US Bishops AID Organisation Encourages Condom Use through "Information"

  • Thread starter Thread starter cathgal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
That is unrealistic even if there was a yearlong continent-wide abstinence (that in itself is realistically impossible). The HIV virus stays around until death once it is transmitted. A one year abstinence would mean the virus would just start up again (moving to new human hosts) after the year is up. It would have to be a multi-generational abstinence (which is even more impossible).

You have to work with the real world, which means reduce the transmission as much as possible as people are going to have sex, sometimes with another partner, but using a condom, while not perfect protection is better for each person than not using and having no biological protection.
Click to expand...
No dice. This is the heresy of consequentialism. It is not ok to use immoral means to ward off an evil. That’s Catholicism 101. But hey, I’ll let the readers decide who to believe: random internet dude or Cardinal Ratzinger.
 
OK son, you know your not supposed to drink while your mom and I are out tonight, and your not allowed to drive either.

But if you won’t listen to me on this, at least make sure you wear your seatbelt and obey the speed limit.
 
Is it a sin to give someone a paper that explains how a condom is used?
 
Scottgun said:
No dice. This is the heresy of consequentialism. It is not ok to use immoral means to ward off an evil. That’s Catholicism 101. But hey, I’ll let the readers decide who to believe: random internet dude or Cardinal Ratzinger.
Click to expand...
Are you advocating death via HIV/AIDS for others for the consequences of one bad decision? Remember HIV/AIDS cannot be confessed away to a priest.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Are you advocating death via HIV/AIDS for others for the consequences of one bad decision? Remember HIV/AIDS cannot be confessed away to a priest.
Click to expand...
No. I’m not advocating any such. I’m telling you the truth. Condom use is wrong, period. The so-called realistic solution isn’t realism at all–it’s defeatism. It’s like saying, “Gee thanks God for sending us your Son that teaches us through an authoritative Church. It’s nice warm and fuzzy and fun to think about at Christmas and when it is easy and convenient, but now it’s Crunch Time, so cya later, we will take it from here.” The fact that I even have to explain this is a sad testament to how much worldly thinking has crept into Catholic discourse.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
You have to work with the real world, which means reduce the transmission as much as possible as people are going to have sex, sometimes with another partner, but using a condom, while not perfect protection is better for each person than not using and having no biological protection.
Click to expand...
IMHO this ties into the idea that humans are just animals, incapable of transcending their fallen nature, and controlling sexual urges is impossible, even harmful. I’d be tempted to say in the case of Africa, it’s latent racism, but honestly the agenda of the COD really knows no bounds.
 
Jennifer123 said:
IMHO this ties into the idea that humans are just animals, incapable of transcending their fallen nature, and controlling sexual urges is impossible, even harmful. I’d be tempted to say in the case of Africa, it’s latent racism, but honestly the agenda of the COD really knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
When it comes to sexual attraction and pheromones, it is often a primal, instinctive response. This is not just Africa but all over. What the previous poster talked about was a complete one year sexual urge continent-wide, which is unrealistic (hard to stop huge populations from having sexual relations) and would not do anything anyways about HIV/AIDS.
 
Scottgun said:
No. I’m not advocating any such. I’m telling you the truth. Condom use is wrong, period. The so-called realistic solution isn’t realism at all–it’s defeatism. It’s like saying, “Gee thanks God for sending us your Son that teaches us through an authoritative Church. It’s nice warm and fuzzy and fun to think about at Christmas and when it is easy and convenient, but now it’s Crunch Time, so cya later, we will take it from here.” The fact that I even have to explain this is a sad testament to how much worldly thinking has crept into Catholic discourse.
Click to expand...
Yet your thesis seems unrealistic. When you get down to the innate part of sexuality, complete abstaining is also not a realistic option. That is why CRS is just following the broader approach all relief agencies use, the ABC one.

Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condom. Notice the order, but it also respects the human person as if you fail to live up to one ideal in a time of poor judgment, it should not destroy the rest of your life. The Church here is using the teachings in a compassionate way, not authoritative, where the person’s being means more than just abstract teachings, not all teachings work well outside an ideal environment, the wide world is not an ideal environment.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Yet your thesis seems unrealistic. When you get down to the innate part of sexuality, complete abstaining is also not a realistic option. That is why CRS is just following the broader approach all relief agencies use, the ABC one.
Click to expand...
Wow. You didn’t even remotely address my points. Again, the Church teaching is that condom use is objectively evil. Meaning no good intentions can make them right. Repent.
Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condom. Notice the order
Click to expand...
One of these things is not like the others. Abstinence and faithfulness are objectively good, condom use is objectively evil. The Church can no more approve this than one can approve of negotiating with hostages thus: Ask for surrender, Bargain, Threaten to slit the throats of the hostage-takers’ children. The order is irrelevant. The last option is not on the table because it is evil in and of itself. Repent.
but it also respects the human person as if you fail to live up to one ideal in a time of poor judgment, it should not destroy the rest of your life.
Click to expand...
One does not get to do evil in anticipation of warding off another evil. Repent.
The Church here is using the teachings in a compassionate way, not authoritative, where the person’s being means more than just abstract teachings, not all teachings work well outside an ideal environment, the wide world is not an ideal environment.
Click to expand...
The Church has in no way approved of this. (If the story about the CRS is true, they are off the map and people are right to withold support) If you think the Church’s teaching are merely abstract, you have my pity and prayers. Repent.
 
Scottgun said:
Wow. You didn’t even remotely address my points. Again, the Church teaching is that condom use is objectively evil. Meaning no good intentions can make them right. Repent.

One of these things is not like the others. Abstinence and faithfulness are objectively good, condom use is objectively evil. The Church can no more approve this than one can approve of negotiating with hostages thus: Ask for surrender, Bargain, Threaten to slit the throats of the hostage-takers’ children. The order is irrelevant. The last option is not on the table because it is evil in and of itself. Repent.

One does not get to do evil in anticipation of warding off another evil. Repent.

The Church has in no way approved of this. (If the story about the CRS is true, they are off the map and people are right to withold support) If you think the Church’s teaching are merely abstract, you have my pity and prayers. Repent.
Click to expand...
Yes I did respond to your points. Condoms are not intrinsically “evil”, they are just what they are, objects and a tool. Disease prevention is one of the applications of this tool. The world outside Church walls is not black and white, good/evil, it is an infinite shade of greys. This is about disease prevention and saving lives for thousands to millions of people.

You cannot assume a ideal Utopian application of any policy decision once it hits the real world, but policies need to be open to change in the Church, or the Church becomes irrelevant to the real world. Condom use as the 3rd option here is about saving lives, no more, no less. The CRS is consistent, as this is a “pro-life” application of Church teachings.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
The discussion is about the effectiveness of it on a socitical level for disease control, which is different than an individual level application of celibacy.
Click to expand...
The point is that celebacy, even fidelity in marriage, is pretty much impossible without the help (grace) Christ provides us. Yes this is true. But the Good News is, we CAN overcome our fallen natures and live the lives Christ wants for us, as we aren’t completely fulfilled as humans without His grace.
That is the mission of the Church - evangelize the world, spread the Good News. To see CRS promoting condoms, which do nothing to elevate the human condition, is a betrayal of the Gospel message.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
That is unrealistic even if there was a yearlong continent-wide abstinence (that in itself is realistically impossible). The HIV virus stays around until death once it is transmitted. A one year abstinence would mean the virus would just start up again (moving to new human hosts) after the year is up. It would have to be a multi-generational abstinence (which is even more impossible).

You have to work with the real world, which means reduce the transmission as much as possible as people are going to have sex, sometimes with another partner, but using a condom, while not perfect protection is better for each person than not using and having no biological protection.
Click to expand...
WHY? Do you honestly think that people have so little control over their physical drive that in order to save their lives they CAN NOT give up a pleasure for a time?

I would like to believe that if told this would save millions of human beings people would find the strength to do it.
 
KathleenElsie said:
WHY? Do you honestly think that people have so little control over their physical drive that in order to save their lives they CAN NOT give up a pleasure for a time?

I would like to believe that if told this would save millions of human beings people would find the strength to do it.
Click to expand...
The example presented was for a large population for one year. I also mentioned that one year would not be a cure all for HIV as the previous poster suggested.

Do you believe that a large group of people (on the size of a country or continent) could realistically give up sexual activities for a year?🤷
 
Jennifer123 said:
The point is that celebacy, even fidelity in marriage, is pretty much impossible without the help (grace) Christ provides us. Yes this is true. But the Good News is, we CAN overcome our fallen natures and live the lives Christ wants for us, as we aren’t completely fulfilled as humans without His grace.
That is the mission of the Church - evangelize the world, spread the Good News. To see CRS promoting condoms, which do nothing to elevate the human condition, is a betrayal of the Gospel message.
Click to expand...
It is reducing the spread of a fatal virus, is that enough elevation? The problem in the third world goes beyond any relations outside of marriage, it very widespread in some parts of the world.

You have to look at all of us as fallible, and the no-condom approach assumes a human infallibility that is not there. HIV/AIDS does not look at people’s religious background and beliefs.
 
I honestly believe there is a place for allowing condom use within marriage, because realistically whole populations and generations are not going to become and remain celibate for a lifetime.

On the simplistic level, no sex = no AIDS (almost, but not quite true, because in a country with high rates of HIV infection some people are going to get it through needlesticks etc.).

Just think of what celibacy in our Church has always meant. Those with a religious calling usually belong to communities of other like-minded individuals of the same sex, with their environment and activities geared toward remaining chaste. Those called to the single life also order their surroundings, relationships and activities in such a way as to keep from sexual sin. If it was realistically possible for large numbers of people to remain celibate regardless of their situation in life, why these special precautions?

As I have said previously on more than one thread, it is practically impossible for healthy young spouses to live in the same house, share the same bed and yet remain celibate for life. One or two couples may be able to achieve that goal, but on a large scale, forget it! Not going to happen. I won’t even get started on the inequality of the sexes and the disadvantage women are at in some cultures with respect to who decides regarding sexual relations within marriage…

We also need to acknowledge the fact that not all exposure to AIDS in high incidence areas, comes from sexual sin. With the advent of drug treatment, more and more affected children are growing up and will want to get married some day. What are we going to say to those thousands, we’ll build you unisex dorms to live in for the rest of your lives? The more I ponder this issue, the more convinced I am that mercy and practicality require a second look at condom use within the bounds of marriage.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
It is reducing the spread of a fatal virus, is that enough elevation? The problem in the third world goes beyond any relations outside of marriage, it very widespread in some parts of the world.

You have to look at all of us as fallible, and the no-condom approach assumes a human infallibility that is not there. HIV/AIDS does not look at people’s religious background and beliefs.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the human condition, and also well aware of the saving grace God provides. The Church calls all of us to chastity, and some to celebacy. The Church asks this of all of us, not just of brown people in the Third World. The Church wouldn’t ask this of us if it was impossible.

“I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me” Phil 4:13

Makes me wonder what kind of witness you provide when you believe the words of Christ to be realistically empty. Try to remember what else He said about gaining the world but losing your soul.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Do you believe that a large group of people (on the size of a country or continent) could realistically give up sexual activities for a year?
Click to expand...
The Church expects large groups of people to give up sexual activites, not just for a year, but for life - these include homosexuals, divorced Catholics, priests and religious.
 
I have a good priest friend from South Africa. He said that the introduction of condoms to Africa was an utter failure and actually greatly increased the AIDs epidemic. He said before condoms some people would be safer sexually. When the condoms came they thought they could do immoral behavior and still be safe. There is no such thing as a 100% safe condom. some brand average at about 70 something %. That is a failure every 4 time you use one. The bottom line is it only takes one time to get AIDS. So even if a condom works several times that one time is doesn’t and you catch the disease is permanent. So if someone regularly engages in risky behavior in Africa relying on a condom most likely they will end up infected. According to my priest friend condoms are destroying Africa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top