Pope allows condom use?

[fix]

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.

If rape is the issue then how is some pill equal to the act of contracpetion?

 

[CuriousInIL]

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?

Could we seriously expect such a woman to request that her husband wear a condom? And that he would comply?

 

[paperwight]

It would surely be more likely that he’d agree to a condom, than to abstinence, particularly if he did not want any more children.

My point about the Pill being given to nuns in the Congo, was to say that the Pill in itself was not considered evil, otherwise it would not have been given to the nuns. Yet many Catholics still think that the Pope has said that it is. Note, I am talking about the use of the Pill in a sexual situation, not that some may even think it is forbidden for medical reasons.

Based on that history, who is to say that the condom might not come to be approved by the Church? And don’t forget, the Pill was approved in the Congo just because of the danger of rape and subsequent scandal because of pregnancy. Condoms can be a matter of life and death - surely all the more reason to be approved.

(Please note, when I say ‘just’ because of rape, I am not minimising the awfulness of it).

 

[fix]

My point about the Pill being given to nuns in the Congo, was to say that the Pill in itself was not considered evil, otherwise it would not have been given to the nuns. Yet many Catholics still think that the Pope has said that it is. Note, I am talking about the use of the Pill in a sexual situation, not that some may even think it is forbidden for medical reasons.

But the use of the pill in that context is to ward off an unjust aggressor, not to contracept as would be in the case of a conjugal union.

Based on that history, who is to say that the condom might not come to be approved by the Church?

Yes, as a means to ward off an unjust aggressor. That seems much different than two people who consent to sex.

And don’t forget, the Pill was approved in the Congo just because of the danger of rape and subsequent scandal because of pregnancy. Condoms can be a matter of life and death - surely all the more reason to be approved.

Do you have proof that is the reason the pill was licit?

If a rapist is willing to use a condom then you have a point.

 

[mikew262]

You have heard incorrectly.

And thats too bad.

 

[mikew262]

Scottgun;3326813:

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

I think a reasonable argument can be made for accepting condom use, even if they are not quite 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.

Sure there are reasonable arguments, but you won’t convince hardly anybody on this forum. IMO, the Church really needs to take a another look at this.

 

[mikew262]

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.

Intrinsically evil? Why? Why? Why? :banghead:

For certain situations like disease prevention and for married couples who already have all the kids they want, or for couples that are not ready for kids, I really don’t see a big issue. I don’t see the “evil” part, I really don’t.

 

[seekerz]

Could we seriously expect such a woman to request that her husband wear a condom? And that he would comply?

Oh it is definitely difficult to get such men to compromise in any way with regard to their sexual satisfaction; health care workers all over the world will attest to that. But asking them to abstain from sex for life? Sorry, barring miraculous intervention it’s just not going to happen.

 

[thistle]

thistle;3328530:

Where is that stated in Church teaching?

A condom is a form of contraception, even if someone thinks about using it to prevent an infection.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "**every action **which, whether 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" is intrinsically evil.

 

[mikew262]

CuriousInIL;3328936:

A condom is a form of contraception, even if someone thinks about using it to prevent an infection.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "**every action **

which, whether 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" is intrinsically evil.

Again, I think the Church needs to relook at this. CCCs can be changed.

 

[fix]

Intrinsically evil? Why? Why? Why? :banghead:

For certain situations like disease prevention and for married couples who already have all the kids they want, or for couples that are not ready for kids, I really don’t see a big issue. I don’t see the “evil” part, I really don’t.

They you do not see the evil seems part of the problem, right?

 

[CuriousInIL]

CuriousInIL;3328936:

A condom is a form of contraception, even if someone thinks about using it to prevent an infection.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "**every action **

which, whether 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" is intrinsically evil.
Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were trying to say condoms were intrinsically evil.

 

[Harrison]

thistle;3332300:

Again, I think the Church needs to relook at this. CCCs can be changed.

Why should the Church look again at a stance they have had for 2000 years? It was morally wrong to block conception before, it still is, and always will be.

Many people think that the Church should change its stance on morality as we “progress”, but the issues will always be the same. Sex is about procreation as well as to bond the partners. If the procreative aspect is taken away from intercourse through artificial means that turns the act disordered, aka not in conformance with God’s law.

 

[Scottgun]

thistle;3332300:

Again, I think the Church needs to relook at this. CCCs can be changed.

Contraception has been the constant teaching of the Church, not just something invented with the publication of the latest CCC.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Harrison:
Why should the Church look again at a stance they have had for 2000 years? It was morally wrong to block conception before, it still is, and always will be.

Many people think that the Church should change its stance on morality as we “progress”, but the issues will always be the same. Sex is about procreation as well as to bond the partners. If the procreative aspect is taken away from intercourse through artificial means that turns the act disordered, aka not in conformance with God’s law.
IMO, “block conception” is a bad/wrong rephrasing of the Church teaching. Abstinence, for example, blocks conception but is not morally wrong (most of the time).

 

[hasikelee]

It would surely be more likely that he’d agree to a condom, than to abstinence, particularly if he did not want any more children.

My point about the Pill being given to nuns in the Congo, was to say that the Pill in itself was not considered evil, otherwise it would not have been given to the nuns. Yet many Catholics still think that the Pope has said that it is. Note, I am talking about the use of the Pill in a sexual situation, not that some may even think it is forbidden for medical reasons.

Based on that history, who is to say that the condom might not come to be approved by the Church? And don’t forget, the Pill was approved in the Congo just because of the danger of rape and subsequent scandal because of pregnancy. Condoms can be a matter of life and death - surely all the more reason to be approved.

(Please note, when I say ‘just’ because of rape, I am not minimising the awfulness of it).

In a culture where the woman is subjected to the rule of a male, and/or where the woman is considered to be subhuman without rights, the request of a condom is not only a mis-aaplied concept, it is also arguably useless due to correlative information.

Such an example is that, if a country exists where women have no rights and are forced to engaged in sexual intercourse with a man who has an STD, that man is also very likely to not accept condom use for a variety of reasons.

We see these reasons all over the place. How about India, where the average man believes taking a bath after sex with an HIV-infected woman will wash “it” away?

The next cry is to educate these people so that they will use condoms. This is usually the part where I shake my head sadly.

How sad. How sad that women are in a powerless, subjected, abused, raped position. How sad that they risk various STDs, pregnancies without pre and pro-natal medical care. How sad that women have no political or social voice.

How sad that people completely ignore this atrocity against womans’ rights and simply start blathering on about condoms.

This is exactly like the abortion issue in America. A woman can be uneducated, abandoned by her parents, poverty-stricken, abused by a horrible boyfriend, have no place to live…but if she gets pregnant, by golly, give her an abortion. Is she healed? Educated? Saved from her abusive boyfriend? Does she have a home now? Money? No. She is stuck, only this time with the physical and emotional damage of an abortion and a dead baby to think about.

The cry for condom and sexual education in oppressed cultures is one of the sickest ideas going on today.

 

[Harrison]

IMO, “block conception” is a bad/wrong rephrasing of the Church teaching. Abstinence, for example, blocks conception but is not morally wrong (most of the time).

Well, abstinence is the absence of sex. But having sex while contracepting does intend to block conception. You could also say that abstinence is not open to life, but the Church doesn’t command us to have sex at every possible opportunity.

 

[paulchinnz]

Well, abstinence is the absence of sex. But having sex while contracepting does intend to block conception. You could also say that abstinence is not open to life, but the Church doesn’t command us to have sex at every possible opportunity.

Agreed. I wouldn’t have thought abstinence was “intrinsically evil”, even though it makes conception ‘impossible’ (well actually nothing is of course impossible for God, so does that negate CCC 2370?).

 

[seekerz]

In a culture where the woman is subjected to the rule of a male, and/or where the woman is considered to be subhuman without rights, the request of a condom is not only a mis-aaplied concept, it is also arguably useless due to correlative information.

Such an example is that, if a country exists where women have no rights and are forced to engaged in sexual intercourse with a man who has an STD, that man is also very likely to not accept condom use for a variety of reasons.

We see these reasons all over the place. How about India, where the average man believes taking a bath after sex with an HIV-infected woman will wash “it” away?

The next cry is to educate these people so that they will use condoms. This is usually the part where I shake my head sadly.

How sad. How sad that women are in a powerless, subjected, abused, raped position. How sad that they risk various STDs, pregnancies without pre and pro-natal medical care. How sad that women have no political or social voice.

How sad that people completely ignore this atrocity against womans’ rights and simply start blathering on about condoms.

This is exactly like the abortion issue in America. A woman can be uneducated, abandoned by her parents, poverty-stricken, abused by a horrible boyfriend, have no place to live…but if she gets pregnant, by golly, give her an abortion. Is she healed? Educated? Saved from her abusive boyfriend? Does she have a home now? Money? No. She is stuck, only this time with the physical and emotional damage of an abortion and a dead baby to think about.

The cry for condom and sexual education in oppressed cultures is one of the sickest ideas going on today.

I understand your position that what these women need is to be uplifted, but we all know that uplifting any oppressed sector of society takes decade if not centuries, simply because culture is ingrained in us.

Health authorities on the other hand, have had some limited success encouraging the use of male or female condoms. The point is, women’s lives are in danger today, this minute, and measures to protect them need serious consideration.

The re-education of society may well occur over time, but if you’ve ever lived in a third world country like I have, you’ll understand that for many millions there isn’t the freedom to rebel against cultural norms as exists here. This is not speculation; women live in some countries the way they have for centuries with very little change.

I am willing to bet that even in our country, the average Catholic marriage would not last a year on a regimen of total abstinence. This is a society steeped in sex to the extent that in the normal course of life for many people it is hard enough to be faithful and keep from sexual sin, let alone practice abstinence in constant proximity to a spouse who is not disabled or bedridden. That’s just a realistic view of life.

 

[hasikelee]

I understand your position that what these women need is to be uplifted, but we all know that uplifting any oppressed sector of society takes decade if not centuries, simply because culture is ingrained in us.

Health authorities on the other hand, have had some limited success encouraging the use of male or female condoms. The point is, women’s lives are in danger today, this minute, and measures to protect them need serious consideration.

The re-education of society may well occur over time, but if you’ve ever lived in a third world country like I have, you’ll understand that for many millions there isn’t the freedom to rebel against cultural norms as exists here. This is not speculation; women live in some countries the way they have for centuries with very little change.

I am willing to bet that even in our country, the average Catholic marriage would not last a year on a regimen of total abstinence. This is a society steeped in sex to the extent that in the normal course of life for many people it is hard enough to be faithful and keep from sexual sin, let alone practice abstinence in constant proximity to a spouse who is not disabled or bedridden. That’s just a realistic view of life.

Exactly the same argument used to support a plethora of dispicable actions. Since we can’t truly help the women, let’s offer false hope and inaccurate education in the manifestation of a piece of latex that even our most personally-motivated organizations admit isn’t effective at preventing pregnancy or the spread of disease.

It’s cheap, it helps assuage our conscience, it makes us look good, all in all a win situation for us.