Condoms should u use them or not?

[km112482]

Tantum ergo:

I repeat, what does it matter if you save your life but lose your immortal soul?

One may not do evil that a good may result.

Despite your interpretations of what Pope Paul VI said (and it was not regarding condoms, BTW) regarding treatment with the pill, the church says then, and says now, that one may not use condoms as a therapeutic measure against the spread of a pandemic disease (such as AIDS in Africa) or against the partner-to-partner spread of a specific disease in an individual partner. One Cardinal’s recent speech, taken out of full context, does not equal Church sanction. Many, many encyclicals, speeches, and teachings regarding condom use (please, tell me we aren’t descending into the vortex of “Situational ethics”) repeatedly tell Catholics that they may not use condoms to “protect themselves” when abstinence is 100% effective. The “greater good” in this situation is to ABSTAIN in order to protect the healthy partner, not to indulge in immoral, illicit use of condoms which “may” or may NOT protect the healthy partner from disease, and which certainly do not protect his or her soul from grave sin in their use.

Amen, Abstinence is 100% effective.

 

[Genesis315]

How about being therapeutic to the healthy partner? It helps prevent a healthy person from getting sick.

It is not therappeautic for the healthy person for the very fact that they are healthy already. Look, HV specifically uses the word “CURE,” not “prevent.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

cove:

How about being therapeutic to the healthy partner? It helps prevent a healthy person from getting sick.

It does not. It just happens to be the luck of the draw that one does not get sick.

 

[cove]

Tantum ergo:

I repeat, what does it matter if you save your life but lose your immortal soul?

One may not do evil that a good may result.

Despite your interpretations of what Pope Paul VI said (and it was not regarding condoms, BTW) regarding treatment with the pill, the church says then, and says now, that one may not use condoms as a therapeutic measure against the spread of a pandemic disease (such as AIDS in Africa) or against the partner-to-partner spread of a specific disease in an individual partner. One Cardinal’s recent speech, taken out of full context, does not equal Church sanction. Many, many encyclicals, speeches, and teachings regarding condom use (please, tell me we aren’t descending into the vortex of “Situational ethics”) repeatedly tell Catholics that they may not use condoms to “protect themselves” when abstinence is 100% effective. The “greater good” in this situation is to ABSTAIN in order to protect the healthy partner, not to indulge in immoral, illicit use of condoms which “may” or may NOT protect the healthy partner from disease, and which certainly do not protect his or her soul from grave sin in their use.

 

[Phantom1539]

I skipped a bunch of posts because these threads are WAY TOO LONG so I hope I don’t repeat anything thats been said. Many Christians promoted contraception at first because they thought it would bring abortion rates down. But, ABORTION RATES WENT UP AFTER CONTRACEPTION WAS LEGALIZED. This is off topic from the disease thing, but still appropriate. Natural family planning also promotes closeness between married couples because it requires them to find ways to express intimacy without having intercourse. It can make couples better parents and just better people all across the board. Natural family planning also is similar to marriage laws in the Old Testament. On the whole, I feel that contraception is destructive to society and that the only thing that would would reverse it’s affects would be to ban it entirely. (May sound drastic and idealistic, but many would say the same about banning abortion) As long as contraception exists it will be used for evil, and not just to “prevent diseases.” But I respect many of the people who say otherwise.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

It is not therappeautic for the healthy person for the very fact that they are healthy already. Look, HV specifically uses the word “CURE,” not “prevent.”

In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure. Abstinence being the best possible form of prevention/cure. But, realistically speaking we will still have people who will engage in risky sex. The condom is the next best step (not fool proof but better then nothing) in this prevention/cure.

Look, what everyone is saying here is great and I don’t disagree with you on faith and morals.

I have to go get my baby at school.

Have a great afternoon.

 

[RichT]

Jesusismyhomie:

Accept the disease what do u mean by that? That is so stupid. I can love someone without wanting their disease. “In sickness and in health” means that I accept them with the disease it does not mean I have to take the chance of catching it. Especially if it is fatal like aids. I am sure God would not want that for anyone nor would he ecpect a couple not to have sex If it means not spreading the disease. How would God say condoms and other types of birth control are bad if they were not around when he was alive.

The thing is, had this hypothetical person lived a life with good Christian morals, they would have saved themselves for marriage. They wouldn’t have brought a disease into the marriage to begin with. A person with a disease has a moral obligation to abstain from having sex, thereby avoiding the chances of passing it on to someone else. They should have thought of the consequences before doing the deed.

 

[felra]

In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure. Abstinence being the best possible form of prevention/cure. But, realistically speaking we will still have people who will engage in risky sex. The condom is the next best step (not fool proof but better then nothing) in this prevention/cure.

"In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure."

You should have stopped here when you had it right.

**“The condom is the next best step…” **I have to imagine myself setting before the judgement seat of Christ once I check out trying to get this one by Him. Nope, it doesn’t float, rather the argument shrinks and avaporates away before the reality of God and His holiness. I imagine Him asking me why I didn’t simply do it His way.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

cove:

In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure. Abstinence being the best possible form of prevention/cure. But, realistically speaking we will still have people who will engage in risky sex. The condom is the next best step (not fool proof but better then nothing) in this prevention/cure.

This is the part you seem to refuse to understand.

There are people who would not normally engage in any risky behavior, but the moment you have something that seems to make a risky behavior safe, they will indulge.

So there are people out there that will engage in risky sex because they are being told that condoms are the next best step. They roll the dice, so to say.

So you have blood on your hands because you are promoting this behavior.

 

[km112482]

felra:

In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure

. Abstinence being the best possible form of prevention/cure. But, realistically speaking we will still have people who will engage in risky sex. The condom is the next best step (not fool proof but better then nothing) in this prevention/cure.
QUOTE]

"In the case of AIDS, prevention is the cure." You should have stopped here when you had it right.

**“The condom is the next best step…” **I have to imagine myself setting before the judgement seat of Christ once I check out trying to get this one by Him. Nope, it doesn’t float, rather the argument shrinks and avaporates away before the reality of God and His holiness. I imagine Him asking me why I didn’t simply do it His way.
I agree. At one time I made all the excuses in the book, but Like I said it was to ease my own guilt. Now that I am growing spiritually I cant believe I ever made any excuse for it.

Kerri

 

[cove]

RichT:

The thing is, had this hypothetical person lived a life with good Christian morals, they would have saved themselves for marriage. They wouldn’t have brought a disease into the marriage to begin with. A person with a disease has a moral obligation to abstain from having sex, thereby avoiding the chances of passing it on to someone else. They should have thought of the consequences before doing the deed.

People with good Christian morals could easily be carriers of HIV. It is not only transmitted through sexual intercourse.

Especially, children born in the 1980’s and those who had blood transfusions before testing was available. It is very possible that someone who is not HIV positive will fall in love and want to marry a moral Christian who unfortunately is a victim of the AIDS epdemic. I feel sorry for them and I hope that they can live a chaste life.

 

[cove]

ByzCath:

This is the part you seem to refuse to understand.

There are people who would not normally engage in any risky behavior, but the moment you have something that seems to make a risky behavior safe, they will indulge.

So there are people out there that will engage in risky sex because they are being told that condoms are the next best step. They roll the dice, so to say.

So you have blood on your hands because you are promoting this behavior.

I am not promoting any bad behavior so spare me the catholic guilt trip.

I have consistantly stated that abstinence is the only true prevention agains HIV/AIDS. I am only stating a reality that there are going to be those who fall to the temptation and I hope that they will at least take some form of preventative measure. That, of course, would be a condom because I don’t know of any other.

btw–I joined this discussion when it was at the Water Cooler. I was not trying to make an attempt at that time to put a moral spin on it. Just looking at it realistically. Sorry if my opinion has upset anyone.

 

[RichT]

cove:

People with good Christian morals could easily be carriers of HIV. It is not only transmitted through sexual intercourse.

Especially, children born in the 1980’s and those who had blood transfusions before testing was available. It is very possible that someone who is not HIV positive will fall in love and want to marry a moral Christian who unfortunately is a victim of the AIDS epdemic. I feel sorry for them and I hope that they can live a chaste life.

First let’s not turn my post into something it isn’t. It was directed at a person who feels that sex outside of marriage is okay. Secondly, yes even an innocent person can contract HIV. That doesn’t change the fact that that persopn should act responsibly and abstain from sexual relations.

 

[hsmom2four]

cove:

But, not everyone will and the next better choice to not spread the disease would be to use a condoms.

Okay, so by your logic, if I have this strong, uncontrollable desire to shoot my hubby with a gun, I can do so as long as I give him a bullet-proof vest for protection? Of course, there may be a failure rate with my aim and I might hit him in the head instead of the chest, but that would be the lesser of two evils…

C’mon, honey, if you love me, you’ll let me take a shot at you…

 

[John_Higgins]

Tantum ergo:

A sexual action between two people must always be open to the possibility of life.

Condoms close that possibility.

Okay, most everybody here has said condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. So…every sexual act performed while using a condom is, in fact, open to the possibility of life. So, other than saying “The Church says so”, what is the rationale for forbidding barrier methods of birth control?

John

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

John Higgins:

Okay, most everybody here has said condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. So…every sexual act performed while using a condom is, in fact, open to the possibility of life. So, other than saying “The Church says so”, what is the …rationale for forbidding barrier methods of birth control?

John

You cannot become one flesh with your spouse when there is a peice of latex in-between you two.

And if you’re using condoms, you are not open to life. That was the point of buying them in the first place.

 

[Genesis315]

John Higgins:

Okay, most everybody here has said condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. So…every sexual act performed while using a condom is, in fact, open to the possibility of life. So, other than saying “The Church says so”, what is the rationale for forbidding barrier methods of birth control?

John

It’s the contraceptive mindset. That’s like saying you tried to kill someone, but you failed, so it’s not a sin.

 

[Genesis315]

Or it’s like, “I’m gonna try to kill this guy and there’s a shot he might escape, but I’m ok with that if he does.” That doesn’t fly.

 

[RichT]

John Higgins:

Okay, most everybody here has said condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. So…every sexual act performed while using a condom is, in fact, open to the possibility of life. So, other than saying “The Church says so”, what is the rationale for forbidding barrier methods of birth control?

John

I don’t think your being open to the possibilty of life while using condoms. A person using condoms would probably say they know they are runnng the risk of a pregnancy while using a condom. Then a large portion of those same people would be the first ones at the abortion clinic to take care of the problem.

Bottom line is that the intent of using condoms is to stop pregnancy and std’s. It’s the intent part that nullifies your statement.

 

[Genesis315]

Pro-Life_Teen:

You cannot become one flesh with your spouse when there is a peice of latex in-between you two.

And if you’re using condoms, you are not open to life. That was the point of buying them in the first place.

Here’s a youngster that gets it! :clapping: