AIDS is spreading faster than the Church in Africa. It is very pharisaical to criticise this man from the western perspective. We should listen.

Nohome

No, actually, we shouldn’t.

Does he speak for the Church? Should you listen to me? Should I listen to you? No. No. No.

WE LISTEN TO ROME.

End of story. This is not some democracy, where we all get to give our two cents. Rome says jump, and we say “how high?”

That’s it.

This nonsense about needing to listen to dissenters and heretics has got to stop. That isn’t anywhere in the Church’s teachings, and leads to only confusion, breaking of solidarity ranks, and more sin.

I don’t begrudge him his opinion, but he makes the entire church look bad and confuses way to many people by acting as though he speaks for the Church. Assuming this is indeed true.