Catholic Cardinal Pushes for Condoms

[Protestante]

What the heck is so positively evil about contraception in catholicism?!

 

[CatholicCid]

It attempts to unnaturally prevent contraception, and in some ABC abort the child very early on.

As NoHome said, the Cardinal is expressing his thought and opinion, not teaching or the such…
If one has a differing opinion, they are free to it, but i suppose submit to the Church Doctrine on the teaching and try and see where he/she differs on the stance ect…
Should he be publically stating it? I don’t think so, but I assume he mentioned it more so as something he would bring up at the Synod or the such…
I also like how the Cardinal said the idea made sense, not that he approved of it. Though, as horrible HIV is, why one will risk to infect the person they love is still to me.

What I still don’t get is, in the cases where HIV is spread through non-maritial marriage (I should look for statisitics on how much is spread through non-maritial) why people would bother with Church teaching on condoms and ABC when they are already ignoring such teachings on pre-maritial sex ect…
I wonder how people can even comment on it and blame the Church… Can’t ignore teaching A and then blame following teaching B for your problems.

Suppose all premaritial sex was stopped, I wonder how farther HIV would be widespread?

 

[josephdavid]

Contreception is defiance of God. It goes against scripture.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

stanley123:

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|?

Dear Stanley,
You really need to realize that everything in print is not necessarily true, but everything in a promulgated document of the church is.
RE: SSPX -
They are NOT in schism, per Cardinal Hoyos. They are separated but NOT SCHISMATIC So,…
(article from the Remnant in December- no link available yet)
No schism - no excommunication - no sin by the people to attend the mass.

Thanks,
Angel

 

[amor]

Just a couple weeks ago I would have reacted to this in much the same way as many here seem to have reacted: with disapproval, strong or mild, of the Cardinal.

But recently I educated myself by reading John Allen’s piece in the National Catholic Reporter. Now, I know the bad reputation of the Reporter, but John Allen himself has a good reputation – including among conservative Catholics affiliated with organizations such as Catholic Answers, Crisis Magazine, and Fr Neuhaus of First Things (who is actually more liberal than conservative, but most consider him to be conservative)

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word011306.htm#six

Official Catholic teaching on artificial birth control is clear – contraception violates the inherent inseparability between the procreative and unitive dimensions of marriage, and hence is forbidden. A question that remains open, however, is whether use of a condom in the context of HIV/AIDS necessarily involves the intent to contracept. In a situation in which one spouse is infected and the other is not, could a condom be morally permissible because the intent is to preserve life – with contraception, in the language of traditional Catholic analysis, regarded as a “foreseen but unintended” consequence?

It is often a surprise for many people to learn that the church has never officially pronounced on this issue. In fact, there is a lively discussion at the highest levels. (As a footnote to my colleagues in the press, it is therefore inaccurate to characterize the Catholic position as an outright “condom ban”). For example, the President of the Pontifical Council for the Health Care, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, said in 2004, “If an infected husband wants to have sex with his wife who isn’t infected, then she must defend herself by whatever means necessary.” Similar arguments have been made by others, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster, England.

Yet there are opposing voices. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has argued that even in the context of HIV/AIDS the use of condoms is forbidden, not only because artificial birth control is intrinsically evil, but also because condoms have a small but significant failure rate.

I should also note that virtually every Catholic ethicist I know believes that in a situation in which an HIV-positive person is determined to have sex, regardless of Church teaching, it’s preferable for that person to use a condom, so as not to add a potential homicide to an already sinful situation. The problem is not so much the clarity of the teaching, but the pastoral judgment about how to communicate it in a way that doesn’t end up promoting promiscuity and reckless behavior.

Given the pressing nature of the AIDS crisis, and the divergence in views at the highest levels, Benedict will face growing pleas to say something definitive.

John’s piece is a little confusing but here is how I understand the matter

1. There is disagreement about whether contraception when a condom is used to prevent an STD is an unintended but forseen side effect which could be justified by the principle of double effect or whether it is so closely tied to the nature of a condom itself that it cannot be divorced from it in that manner. Apparently the magisterium has not ruled on this matter just as it has not ruled on the three other moral questions John talks about (such as the morality of embryo adoption and altered nuclear transfer)
2. Regardless of how the Church would rule on (1) – which means even if it should turn out that condom use is in every case immoral – Catholic moralists are apparently virtually unanimous in saying that it is legitimate to counsel a person to use a condom so as to counsel him to commit a lesser set of sins (such as fornication and contraception) as opposed to a set of sins of greater gravity (fornication and homicide or reckless disregard for himan life) – when that person has an STD like HIV.
3. Looking at pre-Vatican II moral theology manuals, it seems that Allen is correct about (2). In one of these manuals, written by Fr Heribert Jone, he states that moralists are in unanimous agreement that it is legitimate to counsel one to commit a lesser sin when that lesser sin is wholly included in the greater offense (for instance if it were a case of fornication versus fornication and homicide). However, Fr Jone says that when the lesser sin or set of sins is not wholly included, then moralists while tending to say that this too is legitimate, are not quite unanimous in saying so (and so this would be relevant if it were a case of fornication+contraception versys fornication+homicide – since the contraceptive aspect of the sin is not included in the greater offense)

 

[Ortho]

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?

It may take only one time to pass a disease along, but correct use of condoms greatly reduces the probability over time. It’s a bit like driving. We all know we can be killed, so why even take a chance?

The study of risk is quite interesting.

 

[Ortho]

fix:

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.

How did the Lord reveal contraception is intrinsically evil? Where and when did he mention it? I don’t recall anything in the NT about it. Maybe Jeuss didn’t think it was important?

 

[Ortho]

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.

How do we know when the pope is speaking infallibly? Nobody seems to know. I wonder if the test of infallibility is personal agreement?

 

[Ortho]

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.

I think they found they couldn’t make a logical case for it.

 

[Ortho]

cyprian:

I could ask you “how long have you been using birth control ?” And so, the church does not ask these questions to each member but it is incumbent upon each to follow the rules.Bad popes and bishops and priests and the like, there will always be those who think they know better, the wheat growing with the tares, you know, and so we are left only with Jesus, his Church not ours and all these decisions by which we will be held accountable. But alas, we always have the abandoned sacrament
of confession. It’s apparent(communion vs. confession) that a lot of cath’s have it wrong as far as what they believe the church ought to do, you may even be one of them. I was. Sin? What?

It sure looks like the Church is turning a blind eye towards ABC. I suspect they are afraid to push it because they know the people will push back harder.

 

[Nohome]

Ortho:

It sure looks like the Church is turning a blind eye towards ABC. I suspect they are afraid to push it because they know the people will push back harder.

When it comes to ABC, the Church pretends to lead and the people pretend to follow. I suspect that if the Church made it a major issue it would just reveal deeper dissent.

Nohome

 

[Eireann]

Protestante:

What the heck is so positively evil about contraception in catholicism?!

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, **to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: **
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[Nohome]

CCC 2370 **to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: **

Since ABC is not 100% effective, it does not render procreation impossible, therfore one can argue that it is not intrinsically evil.

Nohome

 

[oat_soda]

**
*virtually every Catholic ethicist I know believes that in a situation in which an HIV-positive person is determined to have sex, regardless of Church teaching, it’s preferable for that person to use a condom, the act of having sex while intentionally blocking its procreative aspect will always be sinful. the question is weather it is sinful to for a married couple to have sex if one is infected with a terminal STD. a man who forces himself on his wife is objectifing her which is again a mortal sin. i think that the use of contraceptives in that case then wouldn’t be sinful.

 

[Listener]

This kind of makes sense to me. If you can use birth control pills for medical reasons, it kind of makes sense to use other forms of birth control for medical reasons, too. Doctors recommend condoms not only for AIDS, but also after a man has had a radiation seed implant to cure his prostate cancer. I have also heard that they are sometimes recommended when a woman is pregnant (they keep the germs out, or something like that). Anyway, if the woman is already pregnant, how you could call this “birth control” is beyond me. It is more like “germ control” to protect life that already exists.

Abstinence doesn’t seem like much of an alternative to me - didn’t Jesus say that a man and his wife shall be “Two in one flesh?” I don’t know how that could be any clearer. St. Paul also says that spouses can abstain for a time, but it is wrong for them to deny one another.

If the spouses have to abstain forever, I don’t even know how such a thing could even be called a marriage! Well, obviously that’s just my opinion. The pope would probably disagree!

 

[Vicia]

Genesis315:

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.

Mass is an obligation, not a disipline. You can not choose whether or not to go. You have to have a great reason to miss Mass.

CCC:

**The Sunday obligation **

**2180 **The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

**2181 **The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

**2182 **Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. **2183 **"If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120

Contraception is intrinsically evil. I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[legeorge]

stanley123:

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.

Your presenting a false premise of either this group is right or the other is right. In fact, both situations show disobedient Catholics. A person can be obedient in one area and disobedient in another. It is not the obedience which is the problem, but the disobedience. I do not attempt to attend a schismatic church. I also do not use artificial contraception. We need to strive to be obedient to God and all the teachings of his Church. Not just the stuff we feel comfortable with.

 

[legeorge]

Ortho:

How did the Lord reveal contraception is intrinsically evil? Where and when did he mention it? I don’t recall anything in the NT about it. Maybe Jeuss didn’t think it was important?

That is just silly spin. Was there such a thing as ortho tri cyclen in the first century? That is why we have the teaching magesterium of the Church. With each new development in technology and science we must look to the Church and trust her guidance in the areas of faith and morals. We should not just bend with the wind. If Jesus had said “it is not lawful to use artificial birth control” in AD 32 that would have been pretty confusing to those people, no? There is plenty of evidence both in the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church to explain why the Church teaches this about contraception. Jesus never said the word Trinity either. But most people don’t see that as an impediment to believing that doctrine. People only wish to use the “where did Jesus say that” argument when they don’t want to be obedient to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Ortho]

legeorge:

That is just silly spin. Was there such a thing as ortho tri cyclen in the first century? That is why we have the teaching magesterium of the Church. With each new development in technology and science we must look to the Church and trust her guidance in the areas of faith and morals. We should not just bend with the wind. If Jesus had said “it is not lawful to use artificial birth control” in AD 32 that would have been pretty confusing to those people, no? There is plenty of evidence both in the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church to explain why the Church teaches this about contraception. Jesus never said the word Trinity either. But most people don’t see that as an impediment to believing that doctrine. People only wish to use the “where did Jesus say that” argument when they don’t want to be obedient to the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps the statement I was responding to was silly?

“That contraception is intrinsically evil is not some conjured up law, but revealed by our Lord.”

What did our Lord say about it? Or did he say nothing about it? Maybe it wasn’t important to him?

 

[legeorge]

Ortho:

Perhaps the statement I was responding to was silly?

“That contraception is intrinsically evil is not some conjured up law, but revealed by our Lord.”

What did our Lord say about it? Or did he say nothing about it? Maybe it wasn’t important to him?

Just because God chooses to reveal things* through * the teaching magesterium of the Church does not mean that it was not “revealed by our Lord”. Something does not have to be a direct quote from Jesus in the Bible in order to be revealed by Him. If it is important enough for His Church to teach about, you can bet that it is important to Him, Himself. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven”. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. If the Church reveals a truth, it is from God. Children were very important to Jesus. Scripture tells us over and over that children are a gift of God, that we should not lead them astray, that we should be like little children, etc. etc. Just because the words “artificial birth control” cannot be found in the Bible does not mean that God isn’t interested. The word “abortion” isn’t in scripture either. Do you honestly believe that God isn’t “interested” in the murder of his children? You’ll have to do better than that.