cotraception

[Trustful]

I just wanted to share with you all a wonderful answer which the priest gave about cotraception. I wasn’t really sure where to leave this post. I hope you will all benefit from it.

friendsforjesus.com/viewtopic.php?t=815&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

May God bless you all and bring His heavenly peace into your lives and the lives of your families.

Your sister in Christ

 

[Scottgun]

That is a good response. I must quibble with the part where he says the Church is looking into condom use for married couples when one has AIDS and the possibility of “double-effect” applying. Since using a contraceptive is wrong *in and of itself, *then double-effect cannot apply because double-effect is about, if it isn’t obvious, the effect or the ends. Since the means never justify the ends, double-effect cannot be appealed to. Expect the Church to make no exception in this case.

Scott

 

[Scottgun]

I wanted to add an extra note about this because there is a good reason for taking him to task for this and not just out of being argumentative. I have listened to a dissenter tell me condoms are now acceptable because of the discussion going on in the Vatican on African AIDS at or around this time. In other words, they are taking speculative press-rumor as fact. And more than that, taking an exception and assuming a norm. In other words, we are getting set up for another post-Paul VI *Humanae Vitae *scenario. That is, everyone assumed the pope was going to liberalize on contraception, started teaching it like a fact, and then had the gall to get hot and bothered when he didn’t. I can practically see it now: Benedict XVI reaffirms constant Chruch teaching and people howl with indignation. It would be great if we didn’t fall for that one again.

Scott

 

[Timidity]

Since using a contraceptive is wrong *in and of itself, *then double-effect cannot apply because double-effect is about, if it isn’t obvious, the effect or the ends. Since the means never justify the ends, double-effect cannot be appealed to. Expect the Church to make no exception in this case.

I believe you reasoning is faulty. The fault is your statement that “using a contraceptive is wrong in and of itself”. The faulty statement then leads you to a questionable conclusion. Contraception is, in and of itself, wrong; but using things that have the unintended effect of contraception is not.

 

[hasikelee]

I believe you reasoning is faulty. The fault is your statement that “using a contraceptive is wrong in and of itself”. The faulty statement then leads you to a questionable conclusion. Contraception is, in and of itself, wrong; but using things that have the unintended effect of contraception is not.

Almost makes sense, but then wouldn’t that also make abortion logically okay?

As of now, the double-effect of treating an illness that may cause the death of a pre-born baby is okay.

But direct abortion is not.

So the double-effect of trying to prevent transmission by using non-contraceptive means even if that causes a barrier is okay.

But direct contracepting with a condom is not.

Besides that, it is simply horrible advice to offer condom use as a way to prevent transmission.