C
Contarini
Guest
Chris,
I decided that the condom argument should be moved to its own thread. I don’t really want to prolong it too much, but I did want to clarify a few points.
I did not take offense at you criticizing or attacking me–if you said I was a vile heretic I would have no grounds for complaint. My objection was that you were accusing me of not thinking fornication was a sin, when I couldn’t see (and still can’t see) how that followed from anything I said. Many sins are difficult to resist. The gravity of a sin is not determined by how easy it is to resist, although when all else is equal that is a relevant factor in assigning degrees of guilt.
When I said that I had “questions” about the Catholic position, I meant what I said. I agree with the basic principle the Catholic Church is upholding here. But there are some difficult questions that need to be asked. I suggest that you will defend the Catholic position more effectively if you try to be less defensive when people ask these questions. But I recognize that on a discussion board questions can easily come to sound like accusations. I apologize for contributing to the escalation of this argument.
Edwin
I decided that the condom argument should be moved to its own thread. I don’t really want to prolong it too much, but I did want to clarify a few points.
- As I have said repeatedly, I’m not saying that the Catholic Church should encourage people to use condoms, only that it might take a leaf out of the medieval Church’s playbook, recognizing that in a sinful world some sins should be tolerated in the civil sphere so that greater evils do not arise. In African countries especially, there are many campaigns to limit AIDS, some of which are sponsored by the government and others are not. In both cases, the Church (if I’m not mistaken) resists any effort to fight AIDS by making condoms available. All I’m suggesting is that if the civil authorities or private initiatives want to make condoms available, the Church should reconsider its opposition (bearing in mind the medieval Church’s tolerant attitude to legalized prostitution). People should of course still be taught to rely on chastity rather than using condoms.
- You have an excellent point about the deliberate nature of buying condoms–sorry for not understanding it the first time around. I understand you to be saying that since buying condoms indicates (in a single person) the deliberate intent to commit fornication, the Church’s condemnation of condoms themselves does not make people any more likely to commit fornication “unprotected.” I have thought about this point, and my response is that if you look at the social context your argument actually strengthens my position. A secular social norm of “don’t do it without a condom” actually helps (rather than hindering) Christians resist their passions and uphold the Church’s teaching, since buying a condom is a cold-blooded act signifying intent to commit a sin. Sure, it would be more helpful if society simply backed up the “no fornication” teaching. But what society ever has done this with regard to men? (Again, the parallel with medieval prostitution comes to mind.) My fear is that resisting a condom-distribution policy in parts of the world (such as Africa) where the current tendency is for men to be extremely promiscuous without condoms will not reduce promiscuity; it will only make that promiscuity more deadly.
- With regard to married couples, someone (I think it wasn’t you) asked where the Church taught that intercourse should be part of marriage even when it endangered life. Of course it didn’t, and that’s my point. Intercourse is a normal part of marriage; endangering the life of one’s spouse is evil; therefore a couple where one spouse has AIDS have the choice of not having a normal marriage or using a condom. I don’t expect this to convince Catholics; but I’m not a Catholic. As someone undecided as to whether non-abortifacient ABC is always wrong, I find cases like this to be powerful arguments against the Catholic position. But if one was fully convinced of the Catholic position on other grounds, of course these cases would not change one’s mind.
I did not take offense at you criticizing or attacking me–if you said I was a vile heretic I would have no grounds for complaint. My objection was that you were accusing me of not thinking fornication was a sin, when I couldn’t see (and still can’t see) how that followed from anything I said. Many sins are difficult to resist. The gravity of a sin is not determined by how easy it is to resist, although when all else is equal that is a relevant factor in assigning degrees of guilt.
When I said that I had “questions” about the Catholic position, I meant what I said. I agree with the basic principle the Catholic Church is upholding here. But there are some difficult questions that need to be asked. I suggest that you will defend the Catholic position more effectively if you try to be less defensive when people ask these questions. But I recognize that on a discussion board questions can easily come to sound like accusations. I apologize for contributing to the escalation of this argument.
Edwin
