Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse

[PRmerger]

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

Indeed!!

If I could see a Magisterial statement that declares that if a woman is on the Pill she should refrain from sexual relations for the entirety of her treatment, I would accept and obey and proclaim it. However, I have only seen Christopher West and other individuals–however knowledgable, good and holy–declare this. To quote allhers: *Afterall, if someone is saying things with some authority that could be implied to mean that what they are saying is in fact, FACT about Church teaching, but it isn’t always, for example, …(just because an individual in the Church says something, doesn’t make it Church teaching.) *

And, I’ve seen on these websites many errors–such as statements maintaining that the Pill is *always *an abortifacient. (from all.org/article.php?id=10162 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. ) *Not true.!! ** If it does not succeed in preventing ovulation, and fertilization occurs, then it is an abortifacient. If, however, it suppresses ovulation, then it has not destroyed any human life. * A very important distinction.

Also, I am very interested in being able to present a cogent argument to non-believers as to why we as Catholics can use the Pill for medical reasons, but not use a condom for medical reasons.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

PMerger,

My statements have been sourced here:
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/

It nowhere states that the pill can be used…“it says that it may be possible”.
That does not say that it can. And it also definitely implies that all other possibilities for curative affects should be exhausted.

What medicinal purposes are found in the condom? You have said that there are none. Exactly.
There is no medicinal or curative affect of the condom. The only 2 things it MIGHT do is prevent contraception, or prevent infection of a sexually transmitted disease. Both of which can be done perfectly if one ABSTAINS from sexual relations.

We do not, as human beings, have a right to sex. We have been given the gift and responsibilty of REASON. Therefore, if one decides to engage in sexual relations, then one must understand that the possibility of conception or sexually transmitted diseases might occur. If they do not wish to have to deal with this, than they should be celibate.

Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people. That does not eliminate the LAW.
That there is suffering is sure. And there is GREAT merit in offering up our sufferings in union with the Passion of Jesus Christ.

If I am raped and a pregnancy occurs from that rape, I am not allowed to have an abortion. I am called to pick up my cross and follow Jesus.

The women who are raped, and the children born with the HIV virus are innocent. Yet they are still called to pick up their crosses and follow Jesus.

It is our responsibility to do ALL that is necessary to prevent these rapes, and care with all love and compassion all of those who are having to deal with diseases.
This is not done with condoms!!! That is false care and compassion. Not only does it not affectively prevent conception or the spread of diseases, it is against God’s Law.

THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR ANY FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN…especially CATHOLICS !!!

P.S. I was not attempting to yell at you. I am merely trying to stress the importance of the statements.

May Christ Jesus bless you with His abundant TRUTH through His Holy Spirit.

Cherie

 

[PRmerger]

PMerger,

My statements have been sourced here:
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/

It nowhere states that the pill can be used…“it says that it may be possible”.
That does not say that it can. And it also definitely implies that all other possibilities for curative affects should be exhausted.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the thought you’ve given to addressing my questions.

But Bishop Bruskewtiz, whom I respect immensely, is not the Magisterium. So when you quote from this article I am free to disagree as a Catholic.

What medicinal purposes are found in the condom? You have said that there are none. Exactly.
There is no medicinal or curative affect of the condom. The only 2 things it MIGHT do is prevent contraception, or prevent infection of a sexually transmitted disease. Both of which can be done perfectly if one ABSTAINS from sexual relations.

I’m not sure why you use the word “medicinal” verses “medical”. That’s not a criteria for licit use of the Pill. Medicinal is never used in Humana Vitae, as far as I know.

There is indeed a medical use for condoms.

We do not, as human beings, have a right to sex. We have been given the gift and responsibilty of REASON. Therefore, if one decides to engage in sexual relations, then one must understand that the possibility of conception or sexually transmitted diseases might occur.

Agreed.

It is our responsibility to do ALL that is necessary to prevent these rapes, and care with all love and compassion all of those who are having to deal with diseases.
This is not done with condoms!!! That is false care and compassion. Not only does it not affectively prevent conception or the spread of diseases, it is against God’s Law.

Condoms are not against God’s law. The Pill is not against God’s law. Contraception is.

If the Pill is licit, provided that contraception is not the intention, then I think condoms should be licit, provided that contraception is not the intention.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So PMerger, what is your source saying that taking the pill is licit? And please quote in entirety…not just that very small part.

And what is the medical reason for using the condom? It is only used to prevent conception and/or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is totally against God’s Laws to try to prevent conception. And it is easyto prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by remaining abstinant. If one does not want to take the chance of catching a sexually transmitted disease, than do not have sex.
And rapists should be punished to the fullest extent. And rapists who are HIV should NEVER see the light of day again.
See, we need to change society for good, not change what is good to accomodate what is bad in society.
And to promote the use of condoms would be accomodating what is bad in society. It is like trying to fix a broken motor with scotch tape. That is not what God is calling us to do.

 

[PRmerger]

So PMerger, what is your source saying that taking the pill is licit? And please quote in entirety…not just that very small part.

From Humanae Vitae: (my comments in black)

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15) Here is another example of a medical therapy–not, BTW, medicinal * --that is licit: hysterectomy. If the intention is not direct sterilization, but for a greater medical good (elimination of cancer, relief of endometriosis symptoms, etc etc) then it is lawful. Another example where one’s intention *is paramount.
   Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) Condoms, in the scenario I’m talking about, would not be used specifically with the intention to prevent procreation

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, **to intend directly something **which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is **deliberately contraceptive **and so intrinsically wrong. Again, Condoms, in the scenario I’m talking about, would not be used specifically with the intention to prevent procreation

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

I quoted a little before and a little after, to allow for context.

 

[PRmerger]

And what is the medical reason for using the condom? It is only used to prevent conception and/or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is totally against God’s Laws to try to prevent conception. And it is easyto prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by remaining abstinant. If one does not want to take the chance of catching a sexually transmitted disease, than do not have sex.

I agree, for the most part. Except that if there’s a moral, licit, way to prevent illness, then we ought to avail ourselves of that.

Consider the Gardasil vaccine to immunize women against HPV which causes cervical cancer and genital warts. The vaccine, in and of itself, is morally neutral. It is neither good nor bad. However, many are against immunizing their daughters because HPV is sexually transmitted.

I agree that the best thing to prevent this is monogamy. BUT, we have a moral, safe, effective means of preventing a horrible illness, why not use it?

I read on one of these threads a long time ago an analogy which I find helpful: if someone makes poor health choices and ends up obese and with hypertension, we should tell them that they need to change their lifestyle and make more moral, good lifestyle choices, BUT, there’s also technology which we can use to bring down their blood pressure, so why not do BOTH?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I agree, for the most part. Except that if there’s a moral, licit, way to prevent illness, then we ought to avail ourselves of that.

Consider the Gardasil vaccine to immunize women against HPV which causes cervical cancer and genital warts. The vaccine, in and of itself, is morally neutral. It is neither good nor bad. However, many are against immunizing their daughters because HPV is sexually transmitted.

I agree that the best thing to prevent this is monogamy. BUT, we have a moral, safe, effective means of preventing a horrible illness, why not use it?

I read on one of these threads a long time ago an analogy which I find helpful: if someone makes poor health choices and ends up obese and with hypertension, we should tell them that they need to change their lifestyle and make more moral, good lifestyle choices, BUT, there’s also technology which we can use to bring down their blood pressure, so why not do BOTH?

The end does not justify the means.

 

[Deirdre_Fleming]

May I suggest that everyone in this thread moves over to this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=322182 ‘Harvard AIDS Expert Says POPE IS CORRECT on Condom Distribution Making AIDS Worse’. The titles seem fairly similar.

 

[PRmerger]

The end does not justify the means.

Indeed. If the means is immoral.

I have yet to see that a hysterectomy, using the Pill for medical reasons, immunizing against HPV, and use of a condom for medical reasons are immoral. The Church permits 3 of the 4 that I cited, why not the 4th?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Indeed. If the means is immoral.

I have yet to see that a hysterectomy, using the Pill for medical reasons, immunizing against HPV, and use of a condom for medical reasons are immoral. The Church permits 3 of the 4 that I cited, why not the 4th?

The Church does not say it is alright for just any woman to have a hysterectomy. The Church does not say that the pill is acceptable…only that it may be if all other options have been tried and failed…and the situation is a serious one.

Immunization has nothing to do with birth control.
The condom’s only use is to “hopefully” prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases…both of which can be easily prevented by abstinance.

Hemmoraging cannot be prevented by abstinance.
Endometriosis cannot be prevented by abstinance.
That is why the pill may sometimes be possible.

**EVERYTHING **that the condom could “hopefully” prevent is 100% preventable by abstinance.

Hope that answers your questions.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church does not say it is alright for just any woman to have a hysterectomy. The Church does not say that the pill is acceptable…only that it may be if all other options have been tried and failed…and the situation is a serious one.

Can you show me where the Church says this? I’m not saying that I disagree with you. I’m just not sure that the Church says this. (Note, I said the Church–not someone who’s a Catholic doctor, or an apologist. I’d like a primary source, please, that says that there are certain criteria by which a woman may seek a hysterectomy. I’ve never heard that.)

.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Can you show me where the Church says this? I’m not saying that I disagree with you. I’m just not sure that the Church says this. (Note, I said the Church–not someone who’s a Catholic doctor, or an apologist. I’d like a primary source, please, that says that there are certain criteria by which a woman may seek a hysterectomy. I’ve never heard that.)

.

Being honest, I do not know my way around official magisterium documents. But the fact stands that what I have written makes sense…and it is in accordance with what the Popes have said and ordered.

 

[chosen_people]

For the Catholic which is the greater sin, non abstinence or the use of a condom?

Now if he uses the condom while not abstaining he has committed a double sin but has not contracted a potentially fatal STD which will cost tens of thousands of dollars to treat, as opposed to the pennies for the condom (nor has he transmitted an STD if he is infected).

Now at some point, since he will not now die, he asks for and possibly receives forgiveness for the double sin of non abstinence and using the condom.

Living in a third world country he does not have the money to pay for the treatment of a potentially fatal STD. The country where he lives does not have the money or possibly even the facilities for such treatment.

If he commits the sin of non abstinence but doesn’t commit the sin of using a condom he will likely contact the potentially fatal STD (of course the chances of this happening could be reduced over 50 per cent by male circumcision - however for some reason this is not being advocated by the Church).

Now if the person who did not commit the sin of using a condom but did commit the sin on non abstinence contracts a potentially fatal STD but asks for and receives forgiveness for his sin should at that point the Church help participate in the cost of the medical treatment necessary for the treatment of the STD or should he be made to pay, possibly even with his life?

If this is not the case, isn’t the person who used the condom and committed a double sin but later was forgiven in a clearly favorable position?

 

[o_mlly]

For the Catholic which is the greater sin, non abstinence or the use of a condom? …

Since sin in Catholic thinking always has a subjective component, I reframe your question to: “Which is the greater evil, non abstinence or use of the condom?”

Assuming your subjects are unmarried and contemplate fornication or married and contemplate adultery, either act is in Catholic teaching intrinsically evil. (As I posted earlier, a married couple one of whom is infected requires a different analysis.)

Intrinsically evil acts are incapable of being ordered to God: “… there are certain specific kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No.1761).

The subjects, having chosen to negate God’s will, now are faced with the decision to use or not use a condom. Since the preservation of life and health is good, i.e. God’s will, it seems the intention in itself is good. However, as Saint Thomas observed and John Paul II confirmed in Veritas Splendor, “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. … Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. ‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).”

In your example, the good intention to preserve health by use of the condom produces no good effects because the couple’s uprightness of will remains impaired. The couple, lacking charity, is incapable of ordering either act to God’s will. The use of the condom increases the evil effects because it deepens their willful rejection of God and, by its contraceptive effect, may limit God’s intention to bring good out of their evil.

Why is the contraceptive effect evil? Everything that comes into being is good; everything that exists has some level of the goodness intended by the Divine Will. The opposite of goodness is nothingness; evil is, therefore, nothingness. The condom further perverts their act by insuring that nothing good can come of their act. IMHO.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Since sin in Catholic thinking always has a subjective component, I reframe your question to: “Which is the greater evil, non abstinence or use of the condom?”

Assuming your subjects are unmarried and contemplate fornication or married and contemplate adultery, either act is in Catholic teaching intrinsically evil. (As I posted earlier, a married couple one of whom is infected requires a different analysis.)

Intrinsically evil acts are incapable of being ordered to God: “… there are certain specific kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No.1761).

The subjects, having chosen to negate God’s will, now are faced with the decision to use or not use a condom. Since the preservation of life and health is good, i.e. God’s will, it seems the intention in itself is good. However, as Saint Thomas observed and John Paul II confirmed in Veritas Splendor, “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. … Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. ‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).”

In your example, the good intention to preserve health by use of the condom produces no good effects because the couple’s uprightness of will remains impaired. The couple, lacking charity, is incapable of ordering either act to God’s will. The use of the condom increases the evil effects because it deepens their willful rejection of God and, by its contraceptive effect, may limit God’s intention to bring good out of their evil.

Why is the contraceptive effect evil? Everything that comes into being is good; everything that exists has some level of the goodness intended by the Divine Will. The opposite of goodness is nothingness; evil is, therefore, nothingness. The condom further perverts their act by insuring that nothing good can come of their act. IMHO.

Peace,
O’Malley

Glory and praise be to GOD the Father Who created you, Son Jesus Who saved you, and Holy Spirit Who gives you His life and His wisdom.
You are open to His TRUTH, and you are sharing it.
Thank you, and may He continue to find in you His willing child.