Pregnancy and codoms

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #76
May I remind you of the unmarried Congo nuns.

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

Controversy in Cologne: The German Bishops and the ‘Morning-After Pill’ (5184)
NEWS ANALYSIS
by E. CHRISTIAN BRUGGER 02/25/2013
On Jan. 31, the cardinal [Joachim Meisner] issued a second statement, setting forth two conditions for rightly administering EC medications to rape victims. He said that if the mode of activity of some treatment is to prevent conception, and the intention aligns itself with that purpose, then the treatment is licit. If, however, a treatment is administered whose mode of activity is to prevent the implantation of a newly conceived embryo, then the treatment would be wrongful to administer. He asked doctors in Catholic institutions to care for rape victims according to these two principles.

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops formulates this norm as follows:
A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum (“Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” [ERDs], 5th ed., 2009, No. 36).

In the United States, most Catholic hospitals that treat rape victims administer a pregnancy test and require it to be negative before giving EC medications (the most common of which is Plan B); some administer in addition one or more ovulation tests. One commonly adopted procedure is called the “Peoria Protocol” (developed by a hospital in the Diocese of Peoria, Ill.). It stipulates that before EC may be administered, a rape victim must have a negative pregnancy test and a negative urine-based ovulation test; if the urine-based test is positive, a blood test measuring serum progesterone levels is administered as a backup.
ncregister.com/daily-news/controversy-in-cologne-the-german-bishops-and-the-morning-after-pill

Then there’s the past Pope’s personal thoughts re prostitutes with HIV and how use of condoms may be an interim step towards greater responsibility. Not exactly in line with intrinsically evil is it?

More myopia on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, condoms and AIDS.

The facts are here:
The Irish Times
Wednesday November 24, 2010
“All the Pope is saying is that, for an individual living a life of sexual abandon (prostitution), the use of a condom might, just might, set off a process of self-reflection in that person which might lead to a more responsible attitude to the use of his sexuality. This is not a case of “justifying” the use of a condom.”
Rev Dr D Vincent Twomey SVD,
Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology,
Divine Word Missionaries,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
See the complete letter at; renewamerica.com/columns/keane/101127

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BlueHorizon: ** … as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that probably would not be legitimate for married couples.**

Thistle I do not need to show you a Church Teaching that backs up my observation. The well known case of the Congo Nuns, approved by high ranking Catholic authorities, confirms this. I am sorry if you cannot accept that these umarried women were given the BCP with Church approval precisely to stop conception if raped.

The following article may or may not assist you to understand:
natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001a/021601/021601j.htm

**Exception to birth control ban raises questions ** R Staff,Rome
*A Spanish bishop raised eyebrows in late January by stating that religious women living in war zones or other places where there is danger of rape can legitimately use oral contraceptives to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Despite skeptical reactions from some quarters, one of Rome’s foremost Catholic moral theologians says the bishop did nothing more than re-state official church policy that dates back at least 40 years.

The Catholic church generally bans the use of contraceptives on the grounds that human sexuality should be “open” to the creation of life.

Despite that position, Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla of Segorbe-Castellón said in late January that sisters who face a danger of rape, such as missionaries in war zones, may use the pill as “self-defense against an act of aggression,” according to the Madrid-based newspaper El País.

Reig, president of the Family and Life subcommittee of the Spanish bishops’ conference, was speaking at a news conference to promote a Feb. 4 “day in defense of life.”

Reig said use of contraception by religious women as a defense against rape “changes the nature of the moral act,” rendering it no longer an illicit attempt to “go against conception.” Reig declined, according to the report, to say whether other Catholic women should be able to use birth control in the same context.

Media outlets around the world immediately began asking church officials for comment, in most cases eliciting dubious responses.

A spokesperson for the Irish bishops, for example, told a reporter, “As far as we’re concerned, there has been no dispensation given by the Vatican. And until we hear differently, we’ll continue to follow the official line, which is the Catholic church officially forbids artificial contraception.”

A spokesperson for the Vatican press office told the London Daily Telegraph that there is no “official dispensation” for nuns.

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.

Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”

“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”

Johnstone noted that although the Vatican exception for the Congo pertained specifically to nuns, from a moral point of view “it makes no difference whatsoever” if the woman is in religious life. Hence, he said, other women in grave danger of rape would have the same liberty.

Johnstone said some moral theologians have applied the Congo precedent in the case of women with a well-founded fear of spousal rape, arguing they too have the right to use contraception.

This is a “conservatively based argument,” Johnstone said, that is generally accepted. “There might be some very rigid people who would oppose it, but if you accept church teaching, it seems quite a reasonable way to settle a conflict situation.”

Johnstone said, however, that fear of rape must be immediate and personal. He said he once worked in a Catholic hospital in Washington, and when women there heard about the Congo precedent, they jokingly suggested that since rape is always theoretically possible in a major city, they should be able to use birth control freely.

“Obviously one has to be careful about how far this goes,” Johnstone said.

The reasoning applies only to the use of oral contraceptives that inhibit a sperm cell from fertilizing an ovum. It does not justify use of the so-called “morning after” pill, Johnstone said, taken after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of an embryo in the uterus.

“At that stage,” Johnstone said, “Catholic teaching holds that you have a human being entitled to the right to life.”

Johnstone acknowledged that this codicil to Catholic moral thought is not well-known.

“Whenever this comes up, I always have trouble convincing people that the Vatican actually said it,” he told NCR. “But it’s there.”*

 

[thistle]

Thistle I do not need to show you a Church Teaching that backs up my observation. The well known case of the Congo Nuns, approved by high ranking Catholic authorities, confirms this. I am sorry if you cannot accept that these umarried women were given the BCP with Church approval precisely to stop conception if raped.

The following article may or may not assist you to understand:
natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001a/021601/021601j.htm

**Exception to birth control ban raises questions ** R Staff,Rome
*A Spanish bishop raised eyebrows in late January by stating that religious women living in war zones or other places where there is danger of rape can legitimately use oral contraceptives to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Despite skeptical reactions from some quarters, one of Rome’s foremost Catholic moral theologians says the bishop did nothing more than re-state official church policy that dates back at least 40 years.

The Catholic church generally bans the use of contraceptives on the grounds that human sexuality should be “open” to the creation of life.

Despite that position, Bishop Juan Antonio Reig Pla of Segorbe-Castellón said in late January that sisters who face a danger of rape, such as missionaries in war zones, may use the pill as “self-defense against an act of aggression,” according to the Madrid-based newspaper El País.

Reig, president of the Family and Life subcommittee of the Spanish bishops’ conference, was speaking at a news conference to promote a Feb. 4 “day in defense of life.”

Reig said use of contraception by religious women as a defense against rape “changes the nature of the moral act,” rendering it no longer an illicit attempt to “go against conception.” Reig declined, according to the report, to say whether other Catholic women should be able to use birth control in the same context.

Media outlets around the world immediately began asking church officials for comment, in most cases eliciting dubious responses.

A spokesperson for the Irish bishops, for example, told a reporter, “As far as we’re concerned, there has been no dispensation given by the Vatican. And until we hear differently, we’ll continue to follow the official line, which is the Catholic church officially forbids artificial contraception.”

A spokesperson for the Vatican press office told the London Daily Telegraph that there is no “official dispensation” for nuns.

Yet Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.

Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”

“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”

Johnstone noted that although the Vatican exception for the Congo pertained specifically to nuns, from a moral point of view “it makes no difference whatsoever” if the woman is in religious life. Hence, he said, other women in grave danger of rape would have the same liberty.

Johnstone said some moral theologians have applied the Congo precedent in the case of women with a well-founded fear of spousal rape, arguing they too have the right to use contraception.

This is a “conservatively based argument,” Johnstone said, that is generally accepted. “There might be some very rigid people who would oppose it, but if you accept church teaching, it seems quite a reasonable way to settle a conflict situation.”

Johnstone said, however, that fear of rape must be immediate and personal. He said he once worked in a Catholic hospital in Washington, and when women there heard about the Congo precedent, they jokingly suggested that since rape is always theoretically possible in a major city, they should be able to use birth control freely.

“Obviously one has to be careful about how far this goes,” Johnstone said.

The reasoning applies only to the use of oral contraceptives that inhibit a sperm cell from fertilizing an ovum. It does not justify use of the so-called “morning after” pill, Johnstone said, taken after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of an embryo in the uterus.

“At that stage,” Johnstone said, “Catholic teaching holds that you have a human being entitled to the right to life.”

Johnstone acknowledged that this codicil to Catholic moral thought is not well-known.

“Whenever this comes up, I always have trouble convincing people that the Vatican actually said it,” he told NCR. “But it’s there.”*

So you cannot produce an official Church document that teaches the use of condoms is permitted. That’s all I need to know. Your observations are not Church teachings.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

]

Controversy in Cologne: The German Bishops and the ‘Morning-After Pill’ (5184)
NEWS ANALYSIS by E. CHRISTIAN BRUGGER 02/25/2013

Abu you will have to forgive us if the relevence of your contribution to this discussion is unclear.
(1) This is talking about treatment given to women after rape (hence “morning after pill” not “days before pill.”). The Congo Nuns took BCP well beforehand I understand.
(2) It is primarily about abortive acts (killing fertilised eggs) not contraception.
(3) What principles it does mention re contraception actually support my opinion do they not? (“He said that if the mode of activity of some treatment is to prevent conception, and the intention aligns itself with that purpose, then the treatment is licit.”)
(4) Yes I accept that if the BCP is so strong as to prevent implantation of a fertilised embryo (and was mistakenly chosen for this mode of operation) then it should not have been given to the Congo Nuns. Yet that is not the point. The point is that if the BCP’s mode actually was merely contraceptive then its use may be licit in some case for unmarried women.

The Irish Times, Wednesday November 24, 2010
“All the Pope is saying is that, for an individual living a life of sexual abandon (prostitution), the use of a condom might, just might, set off a process of self-reflection in that person which might lead to a more responsible attitude to the use of his sexuality. This is not a case of “justifying” the use of a condom.”
Rev Dr D Vincent Twomey SVD,
Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology,
Divine Word Missionaries,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.

You cannot be serious.
You are trying to tell readers here that this is what the Pope really meant because…it agrees with your own opinion and some conservative Irish paper managed to wheel out a theologian who agrees with them. Surely you can see it is just as easy for readers to find a liberal paper who has similarly wheeled out a theologian saying something that aligns more closely with the obvious first impressions of the Pope’s words.

You will have to try something more authoratative than that.
How about providing a further clarification from this Pope himself…whoops he actually did give one. And what did he say? He went further and clarfied that what he meant by “male prostitute” (many of the “all contraception is bad” camp suggested he was only referring to homosexual acts which don’t matter when it comes to condom use cos it cannot be contraception).

And what was his clarification?
He did not pussyfoot around and retract what he said to make it easier for people to accept as this Irish paper attempted to do. He said he was referring to all types of prostitutive acts involving HIV prostitutes - heterosexual and homosexual.

Just think about these cases, they are not easily dismissed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you cannot produce an official Church document that teaches the use of condoms is permitted. That’s all I need to know. Your observations are not Church teachings.

Thistle what is it you do not understand…

The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women. That is all I am trying to affirm here.

The consequences of this approved case (coupled with others mentioned) are very significant:
(1) It means the counsel offered does not contradict present Church Teaching or principles wrt Contraception (though you seem to think it does for reasons yet unexplained by your good self).
(2) If use of even one form of contraception is acceptable and licit then your personal understanding of the phrase “all contraception is intrinsically evil” appears flawed.
(3) We need to understand “all contraception is intrinsically evil” in a different way to preserve its truth. I have already indicated how that theology already works wrt the intrinsic evil of “murder” (as opposed to “killing” which is not intrinsically evil). It seems perfectly analogous to me. If I am wrong in my analogy with murder show me how.
(4) I suggest that such a more accurate theological understanding means that it is unacceptable to cut off at the knees the case raised here on this thread simply because “its intrinsically evil end of story, go away.”

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon, fixated on his own views on contraception, is blind to reality. His dismissal of a renowned Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Rev Dr D Vincent Twomey SVD is typical of the arrogance of a neophyte out of his depth.

Readers can rely on the Catholic Culture contribution of Phil Lawler and that of Dr Janet Smith also to accurately refute the errors repeated *ad nauseam *about the Pope and contraception. So let’s spell it out again.

By Phil Lawler | November 22, 2010
“In the passage that L’Osservatore published, Pope Benedict was not backing away from earlier statements, in which he had said that the distribution of condoms is not the proper way to fight the spread of AIDS. On the contrary, the Pope was defending that stand! Far from retracting his previous words, the Holy Father was explaining and elaborating on them.

“In that context, when Seewald pressed him on the question of whether condom use might ever be advisable, the Pope replied:

‘There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.’

“When Seewald asked for a clarification, the Pope quickly added that the Church can never regard condom use as ‘a real or moral solution.’

“Notice that in his hypothetical example, the Pope spoke of a ‘male prostitute,’ presumably involved in homosexual acts. So the question of contraception—the main reason for the Church’s opposition to condoms—was removed from the equation. This prostitute is engaged in profoundly immoral acts. The Pope does not suggest that the use of a condom would make his prostitution less immoral; he says only that by recognizing the imperative to protect his sexual partner, the theoretical prostitute is making a small step toward proper moral reasoning.

“Here the Pope was making a theoretical point, not a practical one. He was not teaching, but explaining a point. He was not speaking with authority—in fact, earlier in the book he had explained why nothing the Pope says in an interview should be regarded as authoritative—but speculating. Nothing in what the Pope said, or the way he said it, reflects any change in the Church’s teaching.

“In her helpful explanation of the Pope’s words, Janet Smith observed that ‘the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms.’ ” [Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book? | Janet E. Smith]](Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book? | Janet E. Smith])
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women.

Approval? No.

Keep in mind that the situations that you are discussing deal specifically illicit sexual relations. And furthermore, those relations are not unitive, and are not intended to be procreative. I say not intended to be procreative because pleasure and/or control is the intent, though obviously a child could result. The explanation can get very nuanced and confusing, but the long and short of it is that the woman is not obligated to have a child in this case. However, if the egg is already fertilized, the Catholic Church considers this fertilized egg a child, and the mother may not intentionally expel the egg.

 

[thistle]

Thistle what is it you do not understand…

The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women. That is all I am trying to affirm here.

The consequences of this approved case (coupled with others mentioned) are very significant:
(1) It means the counsel offered does not contradict present Church Teaching or principles wrt Contraception (though you seem to think it does for reasons yet unexplained by your good self).
(2) If use of even one form of contraception is acceptable and licit then your personal understanding of the phrase “all contraception is intrinsically evil” appears flawed.
(3) We need to understand “all contraception is intrinsically evil” in a different way to preserve its truth. I have already indicated how that theology already works wrt the intrinsic evil of “murder” (as opposed to “killing” which is not intrinsically evil). It seems perfectly analogous to me. If I am wrong in my analogy with murder show me how.
(4) I suggest that such a more accurate theological understanding means that it is unacceptable to cut off at the knees the case raised here on this thread simply because “its intrinsically evil end of story, go away.”

The Church has not approved the use of condoms either for unmarried women or for married women during their monthly infertile period.
You have shown nothing.

 

[devoutchristian]

The Church has not approved the use of condoms either for unmarried women or for married women during their monthly infertile period.
You have shown nothing.

When someone is intent that they know the Churhc’s teachings better than the Pope, they’re unlikely to be convinced by anything.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Thistle what is it you do not understand…
The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women. That is all I am trying to affirm here.

Thistle you appear to have lost sight of the original issue.

I originally stated:
“…as others have noted, in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception by Church authorities that probably would not be legitimate for married couples.”

You disagreed: “That is completely incorrect…”

Therefore I demonstrated to you the case of the Congo Nuns.
(1) Nuns are unmarried.
(2) They were approved by Vatican officials to take this contraceptive (the BCP)
(3) This contraceptive was taken precisely so the Nuns would not get pregnant if raped at a later date.

Do you disagree with any of the above 3 statements?
If you do not disagree with the above three statements then I put it to you I have proven my statement. Namely, “in some unusual cases the unmarried may be counselled to use contraception.”

I get it that you are more concerned with condoms than other forms of contraception.
Nevertheless the above example (where the BCP is the contraceptive method used not condoms) clearly proves the principle I opined.

If you want to influence other open readers here I suggest you need to stick to the topic.
If you cannot see this I am sure others can and I am not going to debate the self-evident further with you.

If you have problems saying “yes” to any of the three enumerated statements above then there may be more rational mileage on this particular point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women.

TWM can you advise which of the following statements you disagree with?
(1) Unmaried persons used a form of contraception (the BCP)
(2) The direct intention was to prevent ovum fertilisation
(3) Advice re the morality of this approach was sought from the Vatican and approval was given.

Therefore, in this situation, the Church has approved the use of a contraceptive by the unmarried. QED.

Maybe I have misunderstood you somewhere?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon … is typical of the arrogance of a neophyte out of his depth.

Readers can rely on the Catholic Culture contribution of …Dr Janet Smith also to accurately refute the errors…So let’s spell it out again.

“… the Pope spoke of a ‘male prostitute,’ presumably involved in homosexual acts. So the question of contraception—the main reason for the Church’s opposition to condoms—was removed from the equation.

Abu, I am sorry, your Dr Janet’s understanding of the Pope and his theology appears very much mistaken and unreliable as the following clarifies:

"The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to only apply to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn’t matter, that the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said. “I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship,” he added. “This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other,” Lombardi said. "

So Dr Janet appears manifestly wrong when she says “So the question of contraception was removed from the equation” re the Pope’s comments wasn’t she? She does not seem to understand the Pope at all. Or am I mistaken on this point somehow?

I did advise you of this when I responded to you above, namely:
“The Pope…clarfied that what he meant by “male prostitute” (many of the “all contraception is bad” camp suggested he was only referring to homosexual acts which don’t matter when it comes to condom use cos it cannot be contraception).”

Why would you embarrass yourself like this…you make yourself look like you do not even read my responses to your concerns .

BTW would you mind doing the the Christian thing and attack my references/arguments rather than my character. Thanks .

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Therefore, in this situation, the Church has approved the use of a contraceptive by the unmarried. QED.

Maybe I have misunderstood you somewhere?

Actually, you didn’t misunderstand me, you misunderstood the Church’s position. Your statement above is broad; it can be interpreted as meaning any unmarried person having sex. That is certainly not what the Church implied. It would be correct to state:

There, in this situation, the Church had decided that a person who has been, or may be, forcibly raped, may take action to prevent ovulation.

The sex in this case is not unitive in nature, and the victim is not obligated to have the rapist’s child. However, if the egg is already fertilized, that woman is not permitted to expel it by artificial means.

 

[Abu]

That misrepresentation on contraception is the selfist endeavor of some is glaringly evident. The CDF took the trouble to refute such puerile claims and readers can rest assured that reality and sanity prevail.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Official CDF clarification "Regarding certain interpretations of ‘Light of the World’ "lightoftheworldbook.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/official-cdf-clarification-regarding.html

Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
On the trivilization of sexuality
Regarding certain interpretations of “Light of the World”
21.12.2010
“In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom “with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.” [My emphasis].
tinyurl.com/ooxa6gx

There is no change in the Church’s teaching and never will be.

 

[Allegra]

While I do agree that the married couple doesn’t have to have sex I disagree on the unity statement.

I recently spent some time with my priest discussing a previous marriage annulment, contraception (mine and my daughters) and “unity”. According to my priest, my daughter using BCP to regulate hormones is not a sin as the contraception is a side effect of a recommended medical treatment.

When we went on to discuss my current marriage I was told that the sex act needed two components in order to not be sinful. One, that I am open to life. This confused me as I had a tubal ligation years ago, long before I began the conversion process. My priest said that, at least in my case, being “open to life” meant that I would carry and give birth if I became pregnant. And two, that the sex act be unitive. His definition on unitive was not physical. He explained it much like pair bonding.

Birth control pills do not provide a physical barrier between the man and his wife like a condom does. I think you should have a further discussion with your priest. The unitve componant of the sexual act is meant to be both physical and spiritual. Using your argument, a person can argue that any sexual act is unitive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, you didn’t misunderstand me, you misunderstood the Church’s position. Your statement above is broad; it can be interpreted as meaning any unmarried person having sex.

OK, that sounds like a roundabout way of saying you actually misunderstood me!

How could any good faith reader see my original statement (following) as in any way broad!
"The Church clearly approved the use of contraception in unusual situations involving umarried women. "

Perhaps you somehow overlooked the all important phrase “in unusual situations.” By that I clearly meant rape given the context.

I am not particularly hung up on the theology used to explain that. But what cannot be denied is that this is an example of Church approved contraception by the unmarried which you/others called me to justify.

And now we seem to be agreed I have done just that…so all good.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That misrepresentation on contraception is the selfist endeavor of some is glaringly evident. The CDF took the trouble to refute such puerile claims and readers can rest assured that reality and sanity prevail.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Official CDF clarification "Regarding certain interpretations of ‘Light of the World’ "lightoftheworldbook.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/official-cdf-clarification-regarding.html

Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
On the trivilization of sexuality
Regarding certain interpretations of “Light of the World”
21.12.2010
“In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute “the real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS and also that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality” in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom “with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.” [My emphasis].
tinyurl.com/ooxa6gx

There is no change in the Church’s teaching and never will be.

Abu I am sorry but I am not going to debate this further with you. Perhaps english is a second language? Anyways, for some reason you do not seem to be able to maintain focus or relevence with the quotes you provide.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Birth control pills do not provide a physical barrier between the man and his wife like a condom does.

Yes I agree Allegra. But how is that relevent to anything I have said?

All that I have said in this regard is that use of some contraceptive devices, in some circumstances, is acceptable to the Church. This seems to mean that “all use of contraceptive devices at any time is evil” or “use of condoms is always evil” is not actually what the Church teaches.

My understanding is that the Church teaches that “all contraceptive acts are evil”. Sounds the same but very different. How do we know if a particular human act is in fact a contraceptive one? Well, we can never be sure without looking at the whole situation and defining what is really going on. That is a practical, applied judgment. The physical presence of a contraceptive device is not by that fact alone finally definitive.

It may well be true that when we apply the principles it is very hard to find a situation where a condom could ever be justified (especially wrt a marital act). That is not the point, the point is there is still a need to apply the principles to new, unusual situations to be sure of this.

For example there may be very unusual circumstances where use of a condom would not be considered a contraceptive act. Whether those very unusual circumstances would ever be fulfilled in practice is another matter.

I think you should have a further discussion with your priest.

Allegra why would you think I have not already (and indeed with moral theologians)? Is it simply because you are personally uncomfortable with my observations? If so, please explain exactly what I have said that you cannot agree with and we can tease it out further if you wish.

You said “Using your argument, a person can argue that any sexual act is unitive.” Can you quote where you think I implied that and explain further what you mean?

 

[Abu]

Cardinal Burke also identifies what some try to deny.

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
by John Burger 11/23/2010
Extract:
What is the Pope saying here? Is he saying that in some cases condoms can be permitted?

No, he’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — in the point he makes about the male prostitute is a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally wrong so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/

 

[devoutchristian]

Abu, from my experience, when Blue Horizon has his mind set on believing that the Church teaches something that it doesn’t, no amount of sources will convince him of the truth.