Condoms should u use them or not?

[PLAL]

If you want a Secular Answer, here is mine…

Catholic teaching states abortion is a grave sin since it is the destruction of human life. You are right there are many Catholics who are wrongly practicing contraception. Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”. Catholic teaching states Contraception is wrong but Natural Family Planning (NFP) is OK since God is still in control of the decision making process.

I look at human sexuality as having 2 variables. There is “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action. God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?

Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are comdemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.

Face it, Contraception is like a Bulimic! With *Contraception *people want the “gratification” but are not “open to life” which is contrary to God’s Natural Plan.

A Bulimic is similar since they want the “gratification” from food but then stick their finger down their throat because they do not want the “weight” which comes with it!!

---

Last, please read on Birth Control & Contraception on the American Life League website.

 

[CanonAlberic]

Tough one… using one is like taking a shower in a raincoat, it just detracts from the fun. However, when the alternative is disease or an unwanted pregnancy, I can certainly see the wisdom of condom usage (thus I always keep a supply handy for emergencies…)

Peace.

 

[fix]

CanonAlberic:

Tough one… using one is like taking a shower in a raincoat, it just detracts from the fun. However, when the alternative is disease or an unwanted pregnancy, I can certainly see the wisdom of condom usage (thus I always keep a supply handy for emergencies…)

Peace.

Actually, in using one the alternative is loss of eternal life.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

fix:

Actually, in using one the alternative is loss of eternal life.

That’s a bit extreme, fix. I know you’re just quoting back the dangers of a mortal sin, but conscience itself must also play a significant part in this. Condomless, disease-free, perfectly loving sex within the bonds of marriage is a great ideal to hold, and as the church perceives this to be the calling of humanity in relationship, it must also be the touchstone of doctrine and moral law. But to be blind to the generally intricate moral web in which each of our actions finds a place, the various repercussions of one act upon another, is to insist that we react not with compassion to the world and ourselves, but as moral robots, unable to sympathize, unable to find a way for others into the morality that we claim to hold dear. And in doing so, we prevent others from coming to that morality by our intransigence.

I am not talking about a moral laxity or a moral relativism. I am talking about responding to situations with compassion and with conscience. Not every situation is best resolved by quoting a moral dictate. Sometimes it requires the messy business of living with love.

Here’s a stupid example–I like walking on the left side of the street. My friend likes walking on the right. I maintain that the left side is best. He maintains that the right side is perfectly reasonable. I can see that there’s a ditch on his side of the street, and that he’s in danger of falling in. I tell him to stop, he’s going to hurt himself. He says, stop? Why? I say, because there’s a ditch. He says, What ditch? This can go on and on for quite some time. But if I don’t figure out a way to get him to see the ditch or to otherwise keep him from falling in, I know he’s in trouble. In order to save my friend, it may be necessary for me to actually cross to his side of the road and stop him–or if that doesn’t work–it may be necessary for me to lay myself down over the ditch, allowing him to walk over it safely. I can continue to convince him that the left side of the street is better once we’ve passed this hurdle together.

Again, its a stupid example, but unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action, we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions–and we need not be compassionate in order to do so. The attraction of high moral abstraction is that the clumsiness, the dirtiness of actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation, and we can be safe and happy in our own cold loveless righteousness.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

That’s a bit extreme, fix. I know you’re just quoting back the dangers of a mortal sin, but conscience itself must also play a significant part in this. Condomless, disease-free, perfectly loving sex within the bonds of marriage is a great ideal to hold, and as the church perceives this to be the calling of humanity in relationship, it must also be the touchstone of doctrine and moral law. But to be blind to the generally intricate moral web in which each of our actions finds a place, the various repercussions of one act upon another, is to insist that we react not with compassion to the world and ourselves, but as moral robots, unable to sympathize, unable to find a way for others into the morality that we claim to hold dear. And in doing so, we prevent others from coming to that morality by our intransigence.

I am not talking about a moral laxity or a moral relativism. I am talking about responding to situations with compassion and with conscience. Not every situation is best resolved by quoting a moral dictate. Sometimes it requires the messy business of living with love.

Here’s a stupid example–I like walking on the left side of the street. My friend likes walking on the right. I maintain that the left side is best. He maintains that the right side is perfectly reasonable. I can see that there’s a ditch on his side of the street, and that he’s in danger of falling in. I tell him to stop, he’s going to hurt himself. He says, stop? Why? I say, because there’s a ditch. He says, What ditch? This can go on and on for quite some time. But if I don’t figure out a way to get him to see the ditch or to otherwise keep him from falling in, I know he’s in trouble. In order to save my friend, it may be necessary for me to actually cross to his side of the road and stop him–or if that doesn’t work–it may be necessary for me to lay myself down over the ditch, allowing him to walk over it safely. I can continue to convince him that the left side of the street is better once we’ve passed this hurdle together.

Again, its a stupid example, but unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action, we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions–and we need not be compassionate in order to do so. The attraction of high moral abstraction is that the clumsiness, the dirtiness of actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation, and we can be safe and happy in our own cold loveless righteousness.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

I was replying to a poster who claims to be Catholic who said condom use was justified. Should I write a dissertation in every response to one who knows what the Church teaches , yet rejects it? He is not a new poster. I am familiar with his posts. I think my response was accurate.

 

[felra]

Deo Volente:

That’s a bit extreme, fix. I know you’re just quoting back the dangers of a mortal sin, but conscience itself must also play a significant part in this. Condomless, disease-free, perfectly loving sex within the bonds of marriage is a great ideal to hold, and as the church perceives this to be the calling of humanity in relationship, it must also be the touchstone of doctrine and moral law. But to be blind to the generally intricate moral web in which each of our actions finds a place, the various repercussions of one act upon another, is to insist that we react not with compassion to the world and ourselves, but as moral robots, unable to sympathize, unable to find a way for others into the morality that we claim to hold dear. And in doing so, we prevent others from coming to that morality by our intransigence.

I am not talking about a moral laxity or a moral relativism. I am talking about responding to situations with compassion and with conscience. Not every situation is best resolved by quoting a moral dictate. Sometimes it requires the messy business of living with love.

Again, its a stupid example, but unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action, we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions–and we need not be compassionate in order to do so. The attraction of high moral abstraction is that the clumsiness, the dirtiness of actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation, and we can be safe and happy in our own cold loveless righteousness.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

Excuse me for butting in, but …
The call of Jesus Christ to live the Gospel is extreme, radical and cutting. When sin has become so pervasive and bold, not a time to mince words. What adult Catholic (this is a Catholic forum) does not know that contraception is strictly forbidden by the Church? Your approach has merit, it is important to know your audience, your relationship, and the context. This said, I believe that too many Christians are ineffective by taking a soft sell approach to presenting the Gospel truth (or unfortunately a watered down Gospel) to those unawares/unclear/unconvinced of the gravity of their sinful choices and consequences here and now and for eternity. There should be a real urgency to “repent, convert and be saved” for those living in grave or comfortable sin. The convincing and convicting part is firstly and ultimately the job and work of the Holy Spirit.

Your choice of adjectives (“a great ideal to hold”; “by our intransigence”; “unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action”; we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions “; “high moral abstraction”; “actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation”; “in our own cold loveless righteousness”) belies a disconnect between speaking the truth and living the truth. I do not recall Jesus mincing words. How are others to arrive at the Gospel truth unless they plainly, clearly, convincingly hear it spoken in love? It sounds like you are confusing “compassion” with empathy and feelings. I can have all kinds of empathy, but unless I present the Truth in love (either through words or actions), then I am but a noisy, less than effective, dispassionate gong.

I thank God everyday for those who unabashedly spoke, lived the truth of the Gospel for my initial and ongoing conversion. It spared me (and the Holy Spirit) loads of time figuring out the error of my ways and my need for conversion. Personally, I think that fix should have added one of these :tsktsk: to the post that you found “extreme”.

 

[fix]

felra:

Your choice of adjectives (“a great ideal to hold”; “by our intransigence”; “unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action”; we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions “; “high moral abstraction”; “actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation”; “in our own cold loveless righteousness”) belies a disconnect between speaking the truth and living the truth. I do not recall Jesus mincing words. How are others to arrive at the Gospel truth unless they plainly, clearly, convincingly hear it spoken in love? It sounds like you are confusing “compassion” with empathy and feelings.

Thanks. Now we can see why the bible is hate speech in Canada. If I quoted Christ’s words some would call me cold and self righteous.

 

[Genesis315]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

That’s a bit extreme, fix. I know you’re just quoting back the dangers of a mortal sin, but conscience itself must also play a significant part in this. Condomless, disease-free, perfectly loving sex within the bonds of marriage is a great ideal to hold, and as the church perceives this to be the calling of humanity in relationship, it must also be the touchstone of doctrine and moral law. But to be blind to the generally intricate moral web in which each of our actions finds a place, the various repercussions of one act upon another, is to insist that we react not with compassion to the world and ourselves, but as moral robots, unable to sympathize, unable to find a way for others into the morality that we claim to hold dear. And in doing so, we prevent others from coming to that morality by our intransigence.

I am not talking about a moral laxity or a moral relativism. I am talking about responding to situations with compassion and with conscience. Not every situation is best resolved by quoting a moral dictate. Sometimes it requires the messy business of living with love.

Here’s a stupid example–I like walking on the left side of the street. My friend likes walking on the right. I maintain that the left side is best. He maintains that the right side is perfectly reasonable. I can see that there’s a ditch on his side of the street, and that he’s in danger of falling in. I tell him to stop, he’s going to hurt himself. He says, stop? Why? I say, because there’s a ditch. He says, What ditch? This can go on and on for quite some time. But if I don’t figure out a way to get him to see the ditch or to otherwise keep him from falling in, I know he’s in trouble. In order to save my friend, it may be necessary for me to actually cross to his side of the road and stop him–or if that doesn’t work–it may be necessary for me to lay myself down over the ditch, allowing him to walk over it safely. I can continue to convince him that the left side of the street is better once we’ve passed this hurdle together.

Again, its a stupid example, but unless we leave the shining tower of our ideal morality and attempt to put it in action, we will be talking about nothing more than abstractions–and we need not be compassionate in order to do so. The attraction of high moral abstraction is that the clumsiness, the dirtiness of actual loving compassion is far removed from our speculation, and we can be safe and happy in our own cold loveless righteousness.

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

Yes! I love posts like this. It lets me bust out my favorite Benedict XVI quote :dancing: :

“Love, in the true sense, is not always a matter of giving way, being soft, and just acting nice. In that sense, a sugar-coated Jesus or a God who agrees to everything and is never anything but nice and friendly is no more than a caricature of real love. Because God loves us, because he wants us to grow into truth, he must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us.”

 

[fix]

Genesis315:

Yes! I love posts like this. It lets me bust out my favorite Benedict XVI quote :dancing: :

“Love, in the true sense, is not always a matter of giving way, being soft, and just acting nice. In that sense, a sugar-coated Jesus or a God who agrees to everything and is never anything but nice and friendly is no more than a caricature of real love. Because God loves us, because he wants us to grow into truth, he must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us.”

I like it.

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

If you’re ready for marriage (the only place where MARRITAL relations should ever take place) you’re ready for a FAMILY, and a child! Therefore, why would you need a condom? As for disease, both partners should be aware if one has an STD, and they can either accept that chance, abstain, or refrain from getting married.

 

[SueG]

**WARNING !! **
On this Catholic.com website (homepage), go into the Pure Love Club and listen to Jason Evert’s talk “Romance without Regret”.
He talks about a CANCER-CAUSING DISEASE THAT YOU CAN CATCH JUST BY SKIN-TO-SKIN CONTACT, ABDOMEN TO THIGH!

No condom can prevent that.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Genesis315:

Yes! I love posts like this. It lets me bust out my favorite Benedict XVI quote :dancing: :

“Love, in the true sense, is not always a matter of giving way, being soft, and just acting nice. In that sense, a sugar-coated Jesus or a God who agrees to everything and is never anything but nice and friendly is no more than a caricature of real love. Because God loves us, because he wants us to grow into truth, he must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us.”

God bless the Pope!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Genesis315:

“Love, in the true sense, is not always a matter of giving way, being soft, and just acting nice. In that sense, a sugar-coated Jesus or a God who agrees to everything and is never anything but nice and friendly is no more than a caricature of real love. Because God loves us, because he wants us to grow into truth, he must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us.”

Genesis et al, I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. So let’s be clear.

My point is this–telling someone, “You’re wrong” is not compassion, nor is it true correction. It’s an empty statement. You can quote moral dictates at someone all day and not show any real love to anyone. You can claim that you’re being loving because what you’re doing is just telling the truth, and even if it is potentially hurtful, we all know that love hurts. But convincing yourself of this is delusional.

Telling someone, “You’re wrong” and giving them the tools to know why and to avoid the wrong in the future is compassionate.

And being there to help, not to judge, if they screw up again is compassion too. Saying, “You should know better,” is unhelpful and only serves one’s own feelings of self-righteousness. It does not serve love.

My argument is not that love shouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong–on the contrary, love should not make one’s standards soft. The standards are clear–condoms are not conducive to becoming the people God made us to be. Love requires keeping to this standard and sharing with others the promise of what God made us to be–and it requires doing it over and over and over and over again. It is not beating someone over the head with moral doctrine, however truthful it may be.

My language of “ideal” in my previous post may have been slightly mis-interpreted. This is what I mean–God means for us to be perfect and has given Christ to us as savior. More than that, God has accepted our humanity into his divinity. As a consequence, the truth of humanity, what it truly is, is wrapped up in the identity of Christ the God-Man. To the extent that we do not embody Christ in all aspects of our life, we fail. But the process of sanctification is such that we are enabled to live by grace into Christ, to become the reality of what we are in Christ by the grace of God. This does not necessarily happen all at once, and we must remain open to this transforming grace and the purging of the “old man” in us as we conform to the new in Christ. This conformity to Christ, to the reality of what we really are, this sanctification, is the goal towards which we strive by grace. To the extent to which we have not fully realized it in our lives, it remains an ideal after which we are compelled to strive. My point is this: Being moral does not happen by waving the magic wand of doctrine and !poof! now I’m moral. Being moral is a struggle informed by grace. It is a struggle. And it is informed by grace.

Isaiah Berlin makes my point more clear than I ever could when he writes, “No more rigorous moralist than Immanuel Kant has ever lived, but even he said, in a moment of illumination, ‘out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.’ To force people into the neat uniforms demanded by dogmatically believed-in schemes is almost always the road to inhumanity. We can only do what we can: but that we must do, against difficulties.”

That is my point.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Celeste88]

Genesis315:

Ok, you are making no sense. God is eternal. He’s around always and his divinely appointed authority on earth is the Catholic Church. Birth control was practiced before Jesus ever lived and God killed people who used it (Gen. 38:9-10). That’s how bad it is. Onnan “pulled out” and he was killed. What do you think happens with a condom? The “seed” (semen) does not go in the woman. It is spilled out. Just like Onnan did. God does not allow evil as a means to a good. Contraception is an evil. Period. It prevents life. Abstinence is required in that situation. You’re a human being, you have self-control. Sex is not a need for you. Many, many people lead perfectly healthy and happy lives without sex. Don’t let society tell you what to think. Sex is not the end all be all of life. Listen to God and his Church. You’ll find true happiness.

Just to clarify things, Onan commited a sin(?) against disobedience. Onan’s brother died and when his brother died the law allowed Onan to step in and give his brother’s widow a child. Onan however refused to give his wife a child because this child could become heir to his father’s wealth. The day after he performed the act of Onanism, he came down with a fever and died shortly afterwards. Whether the sudden illness was just a coincidence or brought from the wrath of God who knows.

 

[awfulthings9]

Celeste88:

Just to clarify things, Onan commited a sin(?) against disobedience. Onan’s brother died and when his brother died the law allowed Onan to step in and give his brother’s widow a child. Onan however refused to give his wife a child because this child could become heir to his father’s wealth. The day after he performed the act of Onanism, he came down with a fever and died shortly afterwards. Whether the sudden illness was just a coincidence or brought from the wrath of God who knows.

Just to further clarify things, you are incorrect that Onan’s sin is disobedience. In Dt. 25:5-10, we see that the punishment for refusing to give one’s brother’s widow a child is public humiliation, NOT death, so the earlier poster was correct that his punishment was for spilling seed. Furthermore, you claim that he died from a fever shortly after and this could have just been coincidence, I’m not sure where you are getting this, but the text reads, “What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life, too.” No mention of fever. If we’re going to “clarify” things, let’s not do it by distorting them.

 

[tweetymom]

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.

Amen to that.

 

[dg5887]

”We should submit ourselves to the Church so completely, that if we clearly perceived a thing to be white and she were to declare it to be black, we should, with her, declare it black.” -Saint Ignatius, Father of the Church

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

This topic has been hotly debated in the past and continues to be debated to this very day with the onset of Aids and other factors. The Church has made her stand on this issue. But a lot of Catholics may not agree with the Church’s teaching. That however does not diminish the Church’s moral ascendancy in these matters. She will never condone something intrinsically evil lest She loses her integrity.

 

[Melchior_1]

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. .

Alright, lets start using some condoms. Like anyone would, lets get ourselves educated on the things before we use them.

With “Perfect Use”, the failure rate is anywhere from less than 1% to 3%. For the sake of this discussion, we’ll go with 1%. Now, 1% seems small. Very small. Small enough you feel secure with yourself and what you’re doing.

Lets say you live up north where it gets cold outside during the winter. In your home you have a window that’s open because you enjoy fresh air coming into the home. You keep the window only slightly open though, you don’t it to get to cold in your house. You also turn the heat up a bit in your home to make it warmer.

So as the fall passes it gets colder and colder. Winter hits and you keep that window open that little bit for the fresh air. But it’s winter, so you need to turn the heat up some more. And it’s getting colder and colder, so you turn the heat up more and more. Within a couple of months, you get the heating bill. And needless to say, you got burned. The heat use and cost continually went up due to it getting colder.

This is something called Risk Compensation, which is when you compensate for the lack of risk by engaging in the activity more, which then causes the risk to actually increase. In the example above, you would have compensated by turning up the heat, rather than closing the window totally. The window was 99% closed, but the cold air still got through.

In this case the condom might close things up 99%, but things still can get through. Especially when you’re likely to mess up the numbers by engaging in sex more than you ordinarily would.

But, as they say, “Pobody’s Nerfect”. “Perfect Use” happens in a science lab, with science lab conditions. Iit doesn’t happen in real life, I can assure you. You’re looking at a Typical Use of 13% - 16%. For the sake of this conversation I’ll settle for 14%.

Lets say, to escape the cold winter that’s coming from earlier, you want to travel. As you board the plane you hear a voice; “this is your Captain speaking. We have an 86% chance we will make it to our destination alive. Have a ‘safe’ flight”.

These numbers? I’m not making them up. They’re all over the Internet. Lovely thing, that Internet.

In closing, I’ll break this down again in a very quick method; 14%. At 14% you’re looking at odds slightly better than playing Russian Roulette with a six shot revolver, which is a 16% chance you’ll catch a bullet inside of your head. You miss once, that’s fine. But you use the same gun with the same bullet enough times, you’ll have a mess soon enough.

Gun = Sex.
Bullet = Condom.

You can change the gun, change the bullet, the odds are the same. But the more you do it, the higher the chance of getting hit.

You SERIOUSLY want to take that chance if you or your spouse has an STD? Because the numbers will catch up with you’re going to catch it anyway.

Condoms won’t help the situation. STD. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. I don’t care WHAT you do or WHAT you say. Regardless of WHAT you use. But if you have SEX then SEXually Transmitted Diseases can happen. The only way to make sure nothing gets passed through sex is to not have any. Which is why the whole “safe sex” thing is a bit of a myth. So long as sex is involved, there’s always a threat of STD’s.

Unless you’re in a committed marriage powered by fidelity and a love and openness for human life. Then you got nothing to worry about. You don’t even need to be a Christian for that to work for you.

In closing, if you truly love someone and you have a STD, don’t play games with them. Love is more than a game, especially a game of Russian Roulette.

EDIT: Oh, and re-read what some of the other folks said about the Church’s teaching on the issue.

 

[Holly3278]

A person should not use any form of artificial contraception, condoms included. The marital act must be open to life!