Indian catholic contraception scene

[justinmatter]

the following is an article from “the hindu”, one o f the more scholarly indian newspapers. taken from science and tech. division on 2nd dec, 2004:
**`C’ is not for condoms **
**The church will not promote or propagate the use of condoms. **

A FOR Abstinence, B for Be Faithful and C for the Catholic Church stands for anything but condoms. Come April, that is going to be the official line of thinking of the Indian Catholic Church as it gears up to take on the monster called AIDS.

“A and B are the safest and the most efficient ways to prevent HIV infection,” said Dr. Alex Vadakumthala, Executive Secretary for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India’s Commission for Health. “And if an individual follows A and B, then he is cent per cent safe.”

Condoms are taboo

“We will speak of A and B but will not promote or propagate the use of condoms,” said Dr. Vadakumthala emphatically. “But if someone were to come to me for advice, then I would provide him all the information. Ultimately we leave the decision to the couples.”

It is for the first time in the country that such a policy is being drafted by the Commission of Health after discussion with dioceses all over the country. The final policy is expected to be ready in April.

The ABC method of HIV prevention has been in the thick of the storm ever since the Bush administration emphasised that abstinence and being faithful to one’s partner alone will help keep HIV infection at bay.

Allowing religious sentiments to override scientific reason, the Bush administration feels that promoting condoms is akin to encouraging people to sexual pleasure outside marriage.

And they drive home the point that condoms cannot eliminate all risks, reinforcing the need for abstinence and faithfulness. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of abstinence is never quizzed.

“The Church is against all forms of contraception,” Dr. Vadakumthala emphasised. Leave alone contraception, will the condom be accepted as a means of protection against infection in discordant couples where one partner is HIV positive while the other is not? “We leave the choice to their conscience,” said Dr. Vadakumthala, not willing to commit.

Sexual promiscuity

For Dr. Vadakumthala, encouraging condom use is tantamount to approving sex before and outside marriage.

“Which religion promotes sexual promiscuity or sex outside marriage?” he wondered. “So why promote condoms?” Surely, reality and ideology are on a collision course.

Studies have found that even in the U.S., teenagers who pledged to stay abstinent until marriage do not remain so. The fallout was that they were less likely to use condoms and hence more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases. Now who says ignorance is bliss.

R. Prasad
in Chennai

this has me worried (cont’d)

 

[justinmatter]

this has me worried for a few reasons:

1. the author is obviously biased and not concerned with providing a proper picture of the catholic view
2. the representative of the bishops does not come across as one who has any proper knowledge of the church’s postion (if the quotes are accurate and in context)
3. most importantly, it will have a negative impact on catholics in india because most of us do not know the church’s teaching on contraception

in india, we grow up listening to family planning slogans like “hum do hamare do” (we are a couple with a couple of kids) and the government spends lots of money on contraception and aborion. catholics here think that contraception is only the right thing to do. the church does not teach otherwise. my own uncle, a priest, told me he thinks contraception is ok.

i’ve written a letter to the cbci (catholic bishops conference of india) about this whole business

i’d like tyour thoughts on the issue, especially any indians on the forums or those of indian extraction

please, pray for the church in india
thanks

 

[patricius]

I’m not Indian (sorry), but I do find it very offensive and possibly racist that so many Western countries and NGOs insist on treating people from poorer countries as if they’re just animals who are incapable of choosing what they want when it comes to sexuality (we also do this to young people from all countries).
If “C” stands for “condom,” then what we’re saying is that we don’t think people will really do “A” or “B.” How shameful.

 

[trogiah]

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The above quote is from the 19th chapter of Matthew. It seems to indicate that Jesus recognized that some people are more capable of living a celibate life than others.

perhaps we should all accept this as being true and have policies on matters of sexuality reflect the fact that some people are more able to live celebately than others.

-Jim

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Church is against all forms of contraception," Dr. Vadakumthala emphasised. Leave alone contraception, will the condom be accepted as a means of protection against infection in discordant couples where one partner is HIV positive while the other is not? “We leave the choice to their conscience,” said Dr. Vadakumthala, not willing to commit.

The Church has not made a pronouncement on what couples, where one partner has HIV, are supposed to do with regards to sexual intercoruse.

Some theologians would argue that in such an instance the use of condoms is licit, because one is only wearing the condom to block the HIV during intercourse. The contraceptive effect is unintended, and is proportioned by the grave strain to the marriage an enforced continence would be.

I, for one, agree with them. And in any case, the benefit of all doubt should be given to such couples who use condoms, at least until the Church definitvely pronounces otherwise.

 

[justinmatter]

trogiah:

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The above quote is from the 19th chapter of Matthew. It seems to indicate that Jesus recognized that some people are more capable of living a celibate life than others.

perhaps we should all accept this as being true and have policies on matters of sexuality reflect the fact that some people are more able to live celebately than others.

-Jim

i think you’re reading a bit to much into the quote.
it certainly says that some people are called to celibacy and others are not ("…some have renounced marriage for the sake…") but the wording seems to suggest a personal choice made, not an intrinsic capability to control one’s sensual desires. the other examples -born or made incapable of marriage- does not apply here
thus, i can’t agree that the quote says that some are “more capable” of celibacy than others.

even if we admit that some people are more easily or more often tempted by their bodily desires, that in itself does not say what you have said.
further, paul says that no man is tempted beyond his capabilities, that god always sends the grace to resist.

more importantly, and to the point of the post -contraception- is the question of why the church is against artificial contraception.
the church teaches that the act of sex, which is beautiful in itself and in its own place, becomes sinful when man tries to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the act, when man reduces it to only a means of taking pleasure, when man tries to sidestep the responsibility that comes with the privilege of joining god in the creation of life and the expression of love.
but this is not really for this thread, is it? there are several other threads about why contraception is wrong

in faith
justin

 

[Prometheum_x]

o

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The above quote is from the 19th chapter of Matthew. It seems to indicate that Jesus recognized that some people are more capable of living a celibate life than others.

perhaps we should all accept this as being true and have policies on matters of sexuality reflect the fact that some people are more able to live celebately than others.

-Jim

However, the options Jesus presented are those of celibacy and marriage. If you can’t remain celibate (or don’t want to, or whatever), then get married. If everyone in the world was monogamous, STD rates would plummet.

 

[mlchance]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Some theologians would argue that in such an instance the use of condoms is licit, because one is only wearing the condom to block the HIV during intercourse. The contraceptive effect is unintended, and is proportioned by the grave strain to the marriage an enforced continence would be.

I, for one, agree with them. And in any case, the benefit of all doubt should be given to such couples who use condoms, at least until the Church definitvely pronounces otherwise.

The Church has definitively pronounced otherwise. The use of condoms is never licit.

To quote Pope Paul VI: “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

That someone doesn’t intend contraception by using a condom is not relevant since intention is not the sole criterion for determining if an action is morally licit. “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception” (CCC 2399). Modern theories moral theology such as consequentialism and proportionalism are not in accord with Catholic teaching, and have been condemned by John Paul II.

The Church’s stand against artificial birth control is infallible doctrine. “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. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

In the case of a married couple where one partner is HIV positive, the acceptable choice is abstinence, and God’s grace is sufficient to make that choice work.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[trogiah]

justinmatter:

i think you’re reading a bit to much into the quote.

I will admit to trying to read much into the quote. I find it occasionally frustrating that, while the world seems obsessed with sex, Jesus actually says very little about it, aside from specifically denouncing adultery. So I read the quotes that have something to say about marital relations and try to make as much as I can from them.

justinmatter:

further, paul says that no man is tempted beyond his capabilities, that god always sends the grace to resist.

Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command.

I read this in Paul’s letter and I don’t get the sense that he is saying that a person can “just say no”, even by the grace of God.

Or is Paul making a concession the same way Moses was making a concession when he allowed divorce?

I am not an advocate for premarital sex. I think the ideal living out of life by a married couple would not involve contraception. I am certainly not suggesting that adultery is in any way an acceptable form of behavior.

I am suggesting that there are various patterns of sexual behavior that have different levels of (Potential) destructiveness to them. Celibacy is ideal. Monogamous married relationships wihout the use of contraception is next, perhaps equally “ideal” with the first. (The jury seems out on that) I would suggest that while married monogamous relationships with contraception are not ideal they are better than adulterous relationships. I would also suggest that while there are risks in premarital sex with one partner, there are greater risks with several partners.

Discussing the use of condoms or other forms of contraception does not require advocating them as harmless tools of family planning. By refusing to discuss them, the Indian government - with the support of the Catholic Church, is refusing to meet many people where they are at. I don’t really see the benefit of such an approach.

-Jim

 

[justinmatter]

I am suggesting that there are various patterns of sexual behavior that have different levels of (Potential) destructiveness to them. Celibacy is ideal. Monogamous married relationships wihout the use of contraception is next, perhaps equally “ideal” with the first. (The jury seems out on that) I would suggest that while married monogamous relationships with contraception are not ideal they are better than adulterous relationships. I would also suggest that while there are risks in premarital sex with one partner, there are greater risks with several partners.

Discussing the use of condoms or other forms of contraception does not require advocating them as harmless tools of family planning. By refusing to discuss them, the Indian government - with the support of the Catholic Church, is refusing to meet many people where they are at. I don’t really see the benefit of such an approach.

forgive me, i’m not sure i understand you
could you clarify what you mean by

Discussing the use of condoms or other forms of contraception does not require advocating them as harmless tools of family planning.

also, i thought it was pretty clear that the indian government is all in favour of contraception and the church, which is supposed to be against it, is keeping silent, even to its own flock. so, i don’t understand this either:

By refusing to discuss them, the Indian government - with the support of the Catholic Church, is refusing to meet many people where they are at. I don’t really see the benefit of such an approach.