Why are condoms wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdamC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently condoms are not wrong:

Pope Benedict condones condom use in some cases.

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,” he said.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
MtnDwellar is correct. Pope Paul VI made it clear that use of non-abortifacient contraception was not a mortal sin and Benedict VI’s statement is a further illumination of Humanae Vitae.

Abu, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Benedict VI’s comments and your answer to MtnDwellar’s question:

“If an action is intrinsically wrong, it has to be wrong under all circumstances.

Is the Pope saying that condom use is not intrinsically wrong?”
 
Readers can inform themselves:

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict VI: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Read full excerpt:

catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:pope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70
 
Thanks for the link. I just read it.

Why can’t he just spell things out? He came up with an example which does not answer our questions. In the case of male prostitutes, condoms have no effect on conception.

I don’t have a dog in this race. I have never been asked to advise anyone. So, what I think has absolutely no importance.

If I was asked by someone who was involved in fornication or adultery, either involving a prostitute or not, about the morality of condoms, I would tell them that their activity is mortally sinful, with or without a condom. Condom use is not your major concern.
 
Yes, I suppose that the Pope’s statements are in line with the report, if, one draws a line between homosexual prostitutes, and married couples where only one person is infected with HIV.
 
Thanks for the link.

The “clarification” is hardly clearer than the statement that needs clarification!!! LOL

“At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.”

The “clarification” is saying that if a person has aids, “an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another”, then condom use is moral because not using a condom exposes the other person to a threat to their life.

It sounds to me like condom use is off of the intrinsically evil list.
 
Thanks for the link.

The “clarification” is hardly clearer than the statement that needs clarification!!! LOL

“At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.”

The “clarification” is saying that if a person has aids, “an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another”, then condom use is moral because not using a condom exposes the other person to a threat to their life.

It sounds to me like condom use is off of the intrinsically evil list.
another surrender to the powers that be,
 
MtnDwellar
I also know that the teaching was/is that condom use is intrinsically evil.
Yes, when used for contraception. Contraception is always intrinsically wrong and gravely evil, as you affirm. There is nothing to contracept with sodomy.
Therefore the use of condoms for contraception is always intrinsically evil.

The wise informed commentary on the non-Magisterial statements in Pope Benedict’s book in the four URL’s given in post #375 clarify that nothing has changed on the grave evils of contraception whether by condoms or any other means.

The condom maniacs reject the natural moral law and reason, as well as the definitive infallible teaching of Christ’s Church.
 
The original poster:

You onto the right path. Condoms are not wrong. Never let any person (including myself) decide for you what you believe. Listen to your heart and challenge everything. The important point you make is that the intention is the same whether or not a condom is involved. NFP has the same intention, making it no different than any form of birth control or contraception. And also, I wouldn’t say it’s a sin to take an aspirin for headache - it’s a blessing that we have these plants and drugs to help us.

Birth control is very necessary today because of the condition of the world. We are already overpopulated. The Pope recently spoke about how condoms are ok in some circumstances. Years ago I got into a debate with another Catholic about condoms. I asked her “What shall a person do who has an STD or HIV?”… I got no reply, of course. Now the Pope has justified what I was getting at - we can’t live in a world of absolutes - it’s dangerous.

Again, listen to your heart - not your head, or someone elses head. If it feels wrong, it probably is. Be responsible.
 
Yes, when used for contraception. Contraception is always intrinsically wrong and gravely evil, as you affirm. There is nothing to contracept with sodomy.
Therefore the use of condoms for contraception is always intrinsically evil.

The wise informed commentary on the non-Magisterial statements in Pope Benedict’s book in the four URL’s given in post #375 clarify that nothing has changed on the grave evils of contraception whether by condoms or any other means.

The condom maniacs reject the natural moral law and reason, as well as the definitive infallible teaching of Christ’s Church.
If a thing is intrinsically evil, then it is always evil. Condom use cannot be intrinsically evil only when used for contraception. Contraception is evil. I infer from Pope Benedict’s recent statement that condom use is not intrinsically evil.
 
MtnDwellar
If a thing is intrinsically evil, then it is always evil. Condom use cannot be intrinsically evil only when used for contraception. Contraception is evil. I infer from Pope Benedict’s recent statement that condom use is not intrinsically evil
You confuse yourself. Yes, contraception by any means is evil. There can be no contraception in sodomy.

In 1930, in his encyclical, *Casti Connubii *(56), Pope Pius XI declared, “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of
nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

The gravity is in the use of any means including condoms to frustrate the procreation of life.

In 1968, in *Humanae Vitae *(14), Pope Paul VI declared: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that: “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.”

The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.
 
But why is having sex just to enjoy time with your spouse a misuse? I’m not advocating hook-ups or prostitutes.
Contraception is an affront to God because it is illogical, and thus based on a lie. It is illogical to intentionally connect sexually, yet then to simultaneously intentionally act to prevent the fruits of sex from occurring.

An example can be made with something that is practically universally accepted as “disordered” (or “diseased”) behavioiur, with anorexia nervosa or bulimia. Those afflicted by anorexia often employ bulimic techniques, which is why I include them. A person afflicted with bulimia behaves quite illogically, which is what originally drew attention to the condition as a disease. To go through the effort of eating, only to then induce yourself to vomit it up is not logical, and it is certainly not natural. It is, therefore, “disordered.” We do not encourage people to be bulimic: instead, we try to help them, and work to release them from that disease which troubles them so.

The analogous extension of this to contraception actually quite clear. We eat for many reasons: to satisfy our hunger, to please our tastebuds, to share socially, etc. But no matter what the reason for eating, the result, or “gift”, of eating is that by eating, we get nutrients which keep us alive. This is, fundamentally, the reason God made hunger in His creatures and gave us the instinct to perpetuate our energy supplies by eating food. When there are no nutrients to gain from eating something, or when a person eats only to vomit it back up, this is a disorder. Glass is not for human consumption, yet there are people afflicted with disorders like pica who do eat glass: this is not healthy, and it kills many of them, unfortunately, because, again, it is disordered. Likewise, it is certainly not healthy to eat up a good meal, and then intentionally and artificially prevent your body from gaining the nutrients of that meal, as bulimic people do when they induce vomiting. They are canceling the reason for having eaten in the first place: at best, they gain only the pleasure of tasting the food, but the whole reason food tastes good is because it is good for us.

The same goes for sex. The reason sex feels good between a husband and wife is because it is very good for them, it pleases God, and it strengthening their mutual love. But just like eating, God made it feel good for the purpose that it would impart us certain gifts, the premier of which is the openness to new life. The purpose of sex, first and foremost, is reproduction, or procreation. There is no disputing this, any more than there is a dispute that the purpose of eating is to get calories for body-building and energy production. The pleasures of both eating and sex are secondary. When you remove the primary reason for a human activity and supplant it with a secondary benefit, you are doing something disordered. Gluttony is a mortal sin for this reason: in gluttony, a person is ignoring the nutritive effects of foods and simply eating for carnal pleasure of taste sensation. Do you argue that gluttony is a mortal sin, and indeed one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Of course not: it is obvious. Such is the case with contraception: a couple who is using contraception are basically saying to each other, “Yes, this pie is just wonderful, and thank you for all the effort your have done to make it, but after I eat, I’m just going to vomit it up…but let’s enjoy eating it, even though as far as the purpose and natural function of eating goes, what we are doing is pointless.” I’m sorry to be so crude, but really, there isn’t much of a difference. The issue is really not that complicated for people of good will who respect God’s will, and I don’t see what the big deal is with some people over why they so desperately want to contracept. It is absolutely lustful to want your wife, but not to want the fullness of her sexuality, which centrally includes her reproductive capacity, and it is likewise sinfully lustful for a woman to want her husband…(but)…NOT is potency. Why is this so hard to see, honestly?

Furthermore, you really do mock God when you say “oh, it just a thin piece of latex, God can break it if He really wants us to have a child.” You sound like the Bad Thief, or even satan, when they mocked Jesus to just send down the angels and save the day. Perhaps you don’t know how truly outrageous your flippant comment is, but you might think about it some more, and you certainly should not repeat it to anyone one. The Just Judge will not be laughing at your little comments when you try to explain your nonsense position to Him when you are judged. The Just Judge will not understand why you, when He gave you a great feast, ate it up only to intentionally vomit His gifts to you later. (continued below)
 
Do not mock God: of course God can do anything He wants, but guess what? He wanted to, and so He did, give US free will. And He did not give us free will only to take it away by circumventing our deliberate attempts to frustrate His creative will. God will let you walk away from Him if you want to, and this is precisely what you do when you do disordered and illogical things like use contraception. If you don’t want children, don’t have sex. Your desire to give love to your wife should not be more important than your desire to serve God: you cannot love your wife without loving God, first and foremost. You must love God “above all things with your whole heart and soul:” He is not second to your wife, and He is certainly not second to your lust. The only reason you have a wife in the first place is because He gave you one, and now you dare to mock Him? Oh dear, oh dear. Your job as a husband is to get her soul to heaven, just as your own. You absolutely are not doing that if you are basically giving the middle finger to God when using the wonderful gift of sex, which He has given us, for your own “good” only.

Contraception is not only a sin, it is a grave, mortal sin. People need to understand the gravity of this crime against God, the crime they do right in His Face. You don’t fool God. This is not a joke, and people who are having trouble with this, for whatever (usually ego-based) reason, they need to put away their pride of how they think things should be and submit to the Divine Providence of God’s Will. You reward in Heaven will be great for being like our Lady, and saying to God, “Let it be done unto me according to Thy Will.” This is the reason we praise our Lady as we do: because she devoted her whole life and will to doing God’s Will. Maybe you out to think about her next time. She was just a teenager, poor, and unwed, and she accepted God’s will. Ave Maria! That we can all be more like her!
 
The original poster:

You onto the right path. Condoms are not wrong. Never let any person (including myself) decide for you what you believe. Listen to your heart and challenge everything. The important point you make is that the intention is the same whether or not a condom is involved. NFP has the same intention, making it no different than any form of birth control or contraception. And also, I wouldn’t say it’s a sin to take an aspirin for headache - it’s a blessing that we have these plants and drugs to help us.

Birth control is very necessary today because of the condition of the world. We are already overpopulated. The Pope recently spoke about how condoms are ok in some circumstances. Years ago I got into a debate with another Catholic about condoms. I asked her “What shall a person do who has an STD or HIV?”… I got no reply, of course. Now the Pope has justified what I was getting at - we can’t live in a world of absolutes - it’s dangerous.

Again, listen to your heart - not your head, or someone elses head. If it feels wrong, it probably is. Be responsible.
I’m probably not the first one to inform you of this, but you are not a Christian. A Christian is someone who submits to the teachings of Christ. If you are claiming that there are no “absolutes,” then you’ve apparently missed several large sections of the Bible. There are lots of “absolutes.” If you would have been debating this Catholic with your question about STD’s and HIV, you would have gotten the right answer: deliberately frustrating God’s will is always wrong, without exception. You’re quite confused if you think that there is no such thing as truth (which is in itself a self-contradicting statement), or as you called them, “absolutes.” There certainly are.

Hilter “listened to his heart,” you know: he really did hate millions of people, and it didn’t feel wrong to him to do what he did. According to your illogical advice, he was justified. And that is exactly where relativism like what you speak leads.
 
If a thing is intrinsically evil, then it is always evil. Condom use cannot be intrinsically evil only when used for contraception. Contraception is evil. I infer from Pope Benedict’s recent statement that condom use is not intrinsically evil.
You are not quite getting it, perhaps. Think it this way: the purpose of a condom when used by a male with a female is to prevent conception, so it is contraceptive. I could take a condom, fill it with water and have a water balloon fight: I would be “using” a condom, but would this be mortally sinful? Is it “intrinsically evil” to have water balloon fights?

No. For sodomy, there is nothing to contracept, and both parties know that. The only reason a condom even makes sense for them to go through the trouble of using, then, is to do something other than contracept. In most cases, it is to prevent the spread of disease. What I think the pope should have said was that if they would just stop doing sodomy, they wouldn’t have to worry about using condoms during sodomy, would they? I wish he would have reiterated the gravity of the mortal sin, sodomy, and in his capacity spoken very clearly to tell the people that the last thing they should be worried about is a disease, if this is what they are doing to their souls!

Back to the “intrinsically evil” issue: again, the condom is not the “evil” thing here: it is just a thing humans have made. The evil is in the intention of the individual, as is the evil of all sins; all sins evilly intend to ignore God and Truth. As another example, guns are not “intrinsically evil,” because they are just pieces of metal with springs and whatnot. Using guns (or anything else) to willfully murder people, however, is absolutely intrinsically evil.

The previous Magisterial statements expressly condemn any means of contraception. It wouldn’t matter if one used a condom or something like it that was itself not specifically designed for use during sex, as a condom obvioulsy is. There is nothing special about a condom that make it more evil than anything else, but instead the evil is in the use people make of it, the gravely disordered use people make of it. So, hopefully that clarifies what “intrinsic evil” means: it is in the intention, not the medium.
 
You confuse yourself. Yes, contraception by any means is evil. There can be no contraception in sodomy.

In 1930, in his encyclical, *Casti Connubii *(56), Pope Pius XI declared, “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of
nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

The gravity is in the use of any means including condoms to frustrate the procreation of life.

In 1968, in *Humanae Vitae *(14), Pope Paul VI declared: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that: “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.”

The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.
I did not confuse myself. I do not question any of the previous Church teachings. I am questioning the latest statements from Pope Benedict and the Holy See. The Holy See, in an effort to clarify the Pope’s position, drew a line connecting homosexual prostitution and disease prevention within a marriage wherein one partner is HIV+ and the other partner is HIV-. They said that the Popes position is in line with other theologians who teach that condom use within marriage is moral if the main purpose is to prevent a life threatening disease.

Although the main purpose is disease prevention, a secondary result of condom use is always contraception. Previous church teaching was that condom use is intrinsically evil. Being intrinsically evil, use of condoms during sex which may result in contraception was immoral. Because sexual relations are by natural law both unitive and procreative, one cannot morally remove either element.

That seems to be changing.
 
I did not confuse myself. I do not question any of the previous Church teachings. I am questioning the latest statements from Pope Benedict and the Holy See. The Holy See, in an effort to clarify the Pope’s position, drew a line connecting homosexual prostitution and disease prevention within a marriage wherein one partner is HIV+ and the other partner is HIV-. They said that the Popes position is in line with other theologians who teach that condom use within marriage is moral if the main purpose is to prevent a life threatening disease.

Although the main purpose is disease prevention, a secondary result of condom use is always contraception. Previous church teaching was that condom use is intrinsically evil. Being intrinsically evil, use of condoms during sex which may result in contraception was immoral. Because sexual relations are by natural law both unitive and procreative, one cannot morally remove either element.

That seems to be changing.
MtnDweller, I certainly see what you are saying. Well, I think I do, so let me see: are you saying that it is contradictory for the Vatican to attempt to state that condemn use within marriage to prevent the spread of HIV is okay, while they are simultaneously condemning the use within marriage to prevent conception is not okay? Is that what you mean?

If so, I agree—I have thought about this myself. I don’t care what individuals in the Vatican press office say, or L’Observatorrio Romano says, or others, however, because there has been no officially and solemnly declared Magisterial statement since Dignitatis Humanae, and DH does not make that exception, so I don’t either.

Is this what you mean?
 
First we need to determine if HV is was written by a Pope. I believe it was. Second we need to determine if it is trying to teach us something? I believe it is. With that in mind then I think the arguements found at:

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Do a pretty good job showing that it should be considered Ex-Cathedra teaching. So if you can agree that it is then the next thing to do is to look at Humani Generis and “IF” you are a Catholic then you must accept the HV. If you are not a “Catholic” then you don’t have to as you are protesting the teachings of the Church the same as Martin Luther.
  1. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. **For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.**9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
  2. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
In the end each person will decide what his or her faith is, but in my humble opinion a vegetarian does not eat meat.
 
I’m probably not the first one to inform you of this, but you are not a Christian. A Christian is someone who submits to the teachings of Christ. If you are claiming that there are no “absolutes,” then you’ve apparently missed several large sections of the Bible. There are lots of “absolutes.” If you would have been debating this Catholic with your question about STD’s and HIV, you would have gotten the right answer: deliberately frustrating God’s will is always wrong, without exception. You’re quite confused if you think that there is no such thing as truth (which is in itself a self-contradicting statement), or as you called them, “absolutes.” There certainly are.

Hilter “listened to his heart,” you know: he really did hate millions of people, and it didn’t feel wrong to him to do what he did. According to your illogical advice, he was justified. And that is exactly where relativism like what you speak leads.
lol

Leave it to someone like you to tell me what I am and what I’m not.

Anyway… I never said there were no absolutes. Please re-read my first post. I just said that the world is not black and white. This isn’t the first time btw that a Pope has stated that condoms are ok.

Hitler was also a Catholic for a good part of his life… let’s not go down that road, shall we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top