Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[Brain]

If you are married, what is the point of using condoms to protect against AIDS? It is unlikly that you would marry an HIV positive person if you wanted children (as obvously the act which creates life woudl also transfer the disease), willingness to have children is a requirement of a valid marraige right? So unless you are just marrying as an excuse to use eachother sexually (a sin)… there is no reason why what the cardinal is rumored to have said is even relevant.

Dear world,
Get over it. Catholics cannot morally use condoms for the purpose they are manufactured (they make humorous and off color baloons at college parties though), period. If spouse has a sickness, the other is love them in other ways.
Thank you,
The Catholic Church

 

[Nohome]

Roman_Army:

What does this have to do with an infallible and mandatory doctrine?

Are you saying that the ban on ABC was stated ex cathedra? I know a lot of Catholics who beg to differ.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

HappyCatholic01:

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.

Well, so much for the fastest growing community of the Church, Africa will die on the vine.

Nohome

 

[MrS]

I can see why you would agree with this “Catholic Cardinal”. If correct, he may also be a former Catholic.

As a self-proclaimed former Catholic, I should think you have forfeited at least your credibility in making a statement or opinion you want other Catholics to take seriously.

 

[fix]

Nohome:

Are you saying that the ban on ABC was stated ex cathedra? I know a lot of Catholics who beg to differ.

Nohome

It is infallible by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. That some reject that in no way changes the truth.

 

[Roman_Army]

Nohome:

Are you saying that the ban on ABC was stated ex cathedra? I know a lot of Catholics who beg to differ.

Nohome

**Those aren’t Catholics. Those are hypocrites pretending to be Catholic. **

Using your same language then a ban on Gay marriage, abortion, and adultery, etc. is not an ex cathedra statement? :whacky: You either follow the magisterium when it comes to faith and morals or you don’t period. Just as you can’t be a little bit pregnant. The use of contraceptives was stated as immoral (by not one but many Popes), so therefore that must be followed and is ex cathedra.

PS: Even the schismatic apostolic churches condemn contraception.

 

[Roman_Army]

**"**we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  **
  • he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." -Vatican Council
  
  Source: piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff
  
  The Doctrine on Contraception meets all of the above requirements for ex cathedra. Therefore, it must be followed and is irreformable.

 

[stanley123]

The Doctrine on Contraception meets all of the above requirements for ex cathedra. Therefore, it must be followed and is irreformable.

This is curious because we read the contrary in Catholic sources. For example:
1.
According to the following article in US Catholic

uscatholic.org/2005/09/featb0509.htm

“It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics do in fact use artificial contraception.”
“After much thought and prayer, they decided that contraception was the best solution for them. Freedom from fear of conception has had a very positive impact on their relationship and their family life as a whole.”

It looks like the Catholic theologian who wrote the article is claiming that ABC has a positive impact on relationships and on family life???
". . . (Fr. Richard McCormick maintains that) there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction. However, sadly enough, fewer and fewer are willing to say this publicly." Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxilliary Bishop of Detroit, in America, November 20, 1993.

1. According to the report cited in this thread:
   "Although the Catholic Church considers sex between unmarried couples as immoral, Tumi commented that “possibly there can be a rethink there”

 

[Roman_Army]

Stanley:

What are you trying to prove? This proves nothing. Rome has already spoken, the Pope has infallibly spoken on this issue. If a lot of other people want to disagree, let them be anathema. It’s unfortunate and sad, but hey there’s not much you can do about it but pray for them. If they get out of line and go public they should be excommunicated.

 

[Roman_Army]

Pope Paul VI:

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

At the end of the Encyclical:
Pope Paul VI:

1. Venerable brothers, beloved sons, all men of good will, great indeed is the work of education, of progress and of charity to which We now summon all of you. And this We do relying on the unshakable teaching of the Church, which teaching Peter’s successor together with his brothers in the Catholic episcopate faithfully guards and interprets. And We are convinced that this truly great work will bring blessings both on the world and on the Church. For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature. These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed. On this great work, on all of you and especially on married couples, We implore from the God of all holiness and pity an abundance of heavenly grace as a pledge of which We gladly bestow Our apostolic blessing.

Clearly here this Encyclical is intended as ex cathedra.

 

[CatholicCid]

I never understand why the Church is never given slack in such instances…
The Church causes STD’s to rise as they prohibit condom use… Yet most people catching these STD’s through non-maritial relations… Can’t break Rule A then blame Rule B for your problems
Also true in other cases… If Catholics who stray a little to far away are willing to break rules of the Church and risk infections, why would the Church ban on ABC matter to them?

Kinda wierd to that, until 1930, the majority of major Religions were all against ABC… Apparently the wisdom of the ages can be changed in less then a century.

 

[stanley123]

Roman_Army:

What are you trying to prove?
Clearly here this Encyclical is intended as ex cathedra.

I am only observing what Catholic theologians are putting into public print. I am not proving anything. It looks like there are Catholic bishops, Catholic theologians and Catholic priests who don’t think that the encyclical is infallible. Was there ever a definitive declaration that this encyclical was infallible? And do you say that all Catholic theologians and bishops today say that it is infallible Catholic doctrine and can never be changed? I read differently, that it is not infallible, and these were from Catholic sources.
Once again, I am not trying to prove anything, I am just observing what has been posted in the public newspapers and in public print by Catholic authorities.

 

[stanley123]

** If they get out of line and go public they should be excommunicated.**

I don’t know of any priest or bishop who has been excommunicated on the issue of artificial birth control, do you? In fact, there is an SSPX chapel in our area, and I had occasion to visit it a while back, and I saw several large families there. For example, there was a pregnant lady and her husband with their thirteen children and one more on the way. Now my understanding is that the Church has excommunicated these good people as they are saying their rosaries and having their large families and attending Mass at SSPX, because they are adhering to a schism, at least that’s what I read. But what do I see at the local Catholic Church? I see familites of one or two children. From time to time I might see a family with three children, but this is not the general rule. Now who is being excommunicated here? Is it the Catholic family with thirteen children and attending the old Latin Mass at SSPX, or is it the Catholic family with one or two children attending the New Mass at the local Catholic Church|?

 

[Roman_Army]

Stanley,

You’re just trying to press buttons. Who made you judge of who is using contraceptives and who isn’t? I hope you don’t go around pointing fingers judging people like that. Of course, there are people that would stray off, but hopefully they’ll recant, they’ll have to answer to God. Sure there are some theologians and so called priests and Bishops that disagree. Did you not know that even at the time of the Apostles some people disagreed with them? It is obvious that the doctrine is ex cathedra, read the above reference to the Vatican Council and then read the encyclical, it meets all the requirements. Those other theologians and clergymen are just trying to tap dance around the issue just as you are right now. Rome has spoken so case is closed. This discussion is over. What’s next? They’re going to start questioning the infallibility of other things? The next thing you know people will be getting away with murder. No one said being a christian was easy, just accept it.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

It’s interesting to note that in Uganda where 43% of the population is Catholic, only 4% of the adult population is infected with HIV.

In Swaziland, where only 5% of the population is Catholic, the infection rate is 42.6%.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=77051

It seems both Faith and Science agree on this one.

 

[stanley123]

** Sure there are some theologians and so called priests and Bishops that disagree.**

From the news, it looks like a rather large number of priests, bishops and lay Catholics who do not support the Catholic doctrine on ABC.
You were the one who mentioned excommunication in the first place, not me. I don’t know of a single bishop, priest or Catholic layperson who was ever excommunicated on the issue of ABC, do you? But I see that people with large families, of thirteen children and more coming, are excommunicated for saying a rosary and attending Mass at SSPX. And I don’t see these large families at the local Catholic Church.

 

[shannin]

Brain:

If you are married, what is the point of using condoms to protect against AIDS? It is unlikly that you would marry an HIV positive person if you wanted children (as obvously the act which creates life woudl also transfer the disease), willingness to have children is a requirement of a valid marraige right? So unless you are just marrying as an excuse to use eachother sexually (a sin)… there is no reason why what the cardinal is rumored to have said is even relevant.

A person doesn’t have to have sex in order to contact AIDS. There have been faithful married women that have had blood transfusions and then became HIV Positive and contacted AIDS. I’m not so sure that the Church wouldn’t allow the husband of such a woman to use a condom for his own protection.

 

[estesbob]

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

I havent been to Africa but it should be noted that the Catholic Bishops of Africa condemn the use of condoms. One can always find excuses to not follow the Church’s teachings-fortunately the bishops are adhering to the TRUTH the Church teaches

 

[JGheen]

Nohome:

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

Nohome

The early Christians thought it was better to die upholding & establishing the Church then preserving their lives. . . just a thought.

 

[JGheen]

Guar Fan:

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

Is it unrealistic to expect the religious or other singles to abstain their entire lifes? Is it unrealistic to expect homosexuals to abstain from homosexual ‘sex’ for their entire lives?

I think the answer to all these questions is ‘no’. Some people are given must larger crosses then others, but we are all called to carry our cross nonetheless.