Dissidents now paying for ads against the POPE

[Oscarthecat]

There is a difference between “helping prevent” and “guarantee” protection.

Let me put it another way:

For those who engage in high risk behaviors (sex with multiple partners or partners with HIV) Condom use is safer than no condom use, but it is no guarantee they won’t still get HIV.

The only Guaranteed protection is abstinance.

There is a difference between “helping prevent” and “guarantee” protection.

The African Bishops didn’t stop at saying that condoms don’t guarantee protection- in the sentence that followed the one you quoted they assert that condoms may actually contribute to the problem.

“Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Apart from the possibility of condoms being faulty or wrongly used they contribute to the breaking down of self-control and mutual respect.””

Even if condom use reduces the chances of infection for each individual incident of risky behavior, the use of condoms may provide a false sense of security that results in a greater number of high risk sexual behaviors.

These dissenting groups have so little respect for the magisterium that they are advocating a position that the Bishops teach is harmful.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

The African Bishops didn’t stop at saying that condoms don’t guarantee protection- in the sentence that followed the one you quoted they assert that condoms may actually contribute to the problem.

Even if condom use reduces the chances of infection for each individual incident of risky behavior, the use of condoms may provide a false sense of security that results in a greater number of high risk sexual behaviors.

These dissenting groups have so little respect for the magisterium that they are advocating a position that the Bishops teach is harmful.

I agree. If you’d read my previous posts you would know this. I was just pointing out that you are comparing two completely different statements, both of which are true.

There is no dispute that condoms are safer than not using condoms for those who continue to engage in high risk behaviors. There is no dispute that abstinance is the only guarantee.

Rather than arguing this point I think it would be best to educate people that condoms and spermicides do not provide absolute protection, this is giving false hope.

The programs that have had the most success (also previously quoted and linked) are the programs that involve education, retraining, and deal with the issues of poverty and violence.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Then the scourge of HIV transmission will continue in Africa.

The unwanted pregnancies will continue and desperate women will continue to seek abortions.

Hence the advertisements I suppose.

Artificial contraception is like playing Russian Roulette. Condomes break, even the ones that are made efficiently…and many are not.
The pill does not always work. My mother herself got pregnant while on the pill. Many others that I know have had the same results. Not only that, the pill can be a detriment to a woman’s reproductive system. Many, many, many women who have taken the pill for 8 years or more lose all ability to concieve once they want children.
Abstinance is the only fool proof way of preventing these many diseases like HIV and others.
Abstinance is the only fool proof way of preventing pregnancy…which is why there are so many abortions. People who do not want to get pregnant use artificial birth control. Obviously, the artificial birth control doesn’t work.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

On the contrary, it accepts the fact that people will have pre-marital sex with persons and people have always had pre-marital sex.

It is simply a mechanism with which people can help protect themselves when they choose to have sex with a stranger.

The Church saying abstain and the threat of a deadly infection does not stop people from engaging in these acts, so perhaps they should be taught how to protect themselves if they decide to have sex with person of unknown HIV status.

Not to sound heartless, but if people know the risks, and decide to take those risks anyway by acting in a sinful and irresponsible behavior, whose fault is it? Those people aren’t listening to the laws of Christianity or the Roman Catholic Church if they are fornicating. The laws of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church is not what is stopping these people from using contraception. They are not thinking " Well, I am going to fornicate, which is a sin, but because the Church teaches that artificial contraception is a sin, I will not use it." It is just a form of propaganda and an attack on the authority of the Church to state that if She lifts the ban, people who are living in sin will stop spreading the disease and getting pregnant out of wedlock. People have to be taught that they are responsible for their own actions. It is quite simple. If you don’t want to get HIV, or get pregnant out of wedlock, practice abstinance only. If you don’t, the fault of whatever may happen lies at your own feet.
That isn’t heartless.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I agree. If you’d read my previous posts you would know this. I was just pointing out that you are comparing two completely different statements, both of which are true.

I understood that, but I was pointing out was that, when you include the full statement from the Bishops, the two positions reflect completely opposing positions on how condoms affect the problem.

Rather than arguing this point I think it would be best to educate people that condoms and spermicides do not provide absolute protection, this is giving false hope.

But many who advocate the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV will generally acknowledge that they are not 100% effective even under perfect conditions- so there is no need to educate them on this point. The problem is that they assume that if condoms reduce the potential for virus transmission for each individual encounter, then condom use must also necessarily reduce the overall number of virus transfers.

The Catholic position recognizes that even if condoms reduce the likelihood of virus transfer per individual instance, the promotion of condoms encourages an increase in the total frequency of sexual activity because they provide a false sense of security and reinforce the notion that individuals can’t otherwise control their sexuality. Consequently, condoms actually result in an increase in the total number of infections.

 

[fix]

The Catholic position recognizes that even if condoms reduce the likelihood of virus transfer per individual instance, the promotion of condoms encourages an increase in the total frequency of sexual activity because they provide a false sense of security and reinforce the notion that individuals can’t otherwise control their sexuality. Consequently, condoms actually result in an increase in the total number of infections.

Yes, so if we encouarge people to continue acting badly under the pretense they are “safe” then we can expect more bad acts to continue and expect all the consequences that come with such advice. Consequences being both physical and spiritual.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

many who advocate the use of condoms to reduce the spread of HIV will generally acknowledge that they are not 100% effective even under perfect conditions- so there is no need to educate them on this point. The problem is that they assume that if condoms reduce the potential for virus transmission for each individual encounter, then condom use must also necessarily reduce the overall number of virus transfers.

Again. No argument from me. I just figure that if I were educated that once I or my husband were diagnosed with HIV there would still be a % of risk of spreading the virus to one another ***even with the use of condoms & spermicides ***then I would be much less likely to engage in high risk behavior. That is if I loved my husband or the husband loved his wife.

Likewise, if young people are taught that even with the use of condoms there is still a % of risk they will catch and/or spread HIV, that condoms are not 100% protection and the only 100% protection is abstinence then I think it’s much more likely that they will practice abstinence.

Yet, when you have people who are facing *certain death *by starvation and so enter into prostitution to feed themselves then it’s becomes more worth taking that chance if they can significantly reduce their chances of contracting STDs by using condoms.

We have to give them other options by educating them and giving them skills they can use to earn money to feed themselves another way. We need programs to curb the poverty if we’re going to keep them from turning to prostitution.

I was just watching a segment of “Where God Weeps” on EWTN about these kinds of efforts and how successful they are.

This issue is not just about licentiousness. It is about poverty (working in prostitution vs. starving to death), violence (rape), genocide (rape gangs targeting women & children).

 

[SoCalRC]

Likewise, if young people are taught that even with the use of condoms there is still a % of risk they will catch and/or spread HIV, that condoms are not 100% protection and the only 100% protection is abstinence then I think it’s much more likely that they will practice abstinence.

That is a good point, but one worth understanding well. When we teach young people the real facts and data, more are prone to engage in abstinance, and those who do not practice abstinance are more likely to engage in safer sexual practices.

But all the research shows that “abstinace only” education has the opposite effect. The youth are less likely to abstain, and more likely to engage in the riskiest sexual behaviors.

This opens the door for at least some consideration of several theological arguments. First, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, our Faith and Reason are not incompatible. And here is a case where reality bears that out. The facts, as they really are, show that the moral approach is also the safest approach. Presenting facts, instead of ideology, lets young people find their way to God through reason.

Second, even if a program stressed that abstinance is best, but went further and endorsed safe sex practices for individuals who choose not to abstain, an argument could be made that it is an application of “proportionate reasons”. The person making the recommendation does not want to promote condom use, but accepts that, given our biological nature, some youths will not abstain. And the evils of contraception are believed to be morally equivelent to the alternatives, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of potentially fatal disease.

Yet, when you have people who are facing *certain death *by starvation and so enter into prostitution to feed themselves then it’s becomes more worth taking that chance if they can significantly reduce their chances of contracting STDs by using condoms.

This would be an argument of proportionate reasons. I, personally, think it is incorrect. I think that the epidemic is a symptom of a much greater Christian failure than sexual moral failure of the individuals. The answer is not the bandaide, but the tiny percentage of the world’s population which holds over 90% of all wealth answering the call of Christ.

In other words, I agree with your assessment of core problems. But think that the energy and effort to try to promote comdom usage would do less to promote and foster human life, the inalienable gift from God, then directly attacking root causes.

But, I can at least empathise with your position and can humbly accept that my own judgement could be incorrect.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

Can we go back to the original premise of the thread. That of dissidents (catholics) paying for ads against the POPE and Holy Mother Churches teachings?

It is actually an interesting question. The Church seemingly understands some dissent, particularly driven by compassion. See CCC 1790:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”

The certainty of the conscience must be followed. But it is the second part of this paragraph, and the paragraphs that follow, that often get missed. The core problem is not nec. the dissent, but how the dissenters approach their own lack of communion with the Church.

The Church gives some good guidance on how disageement with the Church should be handled. For example, see the Church’s document on the vocation of the theologian, particularly the section “The problem with dissent”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

The problem here is that the dissenters are attempting to dispute the matter in the court of public opinion. It is not nec. all bad, since it is addressed to the Pope there is at least some token acknowledgement of his proper authority. But it does not seem to match dissenters’ responsibility to seek improved understanding and communion with the Church. This latter is a must because to do otherwise is to question the Church’s apostolic nature.

But I, myself, am hesitant to waggle my finger at such dissent, because it is hard to be innocent of it. Look at the “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”. This, too, is a form of dissent, argued in the court of public opinion.

The Church has already explained, in a Doctrinal Note, Catholics’ responsibilities in political life:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This has been elaborated on by the Princes of the Church in the US. But while Rome’s document provides a list of nine non negotiable moral principles, the CAF list includes only 5. Of the five, only 1 (arguably 2) fully overlaps Rome’s list.

There are two problems with this, by truncating the list from Rome, the group is indrectly stating that the Church is wrong in its identification of “fundemental and inalienable moral principles”. Further, by declaring itself the source of moral guidance for “serious” Catholics, it is asserting moral authority above that of even Rome.

It could similarly be argued that every forum member here who has asserted that abortion trumps all other issues is a dissenter trying to sway people in the court of public opinion. Again, Rome has been quite clear:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

The USCCB has also reiterated this in documents for the lay faithful.

We could extend the same argument to people who strenously argue that we must support instrinsically evil positions on abortion (like exceptions for rape and incest) because a failure to be pragmatic would lead to no “progress”. After all, the Church clearly disagrees:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

Pope John Paul II made it even clearer in Evangelium Vitae. And Pope Benedict reiterated both points above, that compromise on abortion is not licit, nor is the use of abortion to justify turning one’s back on “the essence of the moral law” and other “fundemental and inalienable ethical demands” during his recent vist.

This stuff isn’t secret, Pope Benedict stated these principles in SACREMENTUM VERITATIS, putting the Church’s broader view of “non negotiable” moral principles in the context of suitability for Holy Communion.

But I, myself, am certainly not without sin. So instead of just waggling my finger at such open and inappropriate dissent, I try to have some empathy for the individuals involved (how else can I strive to love them as myself?) and pray that they will receive help and guidance in finding fuller communion with the Church.

 

[fix]

Second, even if a program stressed that abstinance is best, but went further and endorsed safe sex practices for individuals who choose not to abstain, an argument could be made that it is an application of “proportionate reasons”.

How so? The act of contraception is intrinsically evil. That is never justified.

The person making the recommendation does not want to promote condom use, but accepts that, given our biological nature, some youths will not abstain. And the evils of contraception are believed to be morally equivelent to the alternatives, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of potentially fatal disease.

One who believes that should read what the Church teaches. The ends never justify the means.

 

[fix]

But I, myself, am hesitant to waggle my finger at such dissent, because it is hard to be innocent of it. Look at the “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”. This, too, is a form of dissent, argued in the court of public opinion.

It is? The propaganda continues.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

…as Pope Benedict has pointed out, our Faith and Reason are not incompatible. And here is a case where reality bears that out. The facts, as they really are, show that the moral approach is also the safest approach. Presenting facts, instead of ideology, lets young people find their way to God through reason.

Second, even if a program stressed that abstinance is best, but went further and endorsed safe sex practices for individuals who choose not to abstain, an argument could be made that it is an application of “proportionate reasons”. The person making the recommendation does not want to promote condom use, but accepts that, given our biological nature, some youths will not abstain. And the evils of contraception are believed to be morally equivelent to the alternatives, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of potentially fatal disease.

True. Plus this is not limited just to Christians. The moral law is written on all our hearts.

Years ago I knew a young woman (a friend of my daughter’s) who tested positive for HIV at the age of 17. This girl knew that she would have to live a celibate life. She would never marry, never have a child. It wasn’t her faith that told her this, she wasn’t religious at the time. It was the moral truth written in her heart, that if she were to have sex she could infect her partner and give them a death sentence.

 

[fix]

Second, even if a program stressed that abstinance is best, but went further and endorsed safe sex practices for individuals who choose not to abstain, an argument could be made that it is an application of “proportionate reasons”. The person making the recommendation does not want to promote condom use, but accepts that, given our biological nature, some youths will not abstain. And the evils of contraception are believed to be morally equivelent to the alternatives, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of potentially fatal disease.

I am trying to find anywhere the Church would endorse that.

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal.

Veritatis splendor

 

[SoCalRC]

How so? The act of contraception is intrinsically evil. That is never justified.

You don’t seem to have the same understanding of ‘intrinsically evil’ as the Church. A good understanding of the distinction would be to look at Pope John Paul II’s explanation on the application of CIC 915 (withholding Holy Communion) on civilly divorced Catholics. Now Pope Benedict also wrote a letter touching on the same subject, but it has never been officially released in its entirety.

Contraceptive devices are not, themselves, intrinsically evil. Rather or not their use is licit depends on the circumstaces. For example, when a Catholic hospital dispenses an emergency contraceptive to a rape victim, it is generally deemed licit. The victim is just that, a victim. There is no interruption of the proper sexual expression of love between man and woman, but an attempt to defend oneself against an unjust aggressor.

That is the same reason that nuns have been permitted to protect themselves from systematic rape in ethnic conflicts. They are not interferring with the freely exchanged gift of love and its consequences, but attempting to protect themselves from evil acts of violence.

And, of course, it is licit to use certain contraceptive interventions for non contraceptive medical purposes.

Since there are licit applications, there is not intrinsic evil. This is the same reason that Catholics openly supporting the death penalty cannot be denied communion under CIC 915. The possibility for licit applications of the death penalty exists, even though the Church considers them “rare if non existant”, the position is not intrinsically evil.

On the flip side, if we apply the explanation in Pope Benedict’s SACRAMENTUM VERTATIS, many of those same Catholics should not present themselves for communion until they can reconcile their position with the Church to the point of at least obedience.

One who believes that should read what the Church teaches. The ends never justify the means.

A very odd position for someone who has frequently argued that express directions from the Church can be ignored in good conscience. But you seem to miss the point. We are not even talking about the promotion of condoms, but simply being truthful about measurable reality.

The Catholic faith has nothing to fear from measurable and objective fact. What is true and good can withstand the light. If deception, or the promotion of ignorance and fear, are required to uphold a point of view, it almost certainly is not licit. As St. Paul noted, it is evil that thrives in the dark, but withers in the light.

 

[SoCalRC]

I am trying to find anywhere the Church would endorse that.

Perhaps you should start by obtaining a better understanding of what you are reading. As I just mentioned, the Pope explains the fuller criteria for intrinsic evil in the Encyclical.

Or, better yet, look to yourself. Based on what you have publicly stated in the past, you, yourself, acknowledge compromising on what the Church has infallibly and absolutely held to be intrinsically evil.

This is the problem with living in a society that is overwhelming Protestant and increasingly extreme Evangelical Protestant (Protestantism rejected the apostolic authority of the Church, extreme Evangelicals go further, rejecting the relevance of Christ’s earthly ministry).

Pope Benedict just touched on this in one of his most recent books. He believes that the parable of the prodigal son is better referred to as the parable of two sons. The ‘obvious’ sinner seems to be clear to people. But the ‘dutiful’ son is also rebuked, for his self congradulation, sense of entitlement, and lack of appreciation and joy at God’s infinite love and forgiveness.

Or, as another famous theologian once answered the question, at what point does seperation from the Church stop being even Christianity: “When you stop telling yourself, ‘There but for the grace of God go I’ and start thinking instead ‘It’s their own fault for not being a good person like me.’”

 

[SoCalRC]

It is? The propaganda continues.

According to the USCCB, yes. It is a political document, not a theological one, hence not endorsed for use.

The disparity between the CAF document and the Doctrinal Note from Rome is not something anyone should take my word for. As always, I link to it and encourage people to hear what the Church says for itself. The USCCB also links to the document, and elaborates on a number of concepts, including “limiting the harm” and “proportionate reasons”, which you seem to only grasp when rationalizing your own dissent.

 

[SoCalRC]

Years ago I knew a young woman (a friend of my daughter’s) who tested positive for HIV at the age of 17. This girl knew that she would have to live a celibate life. She would never marry, never have a child. It wasn’t her faith that told her this, she wasn’t religious at the time. It was the moral truth written in her heart, that if she were to have sex she could infect her partner and give them a death sentence.

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” - CCC 1776 (quoting the Pastoral Constitution)

That is quite a moving story. Thank you for sharing it.

Peace

 

[fix]

You don’t seem to have the same understanding of ‘intrinsically evil’ as the Church.

Incorrect. I stated the* act *of contraception is intrinsically evil.

He states:

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI 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”.133

Contraceptive devices are not, themselves, intrinsically evil.

I never said they were. No object can be intrinsically evil.

Rather or not their use is licit depends on the circumstaces. For example, when a Catholic hospital dispenses an emergency contraceptive to a rape victim, it is generally deemed licit. The victim is just that, a victim. There is no interruption of the proper sexual expression of love between man and woman, but an attempt to defend oneself against an unjust aggressor.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

That is the same reason that nuns have been permitted to protect themselves from systematic rape in ethnic conflicts. They are not interferring with the freely exchanged gift of love and its consequences, but attempting to protect themselves from evil acts of violence.

Check my posting history and see I have made that same argument many times. What does this have to do with people teaching others condoms are licit? If we are talking about an unjust aggressor then we agree, but that is not what I was referring to.

Since there are licit applications, there is not intrinsic evil.

The act of contraception is intrinsically evil. Using a “device” during a rape is not the act of contraception. Let us not confuse medical terms with theological terms. Repelling an unjust aggressor is not contraception.

This is the same reason that Catholics openly supporting the death penalty cannot be denied communion under CIC 915. The possibility for licit applications of the death penalty exists, even though the Church considers them “rare if non existant”, the position is not intrinsically evil.

No, this is not the same situation at all.

This is your personal reasoning.

A very odd position for someone who has frequently argued that express directions from the Church can be ignored in good conscience. But you seem to miss the point. We are not even talking about the promotion of condoms, but simply being truthful about measurable reality.

This seems like more obfuscation. Let us be specific. If you claim it is licit to advocate the use of condoms to prevent HIV spread during a conjugal act please show us.

 

[fix]

Perhaps you should start by obtaining a better understanding of what you are reading. As I just mentioned, the Pope explains the fuller criteria for intrinsic evil in the Encyclical.

Yes, and what is wrong with my position?

Or, better yet, look to yourself. Based on what you have publicly stated in the past, you, yourself, acknowledge compromising on what the Church has infallibly and absolutely held to be intrinsically evil.

No, this is your spin. All can read what you write.

This is the problem with living in a society that is overwhelming Protestant and increasingly extreme Evangelical Protestant (Protestantism rejected the apostolic authority of the Church, extreme Evangelicals go further, rejecting the relevance of Christ’s earthly ministry).

This is the problem of rejecting the magisterium and attempting to bind where Mother Church does not bind.

 

[fix]

According to the USCCB, yes. It is a political document, not a theological one, hence not endorsed for use.

The disparity between the CAF document and the Doctrinal Note from Rome is not something anyone should take my word for. As always, I link to it and encourage people to hear what the Church says for itself. The USCCB also links to the document, and elaborates on a number of concepts, including “limiting the harm” and “proportionate reasons”, which you seem to only grasp when rationalizing your own dissent.

We have been round and round before. Start a new thread.