Pope allows condom use?

[ematouk]

I heard recently that the Pope has allowed the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

A few articles on the net seem to confirm this, and others say indefinite statements.

Is this true?

Are there any official statements on this matter?

What are the implications of this do you think?

 

[1ke]

I heard recently that the Pope has allowed the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

A few articles on the net seem to confirm this, and others say indefinite statements.

You have heard incorrectly.

Is this true?

No it isn’t.

Are there any official statements on this matter?

No.

What are the implications of this do you think?

Since it isn’t true, I don’t think there are any implications.

 

[Scottgun]

No

No

No

 

[vz71]

I know this is false, but I am still curious where this came from.
Usually the lie is more subtle.

 

[Rolltide]

This story has been HIGHLY exaggerated in the press. The truth is that recently, a pontifical commission studied the possibility of using condoms in one VERY specific case. The question was whether or not condoms could be used by married couples when one partner had HIV/AIDS, and the other did not. This was reviewed under the principle of “double effect”, meaning that an act that would normally be considered a sin could be legitimately used to prevent a greater sin. (For example, killing someone is a mortal sin, but it is not a mortal sin to kill someone in self-defense to save your family if you have absolutely no other choice.) After a thorough review by theologians, the decision to keep the ban on condoms was upheld, and NO exception will be allowed. The reasoning was that condoms are NOT 100% effective at preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS, and that there would still be the possibility of infection. No risk, however small, would be acceptable. Further, and in fact, the more important reason, is that double effect is not actually applicable in this case. Double effect only applies when there is NO conceivable alternative. Since abstinence is a 100% effective alternative, then condom use CANNOT be condoned.

In the end, the commission pretty much closed the book on the possible use of condoms, even within a marriage. All the news outlets seemed to pick up, however, was that a commission was studying allowing the use of condoms.

 

[dove51]

Nope. In fact, the Church is blamed for the spread of AIDS (pffft!).

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030610.html

 

[Scottgun]

Further, and in fact, the more important reason, is that double effect is not actually applicable in this case. Double effect only applies when there is NO conceivable alternative. Since abstinence is a 100% effective alternative, then condom use CANNOT be condoned.

Good response. I’ll add that double-effect only applies when the chosen act is morally good or indifferent in and of itself. Placing a barrier in the marital act is morally wrong in and of itself. Even if condoms were 100% effective, it would still be wrong.

 

[paperwight]

Last week on the radio, our Cardinal (for England and Wales) was asked if the use of condoms could be acceptable in the case of a wife of an HIV/Aids spouse.
He said it could be argued that the woman had the right to defend herself against a threat to her life, and that it was a matter for the woman to discuss with her priest.
It was noticeable that he did not condemn or reject the use of condoms in such a situation. This could be a straw in the wind. In other words, perhaps views are changing even among high-up clergy, and who knows, even in the Vatican.

 

[Scottgun]

Last week on the radio, our Cardinal (for England and Wales) was asked if the use of condoms could be acceptable in the case of a wife of an HIV/Aids spouse.
He said it could be argued that the woman had the right to defend herself against a threat to her life, and that it was a matter for the woman to discuss with her priest.
It was noticeable that he did not condemn or reject the use of condoms in such a situation. This could be a straw in the wind. In other words, perhaps views are changing even among high-up clergy, and who knows, even in the Vatican.

The cardinal in this case is wrong because abstinence is the only certain way to defend her life. Anything else is playing russian roulette just with fewer bullets in the chamber. Yeah, it’s a matter for the women to discuss with her priest and hopefully her priest does not have his head up his *** by telling her it’s fine and dandy because it ain’t.

 

[paperwight]

I don’t think we should assume that all marriages are the modern Western equal-partners type. Yes, in that type of marriage a wife could negotiate with her husband and persuade him to accept abstinence .
But in many countries of the world, this isn’t the case. Imagine a wife economically dependent on her husband. How can she keep him happy and providing for her children, while denying him the sex he is culturally-programmed to believe is his right? She runs the risk of him leaving her for another woman, and thereby condemning her to possible destitution.
It’s so easy to say that abstinence is the answer. No doubt the woman would be perfectly happy to abstain. But it’s not the wife that is causing the problem is it?

 

[Scottgun]

I don’t think we should assume that all marriages are the modern Western equal-partners type. Yes, in that type of marriage a wife could negotiate with her husband and persuade him to accept abstinence .
But in many countries of the world, this isn’t the case. Imagine a wife economically dependent on her husband. How can she keep him happy and providing for her children, while denying him the sex he is culturally-programmed to believe is his right? She runs the risk of him leaving her for another woman, and thereby condemning her to possible destitution.
It’s so easy to say that abstinence is the answer. No doubt the woman would be perfectly happy to abstain. But it’s not the wife that is causing the problem is it?

These hypotheticals and equal-partner descriptions are entirely beside the point. Condom use in sex is objectively wrong. Meaning no amount of good intentions or special or extreme circumstances can make it right.

 

[ilovekittens]

These hypotheticals and equal-partner descriptions are entirely beside the point. QUOTE]

But these aren’t hypotheticals or beside the point - these examples are the point. In many countries, the wife is the submissive, subservient “partner” in the marriage. When the man desires to satisfy his sexual urge, his wife may not have the option of saying no. If the husband is infected with HIV and his wife - up to that point - is not, and if abstinence/saying no is not an option for the woman, I think a reasonable argument can be made for accepting condom use, even if they are not quite 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.

 

[awfulthings9]

Jimmy Akin, who I think few would argue against, is a decidedly orthodox Catholic, blogged a while back on the language of Humanae Vitae, exploring its language as applying specifically to contraception within marital relationships.

Here.

Then, in anticipation of a document from the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care (which was rumored to allow contraception in the rare instances of a married couple which included one spouse with AIDS), he later wrote an analysis of how such a document would be reconcilable with Catholic teaching.

Here.

Just for the record, I side with complete rejection of the use of contraception, as does Mr. Akin (as noted in the linked blogs), and as does, apparently, the above-mentiond Council (as no “clarification” has come), but for those interested in this discussion, I think Jimmy Akin’s analysis is worth reading, if for no other reason than to understanding the arguments of those with whom you disagree.

In Christ,
S.A.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

These hypotheticals and equal-partner descriptions are entirely beside the point. Condom use in sex is objectively wrong. Meaning no amount of good intentions or special or extreme circumstances can make it right.

There was a thread awhile back (can’t remember the forum, may have been this one), about whether it was a sin for a rape victim to ask her attacker to wear a condom. It was posed as a “she has a right to defend herself against pregnancy and potential disease”, as rape is an act of violence, not “the marital act” (which is always consensual, in or outside of marriage), and is never unitive, so there’s no “breaking the unitive aspect” of it anyway. There were some posters who insisted it was still a sin, but no one (I don’t think) ever came up w/ an official Church position on it. This situation could be argued alone those same lines. If her husband is going to force sex on her (by physcial force or some other coercion, like threatening to leave her destitute), then she has a right to at least attempt (recognizing that condoms aren’t 100% effective) to defend herself against infection. Of course, the wife would have to make it clear that she does not want sex, but would have no other option but to “submit”.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[thistle]

Scottgun;3326813:

These hypotheticals and equal-partner descriptions are entirely beside the point. QUOTE]

But these aren’t hypotheticals or beside the point - these examples are the point. In many countries, the wife is the submissive, subservient “partner” in the marriage. When the man desires to satisfy his sexual urge, his wife may not have the option of saying no. If the husband is infected with HIV and his wife - up to that point - is not, and if abstinence/saying no is not an option for the woman, I think a reasonable argument can be made for accepting condom use, even if they are not quite 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.

There is no argument for use of condoms and as a Catholic you should be well aware of the Church’s teaching on this. It is considered “intrinsically evil” and all Catholics must accept this.

 

[CuriousInIL]

ilovekittens;3327856:

There is no argument for use of condoms and as a Catholic you should be well aware of the Church’s teaching on this. It is considered “intrinsically evil” and all Catholics must accept this.

Where is that stated in Church teaching?

 

[ematouk]

As you all know I am not a Catholic, and I have not really made up my mind on this issue yet myself.

But I would like to ask…

Is using a condom as contraception really intrinsically evil? Didnt God say everything was good? isnt evil come from man when they abuse something or use something good in an evil manner?

Like paper can be used for good or evil - one can use paper to write notes on (good) or use it to give people paper cuts (bad).

Guns can be used for good or evil - one can use a gun for hunting to feed his family (good) or use it to commit murder (bad).

Is it not the same with condoms?

Also if it is not intrinsically evil to plan sex in times of the menstrual cycle such as not to have babies, why is it wrong to adjust the menstrual cycle using oral contraceptives such as to not have children, in a maritual situation?

Could one say it is better for a girl to use oral contraceptives in a case where one knows if they concieve, they will have an abortion? (oral contraceptives and condoms do not kill concieved zygotes, it simply prevent the sperm and egg forming a zygote - doesn’t the Catholic church believe ensoulment occurs at conception?)

I’m not arguing for the use of contraceptives, im simply undecided.

Thankyou for the help.

God bless.

 

[j1s2a3]

No this is non-issue for the Church now and forever.Furthermore, it reaffirms the Church position on wide range of moral basics and these likewise are non-issues to be considered.Just trust your “red flags” with regards to Church teachings if this doesn’t help ask this forum.

 

[paperwight]

But you see, you might be being a bit hasty saying the teaching will be the same ‘now and forever’.

How many Catholics still believe that taking the Pill is always wrong in the eyes of the Church? Forty years ago, during the Sixties, nuns in the (then) Belgian Congo were routinely issued with the Pill, as the risk of rape was so bad during the Civil War there.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think we should assume that all marriages are the modern Western equal-partners type. Yes, in that type of marriage a wife could negotiate with her husband and persuade him to accept abstinence .
But in many countries of the world, this isn’t the case. Imagine a wife economically dependent on her husband. How can she keep him happy and providing for her children, while denying him the sex he is culturally-programmed to believe is his right? She runs the risk of him leaving her for another woman, and thereby condemning her to possible destitution.
It’s so easy to say that abstinence is the answer. No doubt the woman would be perfectly happy to abstain. But it’s not the wife that is causing the problem is it?

This has been my problem with our condom use teachings as well and I recently posted something similar on another thread.

Your concerns are real and very relevant to hundreds of thousands of Catholics the world over. Marriage is not a union of equals in all cultures and we often forget that ours in a worldwide Church where people live in very different social situations.

There are countries where a woman will not even address her husband by his first name or sit at table with him because either action would be considered disrespectful. Could we seriously expect such a woman to request abstinence from her husband? If she left him where would she go, in a culture where family ties are everything and one’s place in society is secured by husband or father?

One of the other factors, which applies equally in the West, is the asymmetry of religious adherence and spiritual maturity between partners. What if one partner is devout and the other one is a lukewarm Catholic? Should they separate if one or the other partner will not try abstinence?

I agree that condoms do not protect 100% from HIV but isn’t any protection better than none at all for the non-dominant partner in a relationship who may not be free to do otherwise?

It’s not that I reject Church teachings on the matter, but I’d just like to see us apply these teaching practically because that’s what lay people are expected to do.