Pope allows condom use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ematouk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
allhers said:
The answer is that in an exception for the use of the pill in a medical situation is that the couple is then to abstain until the woman stops using the pill. (I’m not as educated in this as others though and will refer to people such as is documented, for example, if it is proven that a “pill” exists that would only treat the medical condition and not prevent implantation. But as far as I know no such pill exists.)
Click to expand...
The church hasn’t declared this yet. According to some priests and moral theologians , A couple may continue to have marital relations while the woman takes the pill according to the principal of double effect. Many others are in agreement with you post ,The couple is to abstain or make an effort to determine if ovulation has occurred.

NFP only Catholic doctors have repeatedly stated they have not been forced to resort to the pill to treat women’s health problems. The key is to take the time to evaluate properly and come up with a treatment plan designed for the woman’s specific needs.
 
seekerz said:
I think my question is being misunderstood to apply to general populations and to illicit sexual relations. This is in no way the case as I explained several posts above.

My concern is about a relations between married people where one is affected (perhaps because of infidelity before or during marriage, perhaps because of non-sexual transmission).

This is not about whether condoms should be offered to a community as a whole as a panacea for the AIDS epidemic. I’m not in support of that at all. My concern is for those who already have the disease, are married and are subject to the normal instinct of every married couple to engage in sexual intimacy.

In that narrow context alone, am I saying, I can’t see what the problem is with condom use. If abstinence is practiced around ovulation time and condoms used in between, isn’t that better than no protection at all?

I have received responses suggesting that lifelong abstinence is the only choice in such a situation and my take is that it is, in most cultural settings, impractical especially considering the male psyche.

Of course fidelity is to be expected in marriage if one partner is ill or disabled, but many many HIV infected people look and feel normal and live normal lives before the onset of AIDS. My question relates specifically to the practicality of saying that their only moral choices are lifelong abstinence or separation (indeed, once could argue that it would be wrong to abandon a spouse who will eventually need care for a terminal condition).
Click to expand...
The problem is that condom use damages the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act. The church cannot allow condomistic sex in marriage. Their use denies the meaning of the sexual act in the sacrament of marriage.
 
fix said:
They you do not see the evil seems part of the problem, right?
Click to expand...
Nope, not on using non-abortive contraception, particularity when used as a preventative measure for AIDS and STDs.
 
Scottgun said:
mikew262;3332904:
Contraception has been the constant teaching of the Church, not just something invented with the publication of the latest CCC.
Click to expand...
AIDS and STDs were not known 2000 years ago. We have a good preventative measure for turning back this disease, but inflexibility and stubbornness within the Church won’t recognize this. Thank God, more open minds have pursued it.

BTW, in my mind, NFP is a form of contraception; its just using timing instead of a barrier or chemicals. Basic concept is the same.
Click to expand...
 
seekerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
If a woman is in such a situation, can she even persuade her husband to use a condom? Would he even consider and agree to her request?
 
mikew262 said:
Who says? I don’t think this is an infallible teaching.
Click to expand...
Even if it can change, it hasn’t yet… and if the Church says it is evil and sinful then we should abide by it unless they are guided by the HS to change it. If Mother Church says it… then as Catholics we are to believe it and practice it, even if we don’t like it.

SD
 
SD_Catholic said:
Even if it can change, it hasn’t yet… and if the Church says it is evil and sinful then we should abide by it unless they are guided by the HS to change it. If Mother Church says it… then as Catholics we are to believe it and practice it, even if we don’t like it.

SD
Click to expand...
For some reason the above quoted thistle instead of mikew262:o… but I edited it… sorry thistle.
 
mikew262 said:
thistle;3336108:
Who says? I don’t think this is an infallible teaching.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. It has been taught since the beginning of the church . That makes in an infallible magesterial teaching. No contraception. End of story.

Not stated by Thistle but by Mikew262.
Click to expand...
 
mikew262 said:
Scottgun;3333550:
AIDS and STDs were not known 2000 years ago. We have a good preventative measure for turning back this disease, but inflexibility and stubbornness within the Church won’t recognize this. Thank God, more open minds have pursued it.

BTW, in my mind, NFP is a form of contraception; its just using timing instead of a barrier or chemicals. Basic concept is the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that in your mind you do not see the difference. I suspect that is because you have not taken the time to read the resources that others have repeatedly recommended to you such as Theology of The Body, Janet Smith and the Christopher West stuff so that you might understand the theological and moral meaning of marital relations in marriage.

Artificial contraceptive acts put something into the marital act as it is taking place that damages the procreative and unitive meaning. NFP done properly does not do that. Done improperly and with a contraceptive mentality it may and that of course would be immoral.

Disclaimer- Scottgun did not say the above.Mikew262 did. Why is this program doing this? Bizarre.
Click to expand...
 
valient_Lucy said:
If a woman is in such a situation, can she even persuade her husband to use a condom? Would he even consider and agree to her request?
Click to expand...
The point is he more likely would consider condom use than total abstinence for life, especially from an authority that he respects.
 
We humans are happy enough to adapt or add to how our bodies have been made by God, so I don’t see the problem of using a condom or the Pill if, at the same time, abstaining during the most fertile part of the woman’s cycle. It’s simply taking an extra measure over and above that provided by God/nature. The intention is the same.
Let us use the analogy of the body’s wonderful inbuilt system to fight infection - white blood cells and our immune system. It’s inconsistent to say we must trust to the fertile/infertile pattern of a woman’s body, if at the same time. being happy to take antibiotics or immunise one’s children.
 
paperwight said:
We humans are happy enough to adapt or add to how our bodies have been made by God, so I don’t see the problem of using a condom or the Pill if, at the same time, abstaining during the most fertile part of the woman’s cycle. It’s simply taking an extra measure over and above that provided by God/nature. The intention is the same.
Let us use the analogy of the body’s wonderful inbuilt system to fight infection - white blood cells and our immune system. It’s inconsistent to say we must trust to the fertile/infertile pattern of a woman’s body, if at the same time. being happy to take antibiotics or immunise one’s children.
Click to expand...
Is pregnancy now a disease?
 
My point is that we do not trust to what is inbuilt in our systems in other areas. We add to them, adapt them, using such means as our God-given intelligence has devised.
So why is such an issue made about leaving our fertility in God’s hands? We do not leave our health solely in His hands. And I’m quite sure we all take great care crossing the road, too.
And yes, pregnancy can be thought of as an illness when it is life-threatening, as it sometimes is.
 
paperwight said:
My point is that we do not trust to what is inbuilt in our systems in other areas.
Click to expand...
I do not think it is about trust. Medicine exists to restore health. Contracpetion does not restore health. It interfers with what is working as designed.
We add to them, adapt them, using such means as our God-given intelligence has devised.
Click to expand...
Yes, to restore what has gone wrong.
So why is such an issue made about leaving our fertility in God’s hands?
Click to expand...
For two reasons. One fertility is not a disease and two because it is a special gift ordained by God.
We do not leave our health solely in His hands. And I’m quite sure we all take great care crossing the road, too.
And yes, pregnancy can be thought of as an illness when it is life-threatening, as it sometimes is.
Click to expand...
No pregnancy is not an illness nor is a baby an illness. Woman certainly get sick and the reproductive system can have problems and when that happens treatment should be given.

But, what does that have to do with contraception?
 
Thanks everyone for the very interesting and thought provoking thread.

I understand that many dissent from the teachings of the Church but we have to remember that the Church was given to us by Jesus so that we might have the Kingdom of Heaven. He understood we were sinners and could not find God with our own fallible natures. The Church is here for us!

We have free will and can dissent regarding Church doctrines but what makes us think that we have the answers. I have found many of the teachings of the Church difficult to understand but it’s my pride and selfishness that cause the confusion.

The World can seem so unfair and sad but God has a plan and the Church is here to show us the plan.

I pray that everyone comes into union with the Catholic Church and stays faithful to her teachings. That is my idea of heaven.

God Bless
Gordie
 
paperwight said:
We humans are happy enough to adapt or add to how our bodies have been made by God, so I don’t see the problem of using a condom or the Pill if, at the same time, abstaining during the most fertile part of the woman’s cycle. It’s simply taking an extra measure over and above that provided by God/nature. The intention is the same.
Let us use the analogy of the body’s wonderful inbuilt system to fight infection - white blood cells and our immune system. It’s inconsistent to say we must trust to the fertile/infertile pattern of a woman’s body, if at the same time. being happy to take antibiotics or immunise one’s children.
Click to expand...
There is the problem of what the marital act means in its bodily form. Using contraception changes that meaning and we can’t do that. The marital act is expected to be a full gifting of one partner to another . Contraception gets in the way of that whether either husband or wife is fertile or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top