Cardinal backs limited condom use

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='958929' date='Apr 24 2006, 10:31 AM']
The use of BCP is a sin.
SNIP
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.
[/quote]


Sorry IM, but you're wrong. Let's take a similar example. A woman who has miscarried may need to have a D&C to clear any remaining fetal tissue that may become necrotic. A D&C is also a means of abortion. In this case the woman is not having an abortion, she is preventing toxicity. The D&C is sinful when it is abortive, it is not when it is used in the case of miscarriages.

The taking of BCPs is not intrinsically evil. Contraception is intrinsically evil. The pills themselves are not.

Further, if there is no sex, the BCP is not preventing conception as there is no possibility of conception....

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='958929' date='Apr 24 2006, 08:31 AM']
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 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.
[/quote]

Actually, BCP can be used to regulate a woman's cycle so she can have a better chance of conceiving. Some BCPs actually make you more fertile when you get off them. It is a common treatment for a womans infertility. A responsible couple should abstain from unitive acts until she is off the pills.

[jasJis]

Brigitta,
The "Pill' is a regieme of hormonal treatment that changes the woman's natural cycle to prevent pregnancy and is occasionally an abortificant.
That's different from hormone thereapy, which may be similar to the the 'Pill". It's a matter of semantics that you and Monk are disagreeing with.

SirKlawd,
I see your quandry clearly. Let's say a married couple later has one partner contracting AIDS from a transplant or other medical accident.
I don't know what's right. To read Vitae, it acknowledges the fact sex is unitive for the couple who are joined as one soul. Parents are also responsible to raise and care for their children and to care for their partner.

As I'm thinking abot this, isn't this a burden of celibacy or even impotence that may happen for other medical reasons? For example, if instead of contracting Aids, you become a parapalegic and are rendered sexually impotent, does that make it okay for your wife to divorce you and re-marry so she can bear more children?

I don't really know. I'm asking the question.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958974' date='Apr 24 2006, 11:18 AM']
Brigitta,
The "Pill' is a regieme of hormonal treatment that changes the woman's natural cycle to prevent pregnancy and is occasionally an abortificant.
That's different from hormone thereapy, which may be similar to the the 'Pill". It's a matter of semantics that you and Monk are disagreeing with.
[/quote]

The various instantiations of the Pill, which are hormonal are sometimes used as hormone therapy. There are some meds which are strictly hormone therapy, but most often BCP is simply prescribed.

We are not disagreeing on semantics. If we were then IM would admit that there are morally legit uses of the pill.

He is saying any use of the pill is a sin, that is simply not true.


[quote name='jasJis' post='958974' date='Apr 24 2006, 11:18 AM']
As I'm thinking abot this, isn't this a burden of celibacy or even impotence that may happen for other medical reasons? For example, if instead of contracting Aids, you become a parapalegic and are rendered sexually impotent, does that make it okay for your wife to divorce you and re-marry so she can bear more children?

I don't really know. I'm asking the question.
[/quote]

Yes, if one partner has HIV/AIDS, then celibacy may be called for. There is also the recognition that the uninfected spouse may choose to continue sexual relations with the infected spouse, cognizant of the consequences of that action. The morality of such a choice would depend on children, etc., but I'm not sure that one could say in all cases that to choose to do so is wrong.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958974' date='Apr 24 2006, 10:18 AM']
SirKlawd,
I see your quandry clearly. Let's say a married couple later has one partner contracting AIDS from a transplant or other medical accident.
I don't know what's right. To read Vitae, it acknowledges the fact sex is unitive for the couple who are joined as one soul. Parents are also responsible to raise and care for their children and to care for their partner.

As I'm thinking abot this, isn't this a burden of celibacy or even impotence that may happen for other medical reasons? For example, if instead of contracting Aids, you become a parapalegic and are rendered sexually impotent, does that make it okay for your wife to divorce you and re-marry so she can bear more children?

I don't really know. I'm asking the question.
[/quote]

you are exactly right. where in the impotence situation, the couple could still have sex, in the hope that God graces them with a child anyway. but in terms of AIDs, it renders the act impossible. it becomes a needless risk of life. MORESO. it goes against the idea of love. anyone in love with someone else wouldnt allow themselves to be the cause of tormet/pain/death in that person.

im just like....what is wrrroong with people.?? YOU CANT EVEN STOP HAVING SEX EVEN IF YOU ARE GOING TO KILL THE ONE YOU LOVE? and this cardinal should realize this (amongst all the other things he should be realizing)


aaghghghgh

ps: sorry for caps, this whole thing is so stupid and shouldnt be so hard to figure out. makes me angry.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='958982' date='Apr 24 2006, 10:25 AM']
you are exactly right. where in the impotence situation, the couple could still have sex, in the hope that God graces them with a child anyway. but in terms of AIDs, it renders the act impossible. it becomes a needless risk of life. MORESO. it goes against the idea of love. anyone in love with someone else wouldnt allow themselves to be the cause of tormet/pain/death in that person.

im just like....what is wrrroong with people.?? YOU CANT EVEN STOP HAVING SEX EVEN IF YOU ARE GOING TO KILL THE ONE YOU LOVE? and this cardinal should realize this (amongst all the other things he should be realizing)
aaghghghgh

ps: sorry for caps, this whole thing is so stupid and shouldnt be so hard to figure out. makes me angry.
[/quote]Impotence means you physically can't have sex, not that you are sterile.

As far as what is wrrroong with people. You obviously haven't had regular sex with somebody you love. It is an intimacy and joining that transcends the physical and is spiritual joining as well. Not an easy thing to turn from. It is MUCH MORE than physical stimulation despite what you see on TV.

To Monk and Brigitta:

An excerpt from Envoy Magazine:

[quote]“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, October 10, 1983, 7).

A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.[/quote]

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958989' date='Apr 24 2006, 10:41 AM']
Impotence means you physically can't have sex, not that you are sterile.

As far as what is wrrroong with people. You obviously haven't had regular sex with somebody you love. It is an intimacy and joining that transcends the physical and is spiritual joining as well. Not an easy thing to turn from. It is MUCH MORE than physical stimulation despite what you see on TV.

To Monk and Brigitta:

An excerpt from Envoy Magazine:
[/quote]

my B to the first, i meant sterility. for the second. my point still stands, and is reinforced by the occurance of impotancy (for real this time). it is not impossible to not have sex in a marraige. not having sex does not destroy marraige.

seriously though, how can anyone who loves someone that much put their life at risk? the fact that it is spiritually joining is not justification. wouldnt God be more pleased if the two people, instead of worrying about having sex together paid attention to say..the rest of the world and tried to help battle sin and spread God's word?

last time i checked, God wanted us to mark smart decisions in life. like choosing to not spread a deadly disease, and not putting loved-ones in harms way for personal benifit (even if they are obliging)

Edited April 24, 2006 by Sirklawd

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958989' date='Apr 24 2006, 11:41 AM']
To Monk and Brigitta:

An excerpt from Envoy Magazine:“Contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as to be never, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, October 10, 1983, 7).

A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.
[/quote]

Right, and I agree with JPII, but that's not the question that IM and I are debating. He is saying that just taking the pill is sinful, that the pill itself is sinful. That is not the case. It is the sex while on the pill that is the issue. Thus, the quote above holds, but isn't relevant to the arguement at hand. If the pill is being used to treat a condition and the woman is abstinent then there is NO SIN in taking it. Capiche?

[jasJis]

Take a chill pill. It was addressed to both.

[Leao]

I've always wanted to know... Is the Catholic Church's position with regards to condoms to go so far as to lobby for legislation against shops selling condoms (i.e. as with abortion clinics) or does it stop at saying condoms are evil and leave it up to each man to decide for themselves whether to buy them or not. I'm curious, especially in the African continent where AIDs is so widespread.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Leao' post='959258' date='Apr 24 2006, 03:33 PM']
I've always wanted to know... Is the Catholic Church's position with regards to condoms to go so far as to lobby for legislation against shops selling condoms (i.e. as with abortion clinics) or does it stop at saying condoms are evil and leave it up to each man to decide for themselves whether to buy them or not. I'm curious, especially in the African continent where AIDs is so widespread.
[/quote]

Condoms are evil, and each man has the free will to choose to use an evil product or not.

Condoms do not protect people from AIDS. Condoms have holes, HIV can pass right through a condom. Think of a ping pong ball, now think of a basketball hoop... If HIV was the size of a ping pong ball, then the pores in a condom would be basketball hoops.

Places in Africa where condoms have been passed out in great numbers continues to see a rise in HIV. Places where the Catholic Church has a strong influence and preaches no sex unless one is married HIV is on the decline.

Condoms are big money in America, big money for the companies that make them and big money for the evil groups such a planned parenthood who make money from passing them out.


The only way that HIV will go away is if people obey God's law.

If you get a chance, please read this, pay special attention to sections 16-18...
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Guest Rick777]

This darn good cardinal....