J
jmcrae
Guest
No.
No.
They would be expected to refrain from receiving the Sacraments until their marriage was made valid in the Church (including acceptance of the possibility of children).
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Bars and Bans? Is that how you read the catechism Cali? The Catechism sets out moral teaching, and teaches the immorality of contraception.
J
jmcrae
Guest
How is it the Church’s problem, if someone breaks the Church’s rules (which are well advertised - everyone knows that Catholics aren’t allowed to have sex outside of a committed, valid, Sacramental marriage), commits sin, and then experiences the consequences?
If it were any other organization, would you feel free to say, “Hey, I purposely broke your rules, even though I knew what I was supposed to do. Now you have to fix all my problems for me - and, no - I’m not going to pay the consequences for what I did, or go without the things that I destroyed.”
Anywhere else, such an attitude would be considered absurd.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not living together.
R
Rau
Guest
Imagine the student who commits plagiarism and argues it is uncharitable to experience an adverse consequence. Or the lawyer who breaks the rules of the bar and argues, hey it’s pretty uncharitable to prevent me practicing for a few years.
C
CaliLobo
Guest
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.
While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.
Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”
After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.
While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.
Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
“A first step,” notice. He isn’t recommending it as a lifestyle.
R
Rau
Guest
I wonder what you think thie a Pope was saying here Cali? Do you think he was declaring any particular act moral?
R
Rau
Guest
Try again - did he determine that anything previously considered immoral is now moral?
A
agapewolf
Guest
I don’t think he actually said that. The headline sure did … by a secular news source…twisting as they always do.
What he was actually talking about was in an answer to a tricky worded question-- perhaps… in a same sex actions when one of them has Aids, that condom use may be a step in the right direction as a lesser evil because it could be out of consideration for the other person.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He was speaking in the context of homosexual prostitutes in some parts of Africa. He certainly wasn’t saying that family men who have easy access to the teachings of the Church should be taking this up.
A
amsjj
Guest
Here’s more information from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about what Pope Benedict said:
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/12/cong-for-doctrine-of-the-faith-issues-a-note-on-the-trivilization-of-sexuality-regarding-certain-interpretations-of-light-of-the-world/
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/12/cong-for-doctrine-of-the-faith-issues-a-note-on-the-trivilization-of-sexuality-regarding-certain-interpretations-of-light-of-the-world/
C
CaliLobo
Guest
My question hasn’t been answered. Are married couples in which one partner has HPV or herpes required to stay away from condoms?
R
Rau
Guest
The couple may morally choose to have sex in the ordinary way. I believe the Church teaches that to choose contracepted sex would be wrong.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Do you know where the Church officially teaches that? I know that that is often spoken of as being the Church’s stance, bug I admit that I have a very hard time seeing how condoms when not used as contraceptives are sinful when the pill not used as a contraceptive isn’t sinful. I complefely understand and agree with every other aspect of the Churches teaching on contraceptives, but this aspect I truly am not able to understand, so anything you can do to help clear up the matter for me would be appreciated.
R
Rau
Guest
The Catechism and Humanae Vitae teach the immorality of contraception.
The pill is medical treatment in some circumstances. Condom is not a medical treatment.
Mind you, there is the odd theologian (eg. Ron Conte) who rejects the use of the pill as medical treatment. I will try to provide a link to his analysis and to the contrary view, later.
B
Boccherini
Guest
I imagine the difference between the pill and condoms is that the pill can be used as medicine for disease in a context that has nothing to do with sex (the woman would be taking it even if she didn’t have a partner) but condoms are only used to make sex less risky. Which can be done by abstaining.
Of course I could be wrong.
M
MJJean
Guest
That was my thought, as well.
I imagine the difference between the pill and condoms is that the pill can be used as medicine for disease in a context that has nothing to do with sex (the woman would be taking it even if she didn’t have a partner) but condoms are only used to make sex less risky. Which can be done by abstaining.
Of course I could be wrong.
The Pill, other hormone treatments, and surgical treatments that reduce or eliminate fertility are being used to correct a problem within the body outside of sex. The reduced or eliminated fertility are truly unfortunate side effects of the treatment.
In the case of condom use, the condom is not treating a disease. It is an attempt to prevent the spread of a disease. Yet the user can prevent the spread of the disease by abstaining from sex, by seeking out a spouse among those who already have the same disease, or by finding a spouse willing to share the disease.
M
MJJean
Guest
I knew something about this thread was nagging at the back of my mind and I found it! Go me!
The problem here is that a person with an STD “taking off the condom when it’s time to have a baby” is going to infect their partner at some point while trying to conceive. So, what would the point be of using condoms in the beginning to prevent STD transmission when at some point in the future those infected bodily fluids will need to be exchanged to transmit life?
- Status