B
Buntah
Guest
i heard somewhere, and correct me if i’m wrong, that the catholic church has recognized condoms as an ok way of abstinence. if that’s true, then does that mean that masturbation is okay, too?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Condoms are not allowed. Neither is masturbation. Both are sinful.
I think you may be mistaking something that the Pope said about condoms and prostitution. This is a Vatican article about it that may explain the misunderstanding:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
I think you may be mistaking something that the Pope said about condoms and prostitution. This is a Vatican article about it that may explain the misunderstanding:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
B
baylee
Guest
Thank you for posting this. I did not know that there was an official clarification on this matter…Condoms are not allowed. Neither is masturbation. Both are sinful.
I think you may be mistaking something that the Pope said about condoms and prostitution. This is a Vatican article about it that may explain the misunderstanding:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
B
baylee
Guest
I guess I still have a question. Re: this part of the statement:Thank you for posting this. I did not know that there was an official clarification on this matter…
However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.
Does this mean that the choice to respect the life of another is better than th choice not to contracept?
I think this is where the confusion lies and I’m not so sure that this Vatican statement removes this confusion.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is an interesting question that I do not think the church has adequately addressed. Does Huamane Vitae , which requires that the marital embrace be open to life, apply to those who are also already sinning by having sex outside of marriage?I guess I still have a question. Re: this part of the statement:
However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.
Does this mean that the choice to respect the life of another is better than th choice not to contracept?
I think this is where the confusion lies and I’m not so sure that this Vatican statement removes this confusion.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Prostitution is a grave sin. This statement in no way denies that fact.I guess I still have a question. Re: this part of the statement:
However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.
Does this mean that the choice to respect the life of another is better than th choice not to contracept?
I think this is where the confusion lies and I’m not so sure that this Vatican statement removes this confusion.
There is so better or worse: it is not advocating the so-called “lesser evil”. There is no lesser evil.
I think the point being made is that those who are infected with this virus have a duty to try and prevent the disease being spread, for the good of their sexual partner and to prevent further burden on health systems.
What they are doing is still inherently sinful and neither choice is preferable.
Note on the banalization of sexuality regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World":
Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
Those having sex outside of marriage are already sinning. However, this does not negate the fact that the use of artificial birth control methods is also sinful. Both abuse the purposes for which God gave us sex. The fact that one is already sinning does not justify another sin.It is an interesting question that I do not think the church has adequately addressed. Does Huamane Vitae , which requires that the marital embrace be open to life, apply to those who are also already sinning by having sex outside of marriage?
E
estesbob
Guest
So do you believe that is sinful for person who has AIDS to wear a condom when having extramarital sex? Trying to prevent an already sinful action and being fatal to one’s partner is a sin?Those having sex outside of marriage are already sinning. However, this does not negate the fact that the use of artificial birth control methods is also sinful. Both abuse the purposes for which God gave us sex. The fact that one is already sinning does not justify another sin.
I will admit I don’t know the answer to this question. I wish the church would clarify.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
I don’t see how it is ever possible to justify using one sin to prevent another. There is no “lesser evil”. Sin is sin and there are no two ways about that. Trying to prevent spreading HIV is an admirable intention, sure, but using another sin to do it just isn’t the right way to go.So do you believe that is sinful for person who has AIDS to wear a condom when having extramarital sex? Trying to prevent an already sinful action and being fatal to one’s partner is a sin?
I will admit I don’t know the answer to this question. I wish the church would clarify.
The way I see it, an HIV positive person who engages in extramarital sex and uses a condom is taking responsibility for not spreading their illness to others but what they are doing is still a sin. The better thing to do would be to remain celibate and avoid the sins of extramarital sex, spreading their illness and using artificial contraception entirely.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes the better thing would be to abstain but once they have started to engage in extramarital sex would not be better thing to do be to to try to protect their partner from a fatal disease?I don’t see how it is ever possible to justify using one sin to prevent another. There is no “lesser evil”. Sin is sin and there are no two ways about that. Trying to prevent spreading HIV is an admirable intention, sure, but using another sin to do it just isn’t the right way to go.
The way I see it, an HIV positive person who engages in extramarital sex and uses a condom is taking responsibility for not spreading their illness to others but what they are doing is still a sin. The better thing to do would be to remain celibate and avoid the sins of extramarital sex, spreading their illness and using artificial contraception entirely.
It seems that the Pope’s recent comments on condoms which give credence to that idea that it would, but like I said we need some clarification.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
I think the problem is keeping using the word ‘better’. Neither situation is ‘better’ or more preferable, but to try and protect others from disease is the responsible thing to do. Thinking of it in terms of better or worse adds to the confusion because the ‘good’ intention does not negate the evil involved.Yes the better thing would be to abstain but once they have started to engage in extramarital sex would not be better thing to do be to to try to protect their partner from a fatal disease?
It seems that the Pope’s recent comments on condoms which give credence to that idea that it would, but like I said we need some clarification.
P
promethius
Guest
I was under the impression that the statement on acceptability of condoms for HIV positive prostitutes was only directly applicable to homosexual male prostitutes, who, in effect, would not be contracepting even though they use a condom.
For straight people, use of ABC is still completely illicit even in cases of extramarital sex and HIV… correct me if I’m wrong, but abstinence is still the only morally acceptable answer…
For straight people, use of ABC is still completely illicit even in cases of extramarital sex and HIV… correct me if I’m wrong, but abstinence is still the only morally acceptable answer…
N
Newbie2
Guest
I guess I still have a question. Re: this part of the statement:
However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.
Does this mean that the choice to respect the life of another is better than th choice not to contracept?
I think this is where the confusion lies and I’m not so sure that this Vatican statement removes this confusion.
It is an interesting question that I do not think the church has adequately addressed. Does Huamane Vitae , which requires that the marital embrace be open to life, apply to those who are also already sinning by having sex outside of marriage?
Yep, as far as I’m aware the Pope’s comments about condom use and ABC were regarding homosexual prostitution, where there was not a chance of contraception.I was under the impression that the statement on acceptability of condoms for HIV positive prostitutes was only directly applicable to homosexual male prostitutes, who, in effect, would not be contracepting even though they use a condom.
For straight people, use of ABC is still completely illicit even in cases of extramarital sex and HIV… correct me if I’m wrong, but abstinence is still the only morally acceptable answer…
But I think Bob’s question is a very good one; paraphrasing, “Is it sinful to contracept in an adulterous relationship?” It would seem that the answer is yes…but…the Church has not clearly spoken on this particular situation.
I think it’s pretty clear that condom use during…ahem…“non-genital/genital sex” is not contraceptive and condom use in such an instance, whether between two males or a male and a female, is perhaps what the Pope is speaking of as it is not contraceptive use but rather anti-disease use.
However, that brings up another scenario:
A sterile woman (who has had an ovariohysterectomy) is married to a fertile man. Any sort of condom usage in this couple is clearly ***not ***contraceptive. Perhaps the woman or the man is HIV positive. How is this situation different, ***specifically in the use of the condom for disease prevention and not for contraception ***, between the homosexual couple hooking up for sex and the married couple doing their thing?
Yes, the homosexual couple aren’t married and are engaging in sodomy and the heterosexual married couple are married and are not engaged in sodomy, but I’m asking specifically about the condom use for disease prevention in a married, sterile couple in light of the Pope’s recent thoughts.
B
baylee
Guest
Actually early on when this first came out, the Vatican clarified that the Pope was talking about anyone…male or female…not just male prostitutes. I can’t remember the exact quote, but this was not just about homosexual, non-contraceptive activity.
B
baylee
Guest
But this was not part of the Pope’s comments…hence, confusion. Why didn’t the Pope just say this? Why make comments that give the impression that the use of condoms is a good thing at all? Shouldn’t the Church always be pushing us to make the best choices?I don’t see how it is ever possible to justify using one sin to prevent another. There is no “lesser evil”. Sin is sin and there are no two ways about that. Trying to prevent spreading HIV is an admirable intention, sure, but using another sin to do it just isn’t the right way to go.
The way I see it, an HIV positive person who engages in extramarital sex and uses a condom is taking responsibility for not spreading their illness to others but what they are doing is still a sin. The better thing to do would be to remain celibate and avoid the sins of extramarital sex, spreading their illness and using artificial contraception entirely.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you heard wrong, condoms have nothing to do with either abstinence or masturbation, and the church never said either condoms or masturbation are okay.i heard somewhere, and correct me if i’m wrong, that the catholic church has recognized condoms as an ok way of abstinence. if that’s true, then does that mean that masturbation is okay, too?
F
Fidelia
Guest
The statement of the Pope that caused such confusion was taken out of context from a book that was basically a personal interview with him. He was not speaking Ex Cathedra as Pope at that time, hence the statement has no bearing on Catholic moral teachings. The Pope can and will express personal opinions, and they may or may not always be correct.
He merely chose to use a male prostitute with HIV as an example of a circumstance in which using a condom may be a small step in the right direction, since the prostitute uses condoms to try to prevent the spread of disease, showing some amount of respect for the body and life of the sexual partner.
For this situation, as well as others, regardless of what he’s talking about, the Pope expressing a personal opinion is not the same thing as the Church defining doctrine.
He merely chose to use a male prostitute with HIV as an example of a circumstance in which using a condom may be a small step in the right direction, since the prostitute uses condoms to try to prevent the spread of disease, showing some amount of respect for the body and life of the sexual partner.
For this situation, as well as others, regardless of what he’s talking about, the Pope expressing a personal opinion is not the same thing as the Church defining doctrine.
A
Abu
Guest
Contraception remains gravely sinful and intrinsically wrong in marriage. No change.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant **By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010
Regarding the Pope’s interview, “none of this has any bearing on the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception in marriage. Indeed, no matter what position the Pope or any other moralist may take on the use of condoms in particular situations which are already fundamentally disordered—situations in which sexual activity is already intrinsically immoral—that position cannot affect the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms in sexual acts which are otherwise properly ordered and moral—that is, within marriage. In each and every properly ordered and therefore moral sexual act (that is, in each and every marital act), deliberate contraception remains intrinsically immoral.”
**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN): **
In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.
With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.’ (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).
On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant **By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010
Regarding the Pope’s interview, “none of this has any bearing on the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception in marriage. Indeed, no matter what position the Pope or any other moralist may take on the use of condoms in particular situations which are already fundamentally disordered—situations in which sexual activity is already intrinsically immoral—that position cannot affect the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms in sexual acts which are otherwise properly ordered and moral—that is, within marriage. In each and every properly ordered and therefore moral sexual act (that is, in each and every marital act), deliberate contraception remains intrinsically immoral.”
**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN): **
In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.
With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.’ (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).
On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
T
TimothyH
Guest
The Pope’s statement was simply that for some, condom use might be a first step toward an awakening, an understanding that what they are doing was morally wrong. An HIV positive prostitute might begin to realize what they are doing is wrong and so begin to use condoms.
AKA a step in the right direction.
Its like a bank robber switching from guns to knives or a morbidly obese person switching from five cheeseburgers to five chicken sandwitches. Ultimately its not acceptable but it is a step in the right direction. That’s all the Pope was saying. To read anything more into it is to over complicate the issue.
The sixth commandment has not been repealed. Artificial contraception, condoms, vasectomies, “The pill”, masturbation, extra-marital sex, prostitution, homosexual acts, and pornography are still sins.
-Tim-
AKA a step in the right direction.
Its like a bank robber switching from guns to knives or a morbidly obese person switching from five cheeseburgers to five chicken sandwitches. Ultimately its not acceptable but it is a step in the right direction. That’s all the Pope was saying. To read anything more into it is to over complicate the issue.
The sixth commandment has not been repealed. Artificial contraception, condoms, vasectomies, “The pill”, masturbation, extra-marital sex, prostitution, homosexual acts, and pornography are still sins.
-Tim-
R
rogerthatgod
Guest
I have a question. I know there is no gray area with mortal sin. I was taught to love my wife as Jesus loves the church. My wife refuses to have sex with me unless I wear a condom. I want nothing more then to start a family with her but she wants us to “enjoy being married first.” Can someone give me some sound advise on this from one Catholic to another? If i do as my wife asks me then am I in turn guilty or mortal sin? Thank you!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.