Condoms should u use them or not?

[Genesis315]

cove:

You seem to think I am against chastity. I am not. But, realistically not everyone is going to live a chaste life. Especially, a loving couple who lives together.

Of course it is better to live a chaste life if you harbor a deadly disease that can be transmitted through sexual intercourse. I would hope that a reasonable person would not want to risk the life of a loved one and their own eternal soul by engageing in a sex act that could transmit this deadly disease and kill someone. But, let’s not totally eliminate the idea that the condom can help to save a life in times of human weakness.

Sure we all sin, but how many spouses would give into temptation and in essence KILL their spouse (given condoms are not an option). Someone would not give into temptation and KILL a loved one unless they are severely mentally ill. You don’t give human beings enough credit. Our desire not to KILL will out weigh the desire for sex (unless the person is heartless). If not, they have a warped view of life, sex, and love and they are in dire need of professional psychiatric help. I really do not know how else to say it.

 

[Almeria]

cove:

You seem to think I am against chastity. I am not. But, realistically not everyone is going to live a chaste life. Especially, a loving couple who lives together.

Of course it is better to live a chaste life if you harbor a deadly disease that can be transmitted through sexual intercourse. I would hope that a reasonable person would not want to risk the life of a loved one and their own eternal soul by engageing in a sex act that could transmit this deadly disease and kill someone. But, let’s not totally eliminate the idea that the condom can help to save a life in times of human weakness.

But the condom will give them an excuse to be weak. It’ll tell them that “it’s ok to sin, there’s a backup in place”. It gives them justification for their lack of chastity. It’s allowing an evil to let an evil be done.

 

[Genesis315]

Think of it this way. If you had a deadly disease that was contagious through the air, would you go near your spouse or child? Of course not, because you love them and you want what is best for them. It’s not that hard. Even if it was possible for them to visit you in your special hospital room where there was a 10% chance that they would catch it, I doubt anyone would put there family in that kind of jeopardy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Condoms can save a life and damn a soul.

Death happens to us all, sooner or later. Then we face eternity. Do we want to face it in heaven, or in hell?

"He who saves his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will save it ".

A tragic situation. . .but I repeat, the end can never justify the means, and one cannot do an evil action in order that good may result. Never.

 

[cove]

Almeria:

But the condom will give them an excuse to be weak. It’ll tell them that “it’s ok to sin, there’s a backup in place”. It gives them justification for their lack of chastity. It’s allowing an evil to let an evil be done.

I don’t totally disagree with you. I just believe that the disease itself is the greater evil. Not the condom. Let us not spread the evil of disease and kill people. Abstain from sex but if this is not going to be then make an effort to not add to the sin by killing another.

From the article I posted–

"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.”

 

[felra]

cove:

I disagree. Even when condoms have not been an option (I am sure that many people do not have access to condoms) people still engage in “risky” sex. Even those trying to live a life dedicated to God. Like I said human beings are not perfect. We all sin and make mistakes.

The best way to prevent would be to abstain and love the partner without the expression of sexual intercourse. What the church teaches I agree with. I would hope that a couple in a loving relationship would not want to risk their partners health for any reason. But, I do recognize that this is not always going to be the case and it is better to use the less risk condom then the high risk no protection at all.

Your whole underlying premise is that some/many people are resigned to be at the whims of their sexual drive. And from this premise the reasoning follows that: therefore, it is better that they commit an immoral act (please pass the condom) and affirm them in their lack of control. A human reasoning to a supernatural reality. How about the welfare of those eternal souls that you have not yet addressed? Putting the temporal before the spiritual? Yes, let’s keep lowering the bar, and expect less of our brothers and sisters made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And one Cardinal’s* opinion* is not to be equated with the teaching of the entire Catholic Church.

I’ll see your Cardinal and raise you a Pope and an encyclical. . .Paul VI, and Humanae Vitae.

 

[felra]

cove:

I don’t totally disagree with you. I just believe that the disease itself is the greater evil. Not the condom. Let us not spread the evil of disease and kill people. Abstain from sex but if this is not going to be then make an effort to not add to the sin by killing another.

From the article I posted–

"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.”

The flaw in this reasoning is that the choice is not exclusively between two evils–transmitting a fatal disease or use of a condom–but between an evil–use of condom–and a morally acceptable means–abstinence. So the cloice is not between the lesser of two evils, but chooing and evil means that a good may come of it, which goes against moral theology. Again, selling sort those good folks made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

Think of it this way. If you had a deadly disease that was contagious through the air, would you go near your spouse or child? Of course not, because you love them and you want what is best for them. It’s not that hard. Even if it was possible for them to visit you in your special hospital room where there was a 10% chance that they would catch it, I doubt anyone would put there family in that kind of jeopardy.

Not everyone who has the HIV virus has symptoms. You can feel and appear healthy. You can live a long life this way, symptom free. It is not unrealistic to see that someone like this may take that risk. Sex will probably be the last think on the mind of someone dying in a hospital bed with full blown AIDS.

I would not put my loved ones in jeopardy of contracting a deadly disease. But, that is me. I cannot know anothers intentions or needs or wants or temptations or sins. I just say “if” it is going to happen then it is better make the effort to not spread the evil of the disease and use the protection to stop the the greater sin which is causing the death of another.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

cove:

Not everyone who has the HIV virus has symptoms. You can feel and appear healthy. You can live a long life this way, symptom free. It is not unrealistic to see that someone like this may take that risk. Sex will probably be the last think on the mind of someone dying in a hospital bed with full blown AIDS.

I would not put my loved ones in jeopardy of contracting a deadly disease. But, that is me. I cannot know anothers intentions or needs or wants or temptations or sins. I just say “if” it is going to happen then it is better make the effort to not spread the evil of the disease and use the protection to stop the the greater sin which is causing the death of another.

I see you have ignored what I said. A condom is not 100% fool proof.

Condom use does not stop the spread of disease. Diseases can still be spread with condom use.

So I guess, using your logic that condom use is better than no condom use becuase you think abstance is unlikely, then using only one bullet instead of two bullets in a game of russian roulette is acceptable instead of not playing at all.

 

[cove]

felra:

Your whole underlying premise is that some/many people are resigned to be at the whims of their sexual drive. And from this premise the reasoning follows that: therefore, it is better that they commit an immoral act (please pass the condom) and affirm them in their lack of control. A human reasoning to a supernatural reality. How about the welfare of those eternal souls that you have not yet addressed? Putting the temporal before the spiritual? Yes, let’s keep lowering the bar, and expect less of our brothers and sisters made in the image and likeness of God.

And your premise allows for the spread of a deadly disease. Because you do not allow for the fact that not all humans are prefect and will live a chaste life.

I think the Bishop makes a very good point here.

“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 believe that killing someone is far worse then using a condom.

The condom may be evil because it denies a life from forming. But, if it can save a life in some circumstances then it is legitimate to use in the prevention of killing.

Alot of people do not view guns as evil. Alot of people do view them as evil. But, many good Catholics own guns and will admit that they will use it to save their own lives. Is using a condom in to prevent killing someone or protecting ones own life any different then using a gun to protect your life?

 

[cove]

ByzCath:

I see you have ignored what I said. A condom is not 100% fool proof.

Condom use does not stop the spread of disease. Diseases can still be spread with condom use.

So I guess, using your logic that condom use is better than no condom use becuase you think abstance is unlikely, then using only one bullet instead of two bullets in a game of russian roulette is acceptable instead of not playing at all.

I have not ignored what you have said. You have not read all my posts.

 

[felra]

cove:

And your premise allows for the spread of a deadly disease. Because you do not allow for the fact that not all humans are prefect and will live a chaste life.

I think the Bishop makes a very good point here.

“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 believe that killing someone is far worse then using a condom.

The condom may be evil because it denies a life from forming. But, if it can save a life in some circumstances then it is legitimate to use in the prevention of killing.

Alot of people do not view guns as evil. Alot of people do view them as evil. But, many good Catholics own guns and will admit that they will use it to save their own lives. Is using a condom in to prevent killing someone or protecting ones own life any different then using a gun to protect your life?

Guns (and condoms) are not in themselves intrinsically evil. They both can be put in service of an evil means to either a good or evil end. Comparing someone using proportionate force to repel an unjust intruder is different than use of condoms—there is no imminent threat to life (gun to one’s head) where sexual abstinence is a behavior option.

To repeat, the flaw in this reasoning is that the choice is not exclusively between two evils–transmitting a fatal disease versus use of a condom–but between an evil–use of condom–and a morally acceptable means–abstinence. So the choice is not between the lesser of two evils, but choosing and evil means that a good may come of it, which goes against moral theology.

Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify* recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”* (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.* To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God*.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)

“It is not licit*, even for the gravest reasons***, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

cove:

I have not ignored what you have said. You have not read all my posts.

I did read your posts and this one sticks out showing that you ignore the fact that condoms do not “save lives”.

cove:

But, let’s not totally eliminate the idea that the condom can help to save a life in times of human weakness.

You also said…

cove:

I don’t totally disagree with you. I just believe that the disease itself is the greater evil. Not the condom. Let us not spread the evil of disease and kill people. Abstain from sex but if this is not going to be then make an effort to not add to the sin by killing another.

As if condom use is fool proof.

So if someone uses a condom and their partner still contracts the disease and dies this person is guild of not only using a condom but of causeing anothers death.

Also…

cove:

Even when condoms have not been an option (I am sure that many people do not have access to condoms) people still engage in “risky” sex.

You can not say that today, as condoms exist and people are taught that condoms prevent disease, no one teaches about the failure rates of condoms.

Its a fact that more people will engage in “risky” sex as they are told that condoms are the answer. Its a lie. And anyone who promotes condom use has blood on their hands in two ways.

1. from those who contract deadly diseases from a condom failure
2. from those abortions that happen after a woman gets pregnant from a condom failure

 

[fix]

Tantum ergo:

And one Cardinal’s* opinion* is not to be equated with the teaching of the entire Catholic Church.

I’ll see your Cardinal and raise you a Pope and an encyclical. . .Paul VI, and Humanae Vitae.

Right. That some cardinals send out trial ballons, or may be misquoted, is a terrible thing. The Church has not changed Her teachings. ABC is a grave sin.

 

[cove]

ByzCath:

I did read your posts and this one sticks out showing that you ignore the fact that condoms do not “save lives”.

You also said…

As if condom use is fool proof.

So if someone uses a condom and their partner still contracts the disease and dies this person is guild of not only using a condom but of causeing anothers death.

Also…

You can not say that today, as condoms exist and people are taught that condoms prevent disease, no one teaches about the failure rates of condoms.

Its a fact that more people will engage in “risky” sex as they are told that condoms are the answer. Its a lie. And anyone who promotes condom use has blood on their hands in two ways.

1. from those who contract deadly diseases from a condom failure
2. from those abortions that happen after a woman gets pregnant from a condom failure

I started posting on this yesterday. My posts go back to #15. I believe I covered this topic in post #31.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

cove:

I started posting on this yesterday. My posts go back to #15. I believe I covered this topic in post #31.

Yes and all that post addresses is condom failures that produce a pregnancy. The fact is that a failure rate, even as low as 4% (which the evidence of the failure is pregnancy) does not tell the whole truth.

If 4 out of 100 women become pregnant with condom use, then that does not mean that only 4 condoms failed. The failure rate is most likely much higher as a women does not become pregnant everytime she has sex.

Not only that, but the sprem cell is much larger than many diseases, especially those diseases that are caused by viruses. So a condom that stops sperm cells may still allow disease cells to pass.

I have a study that shows that the natural voids in a latex condom are larger in size than HIV.

It is a lie to say that since people are going to have sex it is better that they use a condom. No, it is better that we tell them the truth and not promote condom use.

 

[cove]

felra:

Guns (and condoms) are not in themselves intrinsically evil.

Like you say condoms in and of themselves are not evil. If they are being used to prevent an evil (the spread of a deadly disease) then how can they reamin evil under those circumstances? And let’s remember our discussion had started regarding the circumstances of a husband and wife with one of them carrying the HIV virus. I am not talking about people who are using condoms expressly to prevent pregnancy in a non-commital relationship or outside of marriage.

felra:

To repeat, the flaw in this reasoning is that the choice is not exclusively between two evils–transmitting a fatal disease versus

use of a condom–but between an evil–use of condom–and a morally acceptable means–abstinence. So the choice is not between the lesser of two evils, but choosing and evil means that a good may come of it, which goes against moral theology.

Again if the condom is not evil in and of itself, then using it to not spread a disease cannot be seen as evil. So really your reasoning allows for a greater evil becuase your reasoning allows for the definite spread of a deadly disease and the killing of another human.

Killing someone goes against moral theology. Wouldn’t you agree?

Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify

• recourse to morally unacceptable means* (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

We are not talking about preventing a birth. We are talking about spreading a deadly disease.

“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified.

To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” (Pope John Paul II L’Osservatore Romano, October, 10, 1983)
I agree if it is being used for evil purposes. To prevent human life from forming. Not if it prevents killing someone.

“It is not licit*, even for the gravest reasons***

, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae).
You are the one who stated that “condoms in and of themselves are not evil”.

 

[cove]

ByzCath:

Yes and all that post addresses is condom failures that produce a pregnancy. The fact is that a failure rate, even as low as 4% (which the evidence of the failure is pregnancy) does not tell the whole truth.

If 4 out of 100 women become pregnant with condom use, then that does not mean that only 4 condoms failed. The failure rate is most likely much higher as a women does not become pregnant everytime she has sex.

Not only that, but the sprem cell is much larger than many diseases, especially those diseases that are caused by viruses. So a condom that stops sperm cells may still allow disease cells to pass.

I have a study that shows that the natural voids in a latex condom are larger in size than HIV.

It is a lie to say that since people are going to have sex it is better that they use a condom. No, it is better that we tell them the truth and not promote condom use.

I do not disagree with you. I know condoms have a failure rate. I have already stated that. And given my reasons pro and con.

It is better to tell them the truth that condoms have had some success in preventing the spread of disease. That using them carries a risk. That abstinence is the best and most full proof option.

Lay it all on the table. It is they that will make the final decision. I would pray and hope that they would choose abstinence. But, not everyone will and the next better choice to not spread the disease would be to use a condoms.

 

[felra]

cove:

Again if the condom is not evil in and of itself, then using it to not spread a disease cannot be seen as evil. So really your reasoning allows for a greater evil becuase your reasoning allows for the definite spread of a deadly disease and the killing of another human.

We are not talking about preventing a birth. We are talking about spreading a deadly disease.

You are the one who stated that “condoms in and of themselves are not evil”.

Exactly, a condom is not evil (it is an inanimate object). Introducing contraceptive means (either drug, chemical, sterilzation) into the marital embrace is an *evil act. *

We (Catholic moral theology) are talking about attempting to prevent the procreative function of a person.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (Humanae Vitae)