Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse

[allhers]

My intent is to point out that the question has already been answered. I had no intension to insult. The first time I even inserted a funny face, apparently you don’t have much of a sense of humor. In any case, it takes nothing away from all the truth I have presented here.

 

[PRmerger]

I am sincerely trying to understand the Church’s objection to the use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV, in order to be able to present this to my SIL, who is a nominal Catholic. She sent me this article: cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/martin.condoms/index.html

and I went running to the Forums for arguments to present to her.

So far I’ve found very little that I could present to her that’s well reasoned and intelligent. (One answer on another thread was well-reasoned, but I’m looking for more.)

Through this thread I’ve read that
-condoms are not that effective in preventing transmission of HIV
-the Pill is not that effective in treating gynecological problems

Those are good facts to know, but really don’t answer my question:

If there’s an intervention that can decrease the risk of infection, why not advocate it? If its primary intention is therapeutic and its contraceptive effect is not willed, how is this any different from the licit use of the Pill?

 

[allhers]

I am sincerely trying to understand the Church’s objection to the use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV, in order to be able to present this to my SIL, who is a nominal Catholic. She sent me this article: cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/martin.condoms/index.html

and I went running to the Forums for arguments to present to her.

So far I’ve found very little that I could present to her that’s well reasoned and intelligent. (One answer on another thread was well-reasoned, but I’m looking for more.)

Through this thread I’ve read that
-condoms are not that effective in preventing transmission of HIV
-the Pill is not that effective in treating gynecological problems

Those are good facts to know, but really don’t answer my question:

If there’s an intervention that can decrease the risk of infection, why not advocate it? If its primary intention is therapeutic and its contraceptive effect is not willed, how is this any different from the licit use of the Pill?

Well I’m sorry that is all you got out of everything that I have already presented on here, personally I could care less what CNN has to say about anything. Have a nice night/or day, depending on where you are.:curtsey:

 

[Fran65]

Sigh…You’re using MY sources again.

Then you will know what they say.

Ditto reading posts. I did say - if you had read it thoroughly- that abc may be prescribed if other treatments have failed. I agree, medicine has come a long way since the 60s, and so has the Church.

As for the rest of your post. If I might be as direct as you are, I find some of your comments in your posts rude and insulting to myself and to others. It is against forum rules to insult or attack others in that manner. It can lead to unnecessary conflict and is unpleasant.

In the spirit of compassion, and to avoid future difficulty in the forum, perhaps you could think about your posts before posting them. As a Christian you are called to love your brother, not to call him names, call him stupid or imply that he is lacking in God’s grace and needs your prayers because of those things.

In addition, I have found that the ‘I never found it a problem’ of limited utility when it comes to helping and understanding others. I happen to agree that there is an over prescription and reliance on prescribing some types of medication. However, that does not mean that it is always inappropriate.

God Bless you.

 

[Darryl1958]

Has everyone seen this great article?

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15445

“Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa” Some good facts there that can be used!

If people really cared about reducing the Aids epidemic in Africa, then they would certainly ake note that condom distribution has been an abject failure in Africa.

It is again a question of ideology over fact, faith in the secular orthodoxy that guides their own sexual behavior, over the faith that Pope Benedict speaks for.

Waht actually works in Africa to prevent the spread of this terrible disease is of secondary consideration.

 

[allhers]

Then you will know what they say.

Ditto reading posts. I did say - if you had read it thoroughly- that abc may be prescribed if other treatments have failed. I agree, medicine has come a long way since the 60s, and so has the Church.

As for the rest of your post. If I might be as direct as you are, I find some of your comments in your posts rude and insulting to myself and to others. It is against forum rules to insult or attack others in that manner. It can lead to unnecessary conflict and is unpleasant.

In the spirit of compassion, and to avoid future difficulty in the forum, perhaps you could think about your posts before posting them. As a Christian you are called to love your brother, not to call him names, call him stupid or imply that he is lacking in God’s grace and needs your prayers because of those things.

In addition, I have found that the ‘I never found it a problem’ of limited utility when it comes to helping and understanding others. I happen to agree that there is an over prescription and reliance on prescribing some types of medication. However, that does not mean that it is always inappropriate.

God Bless you.

Well then let me explain Fran, see, I could say the exact same thing about you, you said this in your very first post to me:

“As a psychologist who has also worked as an RN in gynaecoogy (as well as other areas) I would not dismiss the real and ongoing suffering of women with severe endometriosis as merely ‘cramps and excessive bleeding’ that are not disease.”…

I never said that at all and I feel that you implied that I was too stupid to understand that cramps and excessive bleeding are not always a disease. I know this from personal experience, as I wasn’t taking ABC and did have that experience and had NO diseases at all, it was simply “the change of life”, which was “cured” when it ended. Amazingly the same thing happened to my Mother and many other women I know, they didn’t have any diseases either, it was just a natural part of getting older. I wasn’t speaking at all of the things you accused me of.

Then you implied by what you said to me that I was a man, which I’m obviously not. That comment plus when you said this:

…“it is up to a woman and her clincians”…, that is why I thought perhaps you work for Planned Parenthood, I have spoken to some people in the past who do work for PP and they do not mention Doctors much but do speak of clincians. That was why I said I would pray for you if that is the case, as I pray for those involved in the culture of death. If the truth be known, I felt that you were the one throwing around assumptions by what you said to me and I addressed this in a prior post.

I use humor a lot and I even used a smiley face. Sometimes, I just get tired of answering the same quetion over and over and that is why I said what I said to another poster.

Nothing that I said on here was meant to insult anyone, I am sorry that people do not like to always hear the truth, when something has been answered over and over and documents and sources sited, it just makes me wonder if someone really wants the answer or if they just want their own way.

Even by your own use of what I say to others, such as you did on post # 141 implies that I was speaking to you personally when I said what I did, and we both know that I wasn’t, and anyone else reading and following this forum knows that I wasn’t either.

Never did I call ANYONE stupid, care to provide a source for that?

May God too.

 

[Fran65]

On the internet it is difficult to get a real sense of the ‘meaning’ of some of what is posted without face to face contact and tone of voice. Internet communication can be difficult without those cues. Smileys aren’t always enough for some of us I’m afraid!

I use the term clinicians to refer to a medical team, rather than using the term ‘doctors’. It is more precise and inclusive.

No, I don’t work for Planned Parenthood. I don’t think it exists in the UK. As I’ve said before and elsewhere I’m a teacher now.

I have never said or thought you were a man - not that it makes any difference!

I’m glad that any difficulties you had with menstruation were resolved naturally. That is a great blessing and must have been a big relief for you.

I think you and I understand each other fine!

 

[allhers]

Thank you Fran, it was indeed a great blessing, I felt so relieved when that time was over, it wasn’t easy by any means but I kept thinking of all the women who went before me without a pill, they made it and so did I.

Some friends told me such horrible stories, a lot like what you mentioned in your earlier post, so I did check with my Doctor. Sadly at that time, about his only suggestion was the birth control pill and I absolutely refused it and just relied on the Lord to see me through that time, and He certainly did. I had no idea about ABC other than that it could have the ability to kill a baby and I had lost a baby once, years earlier, and certainly didn’t want to do anything that might have that happen again.

I was only in my early 40’s and hadn’t ever thought that it would have happened so early for me, but it did. I survived. All in all it really only lasted about a year from beginning to end.

I think I am misunderstood a lot on here, but I do tend to have a pretty strange sense of humor, I come from a very large family, we joked a lot, probably necessairly, in large groups it provides a sense of stress relief.

Glad we were able to resolve our differences and hope to run across you again.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Yes, in my opinion, which always would defer to the Church, I guess I am, (if indeed the Church ever actally said that.)…after reading this especially. I also read things on the www.priestsforlife.org site and www.all.org site and www.hli.org site and www.ewtn.com www.thepillkills.org and many other trusted Catholic sites that speak the truth…

… There are several alternatives to the use of the birth control pill:
-Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (or NSAIDS) of which Ibuprofen is the most commonly known. Ibuprofen acts to actually stop the production of those pain-causing compounds we saw earlier: prostaglandins. A typical prescription dose is 600-800 mg. three times daily. Taken during menstruation this will be beneficial for most women. It is as simple as taking 3-4 Advil three times daily during menstruation.
-Natural progesterone given cooperatively with a woman’s cycle may actually reduce the amount of pain and bleeding a woman has in any cycle by supporting her body with natural progesterone, just like her body produces in the second half of her monthly cycle. This hormone is available everywhere by prescription in the form of a product called Prometrium. This natural hormone has NONE of the risks of birth control pills and actually makes most women feel better as opposed to most women getting ill with their first few cycles of birth control pills. For women charting their cycles with NFP (Natural Family Planning) this is given Peak + 3 through Peak + 12 at 200 mg. taken by mouth at night before retiring. This will help to oppose the effects of estrogen that may be building up the lining of a woman’s uterus excessively, thereby reducing the cramping at menstruation. Natural progesterone is also a smooth muscle relaxant having direct effects on the smooth muscles of the uterus reducing their contractions and thereby decreasing the pain. Again, there are NO KNOWN risks or complications with the use of natural progesterone. The product Prometrium is in a Peanut oil base and so women allergic to peanuts cannot use Prometrium and may need a pharmacist to compound a progesterone capsule for them without peanut oil elements… read more here: all.org/article.php?id=10162

** Plus, I really don’t think that what some people think or say about Humane Vitae is really what was said, maybe they really didn’t read it and just say what they have heard others say about it, true or not. I think sometimes, even some theologians, just give bad advice that some choose to listen to instead of finding out all the facts for themselves. I also don’t think that what any of our past and current Pope’s have said or what they are saying was always really listened to much. But I do believe that is changing, and I really think they ought to be always listened to. It isn’t like they just come off with this off the tops of their heads, they really do have access to the best scientific and medical advice, etc… (Not to mention the Holy Spirit). **

This was said in 2006 and is still effective today…
The very best article on Catholic teaching regarding the use of the birth control pill for medical reasons is actually written by a Catholic physician: Paul Hayes, M.D. His article is at all.org/article.php?id=10162

**(Which was the article I referenced above) **

You might also find the following article to be of use. It is a set of questions and answers prepared by Bishop Bruskewitz’s staff in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska: dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/birth/

We have to remember that because the pill can abort a child, there is really no argument in defense of using the pill when so many alternative therapies are available…
source:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489115&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=pill+for+medical+reasons&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=5&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

This was also said back in 2002 by Judie Brown, (anyone listening now, 7 years later?)
The Catholic community already does support the work of Catholic scientists and researchers who already have come up with alternatives to using the pill for medical reasons. Perhaps you were not aware of the work of the Pope Paul VI Institute: popepaulvi.com

Now, if you really read all of those, I will comment to your comments, but if you just want to fire back a response, as some do, then I really don’t think I will be wasting my time looking all this stuff up just to have people ignore it and say something sarcastic. (Not saying you are like that, just saying IF you are, I’m not playing.)

(what I said was bolded)

You did great allhers!!! I have also heard it said that a woman is allowed to use the pill as long as she is not married, ie having sexual relations. Once she is married, she is no longer allowed to do so. I have heard that this is allowed to maybe a teenager who is having menstuation problems in hopes that after just 4-6 months, the problem will be corrected, and she will stop taking the pill.
Of course, my daughter…16…who has such problems and myself are seeking other options for her menstruation problems. She wants absolutely nothing to do with the pill…irregardless of what the doctor says. When the doctor found this out, he went on to recommend the remedies that you quoted above.
It really makes me wonder if these doctors who are promoting the pill have serious financial stock in the manufacturers who make these pills.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Interesting! Thank you.

However, the bottom line is the Magisterium has still allowed use of the Pill for medical reasons. As Paul Hayes says, whether it should be used is different from whether it could be used. And ithe Pill “could” be used.

Same logic goes for my question–why then can’t condoms be used for medical reasons, if the contraceptive effect is not the intention. Again, the argument is not whether it should be used (it’s not effective, it increases promiscuity, etc etc) but whether it could, given its medical uses.

What are the medical purposes for the condom? All that the condom does is supposedly protect one from getting pregnant or from contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Those things are not medicinal.
The pill is used to regulate the hormones in women, lesson the bleeding during a mentrual cycle, lesson menstruation cramps and regulate menstruation…on top of stopping conception.
All that the condom does is absolutely nothing medicinal.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Okay, lets start over, okay? YOU said this (see what I bolded above), and then I want to know what YOUR sources are for saying that.

MY sources say this:

Question:
-Is it wrong to take the pill for non-contraceptive purposes?

Answer:
I assume you meant the contraceptive pill. If it is prescribed for a genuine pathological situation and there is a very serious reason for its use and if there is no will of any kind for a contraceptive result, it possibly could be taken…

Question:
-If the Catholic Church would change its doctrine about artificial birth contraception, wouldn’t this cut down on the number of abortions?

Answer:
First, the immorality of the use of artificial birth prevention is a divine law, not merely a law or discipline of the Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church cannot “change” what God wills in regard to human conduct. She can only proclaim and teach it. Second, it should be kept in mind that many forms of artificial birth contraception are really abortifcaient, that is they prevent birth by abortion. These include the “pill”…

I also said that there are several alternatives to the use of the birth control pill and sited those on** post # 116**. What I see them saying is this:

If a woman is not sexually active, thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill, there would be no wrong committed…

Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect. Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using, though I believe this to be in error as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

**Our Holy Father, John Paul II has stated over 15 years ago that “Contraception is to be judged so profoundly illicit that it can never be justified for any reason.” This seems to close the door on any attempt to use birth control pills for “medical reasons” if there is ever any possibility of a contraceptive effect. **

Now, here you said that the Magisterium has still allowed use of the Pill for medical reasons…

So, I’m asking, **what are YOUR **sources for saying this?

As you noticed, I bolded the points I wanted to bring out.

Once again, an awesome post. Very informative. Very much in keeping with what the Roman Catholic Church…instituted by Jesus Christ…teaches.
I LOVE THE TRUTH !!!
Why must people try to find loopholes in everything like lawyers and politicians?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

---

Do you disagree with the statement in red? Do you think that the Church has said that it’s illicit to use the Pill for medical reasons but that Bishop Bruskewitz is incorrect?

My source is the same as yours.

Again, my question, if the Church says that it is licit to use the Pill for medical reasons, provided that the contraceptive effect is not intended, why could the Church also not allow condoms for medical reasons, provided its contraceptive effect is not the primary reason for its use?

Quite simple. Did you read the part about a couple having to abstain when the woman is having to use the pill for medical purposes? So what exactly is the point of putting on a condom if one is not allowed to have sex?

Arguments about why we *shouldn’t *use the Pill are irrelevant to my question. Arguments about the unreliability of condoms are also irrelevant. (As Paul Hayes says, whether it *should *be used is different from whether it could be used. And ithe Pill “could” be used.)

***You are wrong. As long as there is an opportunity for contraception to occur, a couple must abstain.

---

I’m talking moral principles here. Morally ok to use Pill for medical reasons? YES! says the Church. Morally ok to use condoms for medical reasons? NO! says the Church. I don’t understand.

You should read the whole quote…not just the part that SEEMS to say what you want to hear.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

You have no reason to be insulting. Twice you’ve criticized how well I read. Please stop making comments like that because it demeans all other comments you make.

Then please reread the sources allhers gave. It is very simple to understand if you read them in their entirety. You are the one who keeps asking the same question over and over again…without listening to the answer. It is not uncommon for a person to get aggravated at having to repeat the same answer over and over again to someone who should be listening.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

my intent is to point out that the question has already been answered. I had no intension to insult. The first time i even inserted a funny face, apparently you don’t have much of a sense of humor. In any case, it takes nothing away from all the truth i have presented here.

absolutely!!!

 

[allhers]

absolutely!!!

Thanks for your support, its great to see that someone else can see the truth too.
Thats one of the reasons why I love Priest like Fr. Corapi so much, he isn’t afraid to speak the truth!!

You must be doing a great job with your daughter for her to be able to see the truth in all of this too. I’m so happy that some Doctors are now seeking out other sources also, of course in the past some of them were too, but they were harder to find then.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Thanks for your support, its great to see that someone else can see the truth too.
Thats one of the reasons why I love Priest like Fr. Corapi so much, he isn’t afraid to speak the truth!!

You must be doing a great job with your daughter for her to be able to see the truth in all of this too. I’m so happy that some Doctors are now seeking out other sources also, of course in the past some of them were too, but they were harder to find then.

My daughter is a wonderful gift from God from an illicit sexual relationship. I have always been totally honest with her about my mistakes…of which she was NEVER one. She has seen the problems we have had due to my mistakes from before and after her birth. The good thing is that my heart has always longed for my Jesus…in the TRUTH. And even though I have fallen, and decieved myself…I was trying for Jesus. That is how she was brought up.
She and I take great comfort in that she doesn’t want to be anything like I was in the past. I thank God for that.
She is very involved in TRUE Catholicism. She has some wonderful friends…who are few, but true.
Had I not been honest with her about my mistakes, my reasons for those mistakes, and my feelings that brought me to those mistakes…along with what I have learned from the mistakes and the consequences of them…once agains she is NEVER one of them…I do not know where she or I would be right now.

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!!!

 

[PRmerger]

I humbly ask, for the sake of charity to me, that the answer to my question be re-posted. I understand that the question was answered. I just am not seeing. Please forgive my ignorance.

Now, I have seen posts that say that the condom is not that effective in preventing HIV transmission. (I suspect that even if there were a condom that was 100% effective that it would still not be permitted, so its effectiveness is irrelevant to my question.) And I have read the posts (and all the links) that say the Pill is not that effective in treating gynecological issues. I get that.

I still don’t understand what would be the problem with advocating for use of the condom to prevent transmission of disease, if the contraceptive effect was not the intention.

Also, I have never seen any primary sources (that is, Magisterial teachings) that say that if a woman is on the Pill she should refrain from sexual relations. I’ve only seen individual’s opinions on this. Does anyone have any sources that provide the statement that the Magisterium has on this?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I humbly ask, for the sake of charity to me, that the answer to my question be re-posted. I understand that the question was answered. I just am not seeing. Please forgive my ignorance.

Now, I have seen posts that say that the condom is not that effective in preventing HIV transmission. (I suspect that even if there were a condom that was 100% effective that it would still not be permitted, so its effectiveness is irrelevant to my question.) And I have read the posts (and all the links) that say the Pill is not that effective in treating gynecological issues. I get that.

I still don’t understand what would be the problem with advocating for use of the condom to prevent transmission of disease, if the contraceptive effect was not the intention.

Also, I have never seen any primary sources (that is, Magisterial teachings) that say that if a woman is on the Pill she should refrain from sexual relations. I’ve only seen individual’s opinions on this. Does anyone have any sources that provide the statement that the Magisterium has on this?

Try Humana Vitae. Allhers has answered the question. The fact of the matter is, many people have taken part of what Humana Vitae says, and forgotten the rest.

Once again, the pill may possibly be taken if all other options have been tried and failed. And if one does take the pill, ***ONE MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX ***during that time to avoid any chance of it also acting as a contraceptive. So, once again, I ask you what is the medicinal action of a condom…and how or why would one use a condom if one is not going to have sex?

 

[PRmerger]

Try Humana Vitae. Allhers has answered the question. The fact of the matter is, many people have taken part of what Humana Vitae says, and forgotten the rest.

I understand that allhers has answered the question. I would just like to see it re-posted, please, as I’m not certain where it was answered. I’m sorry. I just don’t know where it was answered. Perhaps it could look like this, "The reason the Church allows use of the Pill but does not allow use of condoms is _________’

As for Humane Vitae–is this a new reference in this thread to the answer to my question, or did someone refer to it already? (That is, besides myself.) I thought I was asking for where my question was already answered.

Once again, the pill may possibly be taken if all other options have been tried and failed. And if one does take the pill, ***ONE MUST ABSTAIN FROM SEX ***during that time to avoid any chance of it also acting as a contraceptive.

I’m not certain that this is Catholic teaching. I know that a a Catholic doctor has written that, but where does the Magisterium say this? I don’t think it’s in Humane Vitae, but I could be wrong. If so, please show me.

So, once again, I ask you what is the medicinal action of a condom…and how or why would one use a condom if one is not going to have sex?

The MEDICAL use (not medicinal) use of a condom while engaging in the marital act would be to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted disease.

One would not use a condom if one is not going to have sex. But if the contraceptive effect is not desired and one is using it for medical reasons, I don’t understand why it is not allowed, especially since the Pill is licit for medical reasons.

 

[o_mlly]

I humbly ask, for the sake of charity to me, that the answer to my question be re-posted. I understand that the question was answered. I just am not seeing. Please forgive my ignorance.

Now, I have seen posts that say that the condom is not that effective in preventing HIV transmission. (I suspect that even if there were a condom that was 100% effective that it would still not be permitted, so its effectiveness is irrelevant to my question.) And I have read the posts (and all the links) that say the Pill is not that effective in treating gynecological issues. I get that.

I still don’t understand what would be the problem with advocating for use of the condom to prevent transmission of disease, if the contraceptive effect was not the intention.

Also, I have never seen any primary sources (that is, Magisterial teachings) that say that if a woman is on the Pill she should refrain from sexual relations. I’ve only seen individual’s opinions on this. Does anyone have any sources that provide the statement that the Magisterium has on this?

Primary sources would be papal encyclicals or dogmatic decrees from ecumenical councils. The words “condom” or “prophylactic” do not appear in either Humanae Vitae or in Evangelium Vitae. The two dogmatic constitutions coming out of Vat II do not address human sexuality. Those who post here extrapolations beyond the letter or plain meaning of the two encyclicals noted above should at least cite their Licentiate of Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) credentials or proffer their posts as opinion only.

The authority to teach, Christ’s prophetic office, resides in all the bishops. Throughout all the Church history, when bishops disagree, as they do on the specific use of condoms as you have outlined, the pope resolves the disagreement. In this particular case, as I have cited, “Roma non loquita.” The pope is waiting his download from the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, we who also share in Christ’s prophetic office through baptism must seek through prayer and counsel the will of God in our own life.

Peace,
O’Malley