Cardinal backs limited condom use

[God the Father]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' post='957381' date='Apr 22 2006, 08:12 PM']
I thought all condoms were 'limited use'. You mean they have kinds you can use more than once?
[/quote]

Slated for release early 2007

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='956835' date='Apr 22 2006, 12:01 AM']
Long story short, the Pope doesn't necessarily know the Bishops before hand. This is one of the behind-the-scenes changes that Pope Benedict has been working on--reforming the current Bishop situation.
[/quote]
Elaborate...how is he doing that?

I'm just curious.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

Cardinal Martini WAS archbishop of Milan. He retired, Tettamanzi took over.

SHALOM

[SeekingHisPlan]

]



OK...I might be about to put myself into some hot water here.

Before I say anything else, let me make it clear that I always do my human best to be absolutely faithful to EVERY SINGLE beautiful teaching of our Church. What I am about to say is not meant to undermine Church teaching, but simply to present a possible interpretation of what is going on here. If my reasoning is invalid according to Church teaching, someone let me know and I'll be quick to bite my tongue. Now that I have said all of that:

{EDIT WHILE IN PROGRESS}

Originally, I attempted here to apply the principle of double effect, with the prevention of AIDS transmission being the intended effect and contraception being the unintended immoral effect. Halfway through typing the post, I realized that my logic was off. To be applicable, the principle of double effect requires a morally neutral act. It works in the oft-cited ectopic pregnancy example because removing a section of fallopian tube is, [i]in and of itself[/i] a morally neutral act. The intended consequence is the preservation of the mother's life. The unintended second consequence is the death of the baby. However, it doesn't bring to bear any moral culpability because the unintended death proceeded from a morally neutral act intended to produce an ordered end (saving a life.)

As I was typing, I realized that double effect can't be used to justify condom use. Condom use in and of itself is not morally neutral. Therefore, the argument that condom use is acceptable to prevent the spread of AIDS falls flat because of the principle that "disordered means cannot be employed to produce an ordered end."



Well...there's my attempt at apologetics for tonight. I invite those who are better informed about theological issues to point out any errors in reasoning I have made.

Thank you to the original poster for the food for thought.

[argent_paladin]

1. Martini has long been the darling of the left and their great hope to be the next pope. It is no surprise that he is saying what he is saying. Yes, he was ordained a bishop by the Pope (directly in fact), but that was just over a year after he became Pontiff.

2. Just wanted to make a slight correction. Condoms are not intrinsically immoral. One can use them as balloons, to waterproof pens, etc, etc. Only when they are used to prevent the natural function of reproduction, would it be immoral. As a side-note, oral contraceptives are also not immoral intrinsically. One can use them for moral purposes, such as clearing up one's complexion or regulating one's cycle.

Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of disease during sexual activity. This is a good. However, at the same time, it involves an evil, that of preventing the potential transmission of life. The two are bound together in one act. However, this act involves a choice. On occassion, married couples are called upon to abstain, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, during times of illness, etc. Avoiding the act is a moral, viable choice.

It is useful to contrast this with the case of self-defense. In that case, one kills and defends in the same act. But to not choose the act, would be to allow an evil to be committed, the killing of an innocent person. Therefore, it is truly a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Obviously, the married couple has the choice to abstain and that is not an evil. The defender has the choice to not kill, but that could have an evil consequence. The two cases are very different.

Now, the case of using a condom during rape is a different one...
but that is not the topic of discussion.

[SeekingHisPlan]

I should have clarified further. Condoms, in and of themselves are neutral objects. Using one during the marriage act, even if it were for a purpose other than contraception...I'm not sure that can be called neutral.

Also, I am aware of the possible morally neutral uses for the birth control pill. (Double effect applies here since the hormones aren't being taken for the purpose of birth control.) Of course it is possible for a faithful, Catholic woman to be using the pill for a medical reason and not be contravening Church teaching at all. However, I think it's also possible for a woman who is on the pill for a medical reason to develop a contraceptive mentality wherein she is depending on the pill to keep her from getting pregnant as well. This isn't necessarily related to the original argument, except to demonstrate that the line between OK and not OK is sometimes a hard one to discern in cases like this.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='argent_paladin' post='957505' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:49 PM']

As a side-note, oral contraceptives are also not immoral intrinsically. One can use them for moral purposes, such as clearing up one's complexion or regulating one's cycle.

[/quote]

Sorry, that is wrong. [u][b]Catholics may not use contraceptives even for legitimate medical reasons[/b][/u].

The ONLY thing a Catholic can do is NFP in grave matters. Catholics cannot even use NFP with a contraceptive mindset - there must be just reasons... doing so just because you don't want kids now is not a just reason; one who does not want kids should not have gotten married. Many pro-NFP people either do not know or fail to tell people the full teaching of the Church.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM[/url]

[quote]

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
...
In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good,[17] it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;[18] that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.[19]

...

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.[20]

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

[/quote]


We are to rely on God. Not ourselves. Some may say "but God helps those who help themselves" to which I reply "as long as we do it His way and not ours".




[b]2370 [/b]
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, [b]"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil[/b]:


Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160


[quote]Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of disease during sexual activity. This is a good. However, at the same time, it involves an evil, that of preventing the potential transmission of life. The two are bound together in one act. However, this act involves a choice. On occassion, married couples are called upon to abstain, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, during times of illness, etc. Avoiding the act is a moral, viable choice.[/quote]


There are 63 known STD's... condoms ONLY protect people from 3 of them. The ads that claim that condoms are safe sex tools lie and should be sued with a class action lawsuit.

Condoms do not protect people from HIV/AIDS - one study suggests that 31% of the time they fail and a person will contract HIV.

As I have said before and have proven time and time agian... The left lies and their father is the father of lies. [b]St. John 8:44[/b]

<EDIT>
Oh, I forgot to add... Some may say that a condom is better than nothing... but it's not, totally unprotected sex is a 1 in 5 chance of catching HIV/AIDS from an infected person. Someone trying to argue either case is playing russion roulette, which is simply stupid.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited April 23, 2006 by ironmonk

[SeekingHisPlan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='957537' date='Apr 22 2006, 10:31 PM']
Sorry, that is wrong. [u][b]Catholics may not use contraceptives even for legitimate medical reasons[/b][/u].

The ONLY thing a Catholic can do is NFP in grave matters. Catholics cannot even use NFP with a contraceptive mindset - there must be just reasons... doing so just because you don't want kids now is not a just reason; one who does not want kids should not have gotten married. Many pro-NFP people either do not know or fail to tell people the full teaching of the Church.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM[/url]
We are to rely on God. Not ourselves. Some may say "but God helps those who help themselves" to which I reply "as long as we do it His way and not ours".
[b]2370 [/b]
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, [b]"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil[/b]:
Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
There are 63 known STD's... condoms ONLY protect people from 3 of them. The ads that claim that condoms are safe sex tools lie and should be sued with a class action lawsuit.

Condoms do not protect people from HIV/AIDS - one study suggests that 31% of the time they fail and a person will contract HIV.

As I have said before and have proven time and time agian... The left lies and their father is the father of lies. [b]St. John 8:44[/b]
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]



See...now I am confused. I have been told that the BCP is OK in some circumstances of medical necessity (clearing up one's complexion would NOT fall into this category!). I have been told this by very orthodox, faithful women whose stance on everything else is right in line with Church teaching and who would never willfully disobey Church teachings.

Of course, their *personal( stance on the birth control issue (and the one I prefer to stick to) is that there's no medical problem fixable by birth control pills which couldn't be addressed by some alternate method if medical professionals took the time and effort to find those alternative solutions. As I have said, that's where I prefer to stand, especially since my sister was given BCP's for 3 years when what she really needed was an operation. However, they have also said that in certain circumstances (e.g- women doesn't have financial/proximal/other access to a physician who will find an alternate solution) BCP can be acceptably used.

[cappie]

Msgr. Angel Rodriguez Luño, an Opus Dei priest, a professor at Santa Croce University in Rome, and a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said there's actually not much debate over the theology; most moralists, he said, believe the argument for condoms as a lesser evil is fairly clear. The question is how to explain that conclusion in a way that doesn't seem to offer a free pass for irresponsible sexual behavior.

"The problem is, anytime we try to give a nuanced response, we see headlines that say, 'Vatican approves condoms,' Rodriguez Luño told The Washington Post Jan. 23, 2005.

"The issue is more complicated than that. From a moral point of view, we cannot condone contraception. We cannot tell a classroom of 16-year-olds they should use condoms. But if we are dealing with someone or a situation in which persons are clearly going to act in harmful ways, a prostitute who is going to continue her activities, then one might say, 'Stop. But if you are not going to, at least do this.'"

[qfnol31]

That shows a misunderstanding of the nature of sex, which is not primarily a unity issue.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='jasJis' post='956862' date='Apr 21 2006, 11:33 PM']
But is that really likely? And considering the graces that are recieved in ordination, wouldn't it be a really huge act of will to go against the Church as a priest?
[/quote]


this may just be me or whatever but don't you think that for a Cardinal or Bishop or even a Msgr. (I can't spell it) pride becomes more and more of a temptation? I mean when they're "just a preist" it would be easier to think "I'm a servant" (although, some don't see it that way) but when they get in position of leadership it seems like it would be easier to think "I'm an authority" which, while it may have some truth to it, still isn't what it's about. And then factor in that sin is addicting. And then that when we sin a lot we start making excuses for it. Then we move on to the next step. I mean if we can rationalize one thing, how much of problem are we going to have rationalizing something else? I don't think it would take a HUGE act of will, rather a lot of small ones. Graduating steps, I guess.



And it's hard to accept that people who are supposed to be shining examples can fall like the rest of us. But it's going to happen.

I liked my 1st grade teacher a lot. About a year ago, I was reading the paper and she'd been arrested for a DUI. Then I found out that everyday after school, she'd go to the store and by a six pack.

[argent_paladin]

1. There are many, many drugs that would be damaging to a fetus, were a pregnant woman to take them. However, it is perfectly moral for a woman who is not pregnant to take them. Just the same, it is perfectly moral for a woman practicing abstinence to take progesterin or some other contraception, obviously not for the purpose of contraception. If there is no contraceptive mentality, no contraceptive intent, and no contracepted marital act, there is no immoral act. Just as you can safely use a condom to keep a bolt dry, so you can use hormones to regulate a cycle or for other good cause. So, technically, Ironmonk is right. One may not use oral contraceptives, period because that implies intent. But one may use the exact same chemicals in oral contraceptives for other purposes, if there is no chance of contraception being one of them.

And, to muddy up the waters further, what about post menopausal or a woman without a uterus using a condom to protect herself from getting AIDS from her husband? There is no contraception, because there is no chance of pregnancy. So, is it a contraceptive act? If not, is it wrong?

[qfnol31]

Is the couple still open to life?

[jasJis]

Been pondering this issue. Now here's a thought.
Condoms are never allowed in ANY circumstance (married to an Aids infected spouse, etc.) because they're intrinsiclly evil. It can't even be an imperfect response to an imperfect rule.

But WAR can be okay with the ends justifies the means. It's an imperfect response to an imperfect world.

Go figure. But it's infallible so we gotta swallow it...

Even Scientologists believe in infallibile Dogma. Read up on it.

Edited April 23, 2006 by jasJis

[ironmonk]

[quote name='SeekingHisPlan' post='957548' date='Apr 22 2006, 10:40 PM']
See...now I am confused. I have been told that the BCP is OK in some circumstances of medical necessity (clearing up one's complexion would NOT fall into this category!). I have been told this by very orthodox, faithful women whose stance on everything else is right in line with Church teaching and who would never willfully disobey Church teachings.

Of course, their *personal( stance on the birth control issue (and the one I prefer to stick to) is that there's no medical problem fixable by birth control pills which couldn't be addressed by some alternate method if medical professionals took the time and effort to find those alternative solutions. As I have said, that's where I prefer to stand, especially since my sister was given BCP's for 3 years when what she really needed was an operation. However, they have also said that in certain circumstances (e.g- women doesn't have financial/proximal/other access to a physician who will find an alternate solution) BCP can be acceptably used.
[/quote]


BCP's are never acceptable. It is clear in Humanae Vitae. Not to mention, BCP's do not prevent conception, they prevent the baby from staying in the womb, therefor they kill babies.


An accpetable consequence of using a medical procedure would be if someone had cancer and had to have their testicles removed or ovaries removed, then a consequence of the needed therapy would be no kids.

But things that are for birth control/contraception are NEVER ok to use... every use is a sin. They cannot be used even for legitimate purposes.



[quote]
Been pondering this issue. Now here's a thought.
Condoms are never allowed in ANY circumstance (married to an Aids infected spouse, etc.) because they're intrinsiclly evil. It can't even be an imperfect response to an imperfect rule.

But WAR can be okay with the ends justifies the means. It's an imperfect response to an imperfect world.

Go figure. But it's infallible so we gotta swallow it...

Even Scientologists believe in infallibile Dogma. Read up on it.
[/quote]

Bro, ends [u][b]never[/b][/u] justify the means... it is the means that justify the ends. War is sometimes just when the criteria are met... God never struck anyone dead for war, he struck Onan dead for removing himself and letting his seed fall.

Where is the common sense in going against God? Is it not wise to change what we want to match what God wants? That is what life is about, letting go of our desires and the way we think things should be and accept what God wills. You need to pick up a bible bro... pick it up and read it... it is medicine for the soul.

Let's figure.... St. Luke 10:16. St. Matt. 16:18-19. St. Matt 18:17. St. Matt. 28:18-20. St. John 14:16-18,26. 1 Tim. 3:15. 2 Tim. 3:14. 2 Peter 3:15-17.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[jasJis]

I'm not going against God. I'm choosing to not let the human part of the Church to lead me astry.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958615' date='Apr 23 2006, 11:13 PM']
I'm not going against God. I'm choosing to not let the human part of the Church to lead me astry.
[/quote]

If that was the case, you would be going to Mass.

Read St. John 6.

By not going to Mass, you have already let the human part of the Church lead you astray... your human part.

If you are not in communion with Rome, then you are astray.

When Christ said to the Apostles "He who reject you rejects me" - He said that to Judas too. He didn't say "as long as you are good".

Strawmen bro... all you keep coming with is strawmen. Please show me with Scripture where it is ok to leave the Church established by Christ.


[b]Eph. 4:1 [/b] I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,
[b]2 [/b] with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,
[b]3 [/b] striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
[b]4 [/b] 2 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
[b]5 [/b] one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
[b]6 [/b] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


If you are not of the one faith, then you are astray.

If you know that you are not in the Church established by Christ then you have no chance of salvation...

[b]Luke 10:16[/b] "[color="#FF0000"]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"

[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b] And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

[b]2 Peter 3:15 [/b]
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
[b]16 [/b] speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable [b]distort to their own [u]destruction[/u][/b], just as they do the other scriptures.
[b]17 [/b] Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.



Correct me with scripture for the justification of leaving the Church established by Christ or know that you are in grave error.


God Bless.

[size=4][b]St. Matt 16:19[/b] [color="#FF0000"] I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. [u][b]Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven[/b];[/u] and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]" [/size]

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='958541' date='Apr 23 2006, 08:35 PM']
BCP's are never acceptable. It is clear in Humanae Vitae. Not to mention, BCP's do not prevent conception, they prevent the baby from staying in the womb, therefor they kill babies.[/quote]
Please cite where HV calls these drugs intrinsically immoral. If they were intrinsically immoral, then even a post-menopausal woman couldn't use it to reduce the side-effects of menopause, even if she were sexually abstinent. You take the teaching too far and distort it. Intentions matter in moral theology. A hot tub could be immoral if it is used to temporarily sterilize the man. A condom could be moral if it is used to protect an injured finger from the elements. No evil adheres to the physical objects.
You are correct when you say that "things that are for birth control/contraception are NEVER ok to use" because that recognizes intent. Using radiation to battle cancer is licit, using the same regulation to directly simply kill a fetus is not licit. A woman practicing abstinence may morally use hormones for medical reasons without fear of immorality [b]because she is not using it for contraceptive reasons[/b].

There is no contraceptive act nor contraceptive intent, bro. Thus, no sin.

Note, if she were not chaste, or if she were married, it would be a different situation. But a contraceptive act requires not just contraception, but a marital act or at least the intention. There are literally thousands of drugs that could potentially kill a fetus if the mother took it. But, if a woman who is not even engaging in sexual activity takes it, there is no sin there.

That being said, I think that the current discussion has already been damaging because it has sown a great deal of confusion among the faithful, confusion that has been manipulated by anti-Church forces. The sooner the Vatican clarifies its teaching, the better.

[ironmonk]

[quote]
Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and [u]every marriage act [/u] (quilibet matrimonii usus) [u]must remain open to the transmission of life[/u].[12]

...

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

...

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means [b][u]which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given[/u] for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious[/b]. [/quote]



The use of BCP is a sin. BCP is not needed to cure any diesease. And as far as regulating cycles, irregular cycles do not kill people. BCP murders unborn babies.

BCP directly prevents conception THEREFORE it is a sin to use it. This doesn't have to do with intent, this has to do with it's function.

[Sirklawd]

sorry if this has been brought up already...

but i have a slightly different point to ask about.

If 1 person in a couple has AIDs...why in the WORLD would they want to have sex and risk having the other person (who they supposidly love) contract it?!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!?!!?! THIS IS NOT LOVE.

/roar

Edited April 24, 2006 by Sirklawd