Condoms should u use them or not?

[cove]

felra:

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)

If this thread was about preventing births by using ABC then I would agree with you. But, we are not talking about procreation. We are talking about ways to limit the spread of a deadly disease and thereby avoiding the grave sin of killing someone.

I still stand by what the Cardinal stated–

“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.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And here is why the Cardinal (with respect) is wrong.

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

Condoms close that possibility.

The situation you give says that, “because” of the possibility of a disease being spread, it is “ok” to close the possibility of life in the sexual action, because the “greater good” in this case is the preservation of life.

I respectfully submit that not only are you NOT preserving the life of the spouse (because the grave action of the contraception involved in use of the condom imperils not only the life, but the soul of that person), you are certainly not preserving the potential for life of a child.

You have arbitrarily chosen the “preservation of life” as the “greater good”, over the Church’s clearly stated laws that in sexual actions the potential for life MUST be considered as the greater good.

With respect, again, you and the Cardinal are wrong. You have been (with the best of intentions, I’m sure) confused by the very secular culture of today, with its “quality of life” and its relativism and its “social justice”, into somehow feeling that people are not only “entitled” to sex, potential child or not, and in addition, that said sexual drive is so overwhelming and strong that it trumps anything else. That the “life” of the one person is so overwhelmingly necessary that any means possible, morally evil or not, must be used, as though only that one person’s life is sacred.

I do understand that you mean to be kind, but you’re attempting to use condoms as band-aids to “keep disease from spreading”, when the real needed surgery and treatment involve not use of moral evils but the use of moral goods. . . and that means abstention, and prayer, and OBEDIENCE, and control.

 

[cove]

Tantum ergo:

I do understand that you mean to be kind, but you’re attempting to use condoms as band-aids to “keep disease from spreading”, when the real needed surgery and treatment involve not use of moral evils but the use of moral goods. . . and that means abstention, and prayer, and OBEDIENCE, and control.

Absolutely! In a perfect world.

I am wondering how you feel about the Pope saying this–

(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.”

 

[tcay584]

Hey Jesusismyhomie! Where’d you go? Hope we didn’t scare you off.

 

[Genesis315]

cove:

Absolutely! In a perfect world.

I am wondering how you feel about the Pope saying this–

**(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.”

I’ve bolded the key phrase. Condoms are not truly necessary. There is another alternative: abstinance.

Could you also show where that Q & A came from? Thanks.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, you do have to remember that Humanae Vitae came out in the 1960s. The pills back then were different from the pills of today. And the understanding of the effect of the pills was not the same as what we know today.

I would recommend that you check out Judie Brown and the ALL (American Life League) for some very excellent articles about the use of the pill for “medical reasons”. There really are not any “medical reasons” to use the pill. I know. I myself suffer from a medical condition for which a doctor recommended the use of the pill and found out that I did not have to take the BC pills to treat my condition. I’m recovering quite nicely and without the side effects that other women with the same condition, who DID use the pill, have suffered.

Even though, in my case (celibate) there would have been absolutely no contraceptive use of that pill, I still would not use it. It’s like many of the drugs on the market today. . .over-prescribed, over priced, under-researched and under-studied. Look at the medical risks involved in taking the birth control pill. . .especially over time. Don’t be over 35, don’t smoke, don’t have a history of heart disease. . .oh, and watch out for possible effects on a baby once you go off the pill and try to have children. . .don’t forget increased risks of heart attack and stroke, blood clots, birth defects, etc. Damage to organs including gallbladder. . .

Pope Paul was not a medical doctor. Yes, indeedy, IF the pill had absolutely no abortifacient effects (it does), IF the pill were the only medical possible treatment for a serious disease (it’s not), if, if, if.

Plus, I thought that Pope Paul was referring, rather, to cases such as surgical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. After all, in those cases the death of the child is not desired nor and is only indirectly caused by the only way of treating a terminal condition affecting mother AND child. . .

 

[cove]

Tantum ergo:

Well, you do have to remember that Humanae Vitae came out in the 1960s. The pills back then were different from the pills of today. And the understanding of the effect of the pills was not the same as what we know today.

I would recommend that you check out Judie Brown and the ALL (American Life League) for some very excellent articles about the use of the pill for “medical reasons”. There really are not any “medical reasons” to use the pill. I know. I myself suffer from a medical condition for which a doctor recommended the use of the pill and found out that I did not have to take the BC pills to treat my condition. I’m recovering quite nicely and without the side effects that other women with the same condition, who DID use the pill, have suffered.

Even though, in my case (celibate) there would have been absolutely no contraceptive use of that pill, I still would not use it. It’s like many of the drugs on the market today. . .over-prescribed, over priced, under-researched and under-studied. Look at the medical risks involved in taking the birth control pill. . .especially over time. Don’t be over 35, don’t smoke, don’t have a history of heart disease. . .oh, and watch out for possible effects on a baby once you go off the pill and try to have children. . .don’t forget increased risks of heart attack and stroke, blood clots, birth defects, etc. Damage to organs including gallbladder. . .

Pope Paul was not a medical doctor. Yes, indeedy, IF the pill had absolutely no abortifacient effects (it does), IF the pill were the only medical possible treatment for a serious disease (it’s not), if, if, if.

Plus, I thought that Pope Paul was referring, rather, to cases such as surgical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. After all, in those cases the death of the child is not desired nor and is only indirectly caused by the only way of treating a terminal condition affecting mother AND child. . .

The statement says nothing regarding surgery or ectopic pregnancy.

Many here have claimed that ABC is evil and evil can never be used as a means for good. The Pope’s statement actually supports the idea that ABC can be used for medical reasons (a good).

Your medical situtation is unique to yourself and luckily you were able to find an alternative. This may not be the case in all circumstances.

Are you questioning the Pope’s ability to understand what he was saying here (…“not a medical doctor”)?

The pill has come a long way since it was first developed. It is my opinion that it has been over studied. Many new studies support the findings that it may help in preventing some cancers in women. If this is the case, wouldn’t the Pope’s statement make alot of sense? As long as the motive to use the pill is not to prevent life.

“…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.”

My point in bringing this up, you were stating that using the condom under those instances of preventing the spread of disease is still wrong because it impedes procreation. If the condom is being used explicitly to stop the spread of a deadly disease and not wilfullly being used to avoid pregnancy, I can see the Popes statement also applying.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

I’ve bolded the key phrase. Condoms are not truly necessary. There is another alternative: abstinance.

Could you also show where that Q & A came from? Thanks.

concernedcatholics.org/birthcontrol.htm

They are necessary if those infected with HIV are going to go ahead and have sex anyway.

And as I have said all along, abstinance is the right choice. But, it is not always the realistic choice. We all need to recognize that there are those who will engage in risky sex and making condoms an alternative for those who will anyway, may help in preventing the spread of a deadly disease.

 

[Genesis315]

cove:

The statement says nothing regarding surgery or ectopic pregnancy.

Many here have claimed that ABC is evil and evil can never be used as a means for good. The Pope’s statement actually supports the idea that ABC can be used for medical reasons (a good).

Your medical situtation is unique to yourself and luckily you were able to find an alternative. This may not be the case in all circumstances.

Are you questioning the Pope’s ability to understand what he was saying here (…“not a medical doctor”)?

The pill has come a long way since it was first developed. It is my opinion that it has been over studied. Many new studies support the findings that it may help in preventing some cancers in women. If this is the case, wouldn’t the Pope’s statement make alot of sense? As long as the motive to use the pill is not to prevent life.

“…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.”

My point in bringing this up, you were stating that using the condom under those instances of preventing the spread of disease is still wrong because it impedes procreation. If the condom is being used explicitly to stop the spread of a deadly disease and not wilfullly being used to avoid pregnancy, I can see the Popes statement also applying.

See post #65

 

[Genesis315]

The condom is also not therapeutic. It does not help to heal the person who is using it.

 

[Genesis315]

The pill is causes abortions. When Paul IV made his statement this was not known. It is NEVER ok to take an innocent just so someone else can have relief from a disease, especially when abstinence is an option and no life will be taken. Likewise, I doubt he was speaking infallibly in the quote you gave.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

See post #65

Can you see my post #68? I am having trouble with posting. It is very sluggish and appears to not submit but it does.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

The pill is causes abortions. When Paul IV made his statement this was not known. It is NEVER ok to take an innocent just so someone else can have relief from a disease, especially when abstinence is an option and no life will be taken. Likewise, I doubt he was speaking infallibly in the quote you gave.

Is there an official retraction for his statement then? Did they officially change this rule? How do you know they did not know this then?

Abstinence does not help some of the female health problems that the pill has been known to help. It may be required for the women to practice abstinence if she is using the pill for medical reasons. I am not fully sure.

What I find interesting is I posted an article about a Cardinal who finds reason to justify using condoms in some cases to help diminish the spread of the disease. That gets knocked because only the Pope can say anything. Then I post a Pope quote and now we are getting into infalibilty. So what is it? Are we all just picking and choosing which Pope or Cardinal to believe? In the mean time people are still dying of AIDS.

 

[Genesis315]

Look at the phrase “truly necessary” again. Think about what that mean. It doesn’t simply mean “beneficial.”

 

[km112482]

Jesusismyhomie:

I want to know what you think about condoms. Should we use them or not? I think we should use them to prevent diseases. Even married people dont want to give their partner a disease and pregnancy. I dont think you should only have sex to reproduce. I think if you want to have sex just because your in love you should.

Take it from me who was a teenager once just like you it isnt worth it to have sex with someone that you may not spend the rest of your life with.

I made the mistake of thinking my highschool boyfriend was the one so I thought why not it wont matter I know I will marry him one day. First of all we didn t last and second of all having sex before marriage was a mortal sin either way because I knew it was wrong, but just found anyway to justify what I did to try to relieve my own guilt.

Needless to say after highschool I thought that I needed to sleep with a guy because it made me feel that I was needed and I felt special boy was I wrong.

I dont mean to sound like I am preaching, but the reason I am telling you this is because I cant go back in time and change the things I did. Do you know how much I wish I would have waited and that my husband would have been the first person I ever slept with.

I know that you say you think it is ok to have sex when you are in love, but you are a teenager most teenagers dont really know the true definition of love. I am not saying that you dont maybe you do, but I sure didnt.

Not only is it a mortal sin to have sex before marriage, but so is using a condom it is a form of birth control. Believe me I used to fight about this with people all the time cause I couldnt understand why they couldnt be used. Now I realize that sex should be within a marriage. When you are married you should want to have children not try to prevent it.

I hope you dont think I am being mean to you I wish I could tell you my whole story but that would take a long time to make you understand why it is best to wait, but if you arent going to no matter what then that is your decision to make.

I just hope you come to the right decision.

I will pray for you,

Kerri

 

[km112482]

Oh and by the way if your excuse is that using a codom will help prevent from STDs, then I am sure you know that it isnt a 100%, so you can still get an STD.

I dont know if you have had sex or not before, but I hope that you pray about this and come up with the right decision.

Believe me I am not perfect I have made many mistakes in my life, but I am trying to help you not to make the same.

This is all just my opinion!

I am just not going to sugar coat anything for you I am just trying to tell it like it is.

Kerri

 

[Genesis315]

Humanae Vitae

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Condoms do not cure anything.

 

[cove]

Genesis315:

The condom is also not therapeutic. It does not help to heal the person who is using it.

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

 

[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.

 

[Genesis315]

Humanae Vitae

"In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage “to share God’s life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men.” (23)

Check out the bold part.