F
felra
Guest
- Status
F
felra
Guest
Here you go … :banghead: Maybe before you continue to defend your failed position, try to take the recommendation of **ppcpilot **as he and his wife did to arrive at enlightment of their understanding:
My wife and I thought the way you do, for a long time. We have since seen the light. Read some of Christopher West’s books, or Contraception: Why Not? By Janet Smith (I think it’s Smith!)
C
cove
Guest
It is my understanding that ppcpilot was talking about ABC as a form of contraception. My converstation in here has not been about using condoms to prevent pregnancy.
I do not use ABC. I do not need a lesson in procreation. Thank you very much.
I hope I am not giving you a headache. You poor thing you.
H
hsmom2four
Guest
As Catholics, we also have the responsibility to evangelize - to teach others the TRUTHS of the Church, and one of those truths is that using condoms is a sin. No, the Church cannot FORCE anyone to believe or obey this; however, to condone it for any reason would be a contradiction to the TRUTH. We are in this world, but we are not 'of this world." Jn. 17:14, 1Jn 4:4-6, and others
Yeah, I don’t even own a gun - won’t let one in the house. But if I had a deadly disease and then insisted on having marital relations with my husband, I feel it would be the same as shooting him. And we’re not debating moral law vs. civil law here. This was just for illustrative purposes.
C
cove
Guest
h(name removed by moderator)2four:
"Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the pontifical household, told the Italian news agency Apcom that the use of condoms was “legitimate” to save lives in the poorest parts of Africa and Asia, where there was no time to teach abstinence or faithful conjugal love.
He is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances.
Contraception is officially forbidden by the Catholic church, and the Vatican has argued that condoms are full of “tiny holes” and do not guarantee protection against the transfer of the Aids virus.
Reiterating the church’s official line, Cardinal Cottier said condoms should not be used as contraceptives, could encourage immoral sexual conduct and were not the best way to stop the spread of HIV. But the threat of Aids was so immediate that “the use of condoms in some situations can be considered morally legitimate”. “The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said. “And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.”
I find it interesting that this Cardinal has found a legitimate reason for the use of condoms in the effort to curb the spread of the disease.
I agree that using condoms as a form of birth control is wrong. But, as the Cardinal said in these circumstances when we are dealing with people who have not been evangelized it may be necessary to condon the use of condoms to help curb the spread of the disease.
I understand that a lot of posters here will find this unacceptable.
Thank you for your response. I shared and article in one of my earlier posts and I wanted to share a quote from it with you–
"Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the pontifical household, told the Italian news agency Apcom that the use of condoms was “legitimate” to save lives in the poorest parts of Africa and Asia, where there was no time to teach abstinence or faithful conjugal love.
He is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances.
Contraception is officially forbidden by the Catholic church, and the Vatican has argued that condoms are full of “tiny holes” and do not guarantee protection against the transfer of the Aids virus.
Reiterating the church’s official line, Cardinal Cottier said condoms should not be used as contraceptives, could encourage immoral sexual conduct and were not the best way to stop the spread of HIV. But the threat of Aids was so immediate that “the use of condoms in some situations can be considered morally legitimate”. “The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said. “And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.”
I find it interesting that this Cardinal has found a legitimate reason for the use of condoms in the effort to curb the spread of the disease.
I agree that using condoms as a form of birth control is wrong. But, as the Cardinal said in these circumstances when we are dealing with people who have not been evangelized it may be necessary to condon the use of condoms to help curb the spread of the disease.
I understand that a lot of posters here will find this unacceptable.
P
Pug
Guest
RichT, I recall (but won’t say how old and feebleminded I am
) that an already married couple can choose to risk transmitting a regular disease through relations. Of course, the unmarried must be continent anyway. But Aids is so dangerous that it truly could fail to pass the golden rule and so a married couple might essentially be obliged to abstain forever to avoid transmitting aids to eachother, and possibly their children, and possibly making our insurance system pay for the treatment. I am not aware of an official determination of this, but there might be. Do you have a link to one?In my previous post, I was responding to the possible claim that the use of the condom between two married people must somehow always include contraceptive intent. I somewhat question/doubt this. I was not really commenting on the overall wrongness to use condoms for any reason in marriage, just to be clear.
P
Pug
Guest
Cove, it almost seems like you are addressing the topic of scandal by considering the topic of should one ever advise people to do the lesser evil. It would bother me if I advised a group of infected people to use condoms to reduce the risk of passing on aids and the result was that a few people in the group who were already going to have sex used condoms, and also a few people who would not have had sex went ahead and did it on account of how I told them condoms would lower the risk.
The second group I mentioned was scandalized. My advice has hurt their souls, and it would scare me to do that. I think that prudentially, the overall risk of scandal with the advice to use a condom is too large. Thus, it becomes ungiveable advice (I would commit scandal and hence sin by giving it, so I can’t give it).
Even more, there could be a stupid spread from thinking that since the disease scenario “justifies” condom use, well then maybe they’ll get delusions that it is okay for contraception as well. Even more scandal there.
I think what I am saying is realistic, based on how I’ve seen people reason.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Condoms do not cure HIV. As of today, there is no cure to HIV. The only thing is to not get infected and condoms do not stop infection.
At best, they limit it, but the prevailing attitude of the day is that it prevents disease, which it doesn’t.
So since it is not 100% effective it can not be thought that use of it as a double effect, like using birth control pills for other medical reasons.
Also, those who promote the use of condoms to prevent disease are responsible for those who contract a disease while using a condom. Some people will engage in risky sex because they believe and have been told that condoms make it ok.
Also you have yet to show anything in Church Teachings that say this stand you have taken is right.
C
cyprian
Guest
When people marry in the Church, disclosure of physical problems is something that is supposed to be addressed in pre-cana. I say this because I went through it. Any physical or mental problems even in ones family history. That being said, sex is not so you can have when you want merely to self gratify. That being said, contraception is a mortal sin. We need to sacrifice certain self indulgence and see God’s view, not only picking up our crosses but carrying them as well. Sacrifice and prayer get us to Heaven, not our good intentions.
Peace
Peace
C
cove
Guest
Thank you for sharing your reasoning.
I have no problem with your reasoning. But, people are still dying from AIDS and being infected with HIV. Alot of this is because of the improper use of a prevention method and the only other prevention method beside abstinence. While we debate morality people are still dying.
I think the Cardinal makes a very good argument regarding the ethics and morality of using condoms to stop the spread of this disease–
“The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death,” he said. “And that is where the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is valid.”
I see it more of a sin on my part if I don’t at least consider the possiblity that this prevention method could actually “save a life” and save the infected person from breaking a commandment.
I understand how you see this as promoting a behavior that is sinful. But, let’s go back to the original scenario of a married couple who are dealing with the reality of one of them harboring the HIV virus. In most cases I would hope that these couples would abstain for the sake of their partner. You and I would do that. But, that may not always be the case. I feel it is better for this hypothetical couple to use the condom thus preventing transmiting a fatal disease (killing). This may save them from the ultimate sin (in my book) taking someone elses life.
Obviously my reasoning is not the popular one here and I knew I was taking a chance when I decided to look at this scenario from a different ethical point of view. I think I have made myself pretty clear. Since I don’t have alot of a time day to devote to this I will just say that I am sorry if this bothers people. I am truly taking in all that you are saying and most of it I already know and understand. But, I don’t see any reason to continue the debate.
I will always be open to the idea that a prevention method like a condom may save a life. That is my main concern. That a life is “saved”. It is God who in the end will have to judge the person who has used this prevention method with the intent to “not” physically harm or kill another.
God Bless!!!
C
cove
Guest
F
felra
Guest
The Cardinal needs a brush up on the Catholic understanding of the morality of human acts and what comprises intrinsic evil:
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC 1759).
A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. (CCC 1760).
There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e.,** a moral evil.** One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (CCC 1761).
You shortcoming is that you fail to distinguish a hierarchy between the transmitting a fatal disease of the body and a fatal disease of the soul, which Aids/HIV and conversely intrinsic (moral) evil has the potential to kill.
You also (in apparent lack of discernment) easily dismiss “It **is God who in the end will have to judge the person…” **what scripture has to say to those guide and condone sinful choices in others:
Mark** *Chapter 9: ***42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea”.
C
Chrissay
Guest
(Q): What if my doctor put me on birth control pills for medical reasons?
(A): Pope Paul VI stated that “the Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed Humanae Vitae #15.”
…and then, as mentioned, in the case of HIV, prevention IS the cure.
It seems to me that in this instance, condom use as a preventative to HIV would follow the same paradigm as removal of ectopic pregnancy or malignant uterine tumor (both permitted by the RCC): the contraceptive or abortive results would be unfortunate secondary consequences.
Thus I agree with Cove that the Cardinal is correctly extrapolating from the Pope’s pronouncement on this matter.
I know the two situations are different because there is no remedy for ectopic or uterine cancer EXCEPT removal…whereas the couple could practice abstinence.
To which I would say: It seems that the Catholic Church considers conjugal love significantly important between a married couple; otherwise non-consummation would not be grounds for annulment. And it has always BEEN grounds; look it up.
A woman has always been able to go in and say, “My husband is impotent; we cannot consummate our marriage” and annulment has been granted.
That is the importance conjugal love
has been accorded.
Am I wrong?
(A): Pope Paul VI stated that “the Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed Humanae Vitae #15.”
…and then, as mentioned, in the case of HIV, prevention IS the cure.
It seems to me that in this instance, condom use as a preventative to HIV would follow the same paradigm as removal of ectopic pregnancy or malignant uterine tumor (both permitted by the RCC): the contraceptive or abortive results would be unfortunate secondary consequences.
Thus I agree with Cove that the Cardinal is correctly extrapolating from the Pope’s pronouncement on this matter.
I know the two situations are different because there is no remedy for ectopic or uterine cancer EXCEPT removal…whereas the couple could practice abstinence.
To which I would say: It seems that the Catholic Church considers conjugal love significantly important between a married couple; otherwise non-consummation would not be grounds for annulment. And it has always BEEN grounds; look it up.
A woman has always been able to go in and say, “My husband is impotent; we cannot consummate our marriage” and annulment has been granted.
That is the importance conjugal love
has been accorded.
Am I wrong?
F
felra
Guest
“I know the two situations are different because there is no remedy for ectopic or uterine cancer EXCEPT removal…whereas the couple could practice abstinence.” >>>>> You are CORRECT in this statement, i.e., there is no licit reason for introducing a moral evil (condom use) when morally acceptable means (abstinence) are present.
You are WRONG however in your deductive reasoning and conclusion. Conjugal love is both open to life and unifying. The Church states “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. Fecundity is a gift, an *end of marriage, *for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2363, 2366).
Condom use “as a preventative to HIV” still directly intends to render the procreative act to be anti-procreative. The Church “teaches that ‘each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life’”. (CCC 2366; Humanae Vitae 11) and “One may not do evil so that good may result from it”. (CCC 1761).
G
Genesis315
Guest
Name one person who has been cured of HIV by using a condom.
A
abcdefg
Guest
moral of condoms: put them infront of rifle muzzles to prevent rifles from jamming by sand
P
puzzleannie
Guest
it all depends on why you want to have sex in the first place. If the goal is to have intimate contact with a piece of rubber or plastic, go for it. If the goal is to use one of God’s greatest gifts in the way He intended, with your spouse fully open to the possibility of cooperating with God in creating new life and consecrating your marriage, then the condom is a definite NO. If either the husband or wife has an STD (or any other health condition that makes sex inadvisible or impossible for the time being) then you cannot have sex. Period. If you are not married, it does not arise, since you cannot have sex. Period.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Chrissay said:
you are right in stating the importance of conjugal love, but wrong in stating that a woman can approach the tribunal and ask for an annulment on the grounds that her husband is impotent. If he was able at the time of the marriage to complete the marriage act the marriage is valid. Just because he becomes impotent at a later date does not retroactively invalidate the marriage.
Non-consummation is not necessarily grounds for an annulment by itself, there are other factors.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
They couldn’t? Couldn’t they have normal, non-contraceptive marital relations?
Scott
G
Genesis315
Guest
Scott Waddell:
If they don’t want to get the STD they have to abstain. If they don’t mind contracting the STD, there’s nothing wrong with having sex.
- Status