Vatican 'may relax condom rules'

[dUSt]

[quote name='jasJis' post='959256' date='Apr 24 2006, 01:32 PM']
dUSt,
I believe you are sorely mistaken. What current teaching allows "certain types of birth control for mecical reasons."
[/quote]
I know about a case where a woman had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons. Was she to abstain from sex with her husband for the rest of her life?

[jasJis]

[quote name='dUSt' post='960140' date='Apr 25 2006, 08:35 AM']
I know about a case where a woman had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons. Was she to abstain from sex with her husband for the rest of her life?
[/quote]No. That wasn't birth control, it was to remove a diseased organ. I don't remember if I pasted this in an e-mail or another thread. It's an excerpt from an Envoy article or a Kreeft article. I'm not sure if I'm quoting exactly. It explains H.Vitae's thearaputic exception. 'If the proceedure or thearapy would be exactly the same for a single person totally abstaining from sex, it most likely is moral.'

It's a hard teaching. One of the many I struggle with.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jasJis

[Servant_of_Eve]

[quote name='dUSt' post='960140' date='Apr 25 2006, 10:35 AM']
I know about a case where a woman had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons. Was she to abstain from sex with her husband for the rest of her life?
[/quote]
There are a lot of exceptions that have been made
Having a hysterectomy is very different than using a condom
A hysterectomy is a permanant physical change that is done for medical reasons that causes the impossibility of conception
That is like saying, just because one of the two in a marriage is sterile, does that mean that they cannot have sex.
Obviously that is not the case
The issue on the table is
Condom use has been prohibited by the church since it has defined it as an intrinsic evil against the sancitity of marriage. There is an epidemic of aids in the global south. If one of the partners has aids, could the couple use condoms to prevent the other from getting the disease.

1. condoms fail 1 out of every three times which would result in the other partner getting infected anyway
2. if both partners are physically able to reproduce, then they must be open to life
3. The reprocussions of allowing this would be disasterous because slanted theologians and bishops and cardinals and priests would use this mutilate authentic catholic doctrine

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Servant_of_Eve' post='960158' date='Apr 25 2006, 08:48 AM']


1. condoms fail 1 out of every three times which would result in the other partner getting infected anyway

[/quote]

Source?

[quote]
[url="http://%5burl=http://aids.about.com/cs/safesex/a/condoms.htm"]http://aids.about.com/cs/safesex/a/condoms.htm[/url]][b]From [url="http://aids.about.com/cs/safesex/a/condoms.htm"]http://aids.about.com/cs/safesex/a/condoms.htm[/url] [/b][/url]
Laboratory studies show that latex condoms are effective barriers to HIV and other STDs. In addition, several studies provide compelling evidence that latex condoms are highly effective in protecting against HIV infection when used for every act of intercourse. This protection is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples."

In a 2-year study of discordant couples in Europe, among 124 couples who reported consistent use of latex condoms, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 121 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 (10%) of the uninfected partners became infected. In another study, among a group of 134 discordant couples who did not use condoms at all or did not use them consistently, 16 partners (12%) became infected. This contrasts markedly with infections occurring in only 3 partners (2%) of the 171 couples in this study who reported consistently using condoms over the 2-year period. Similarly, in a recent study among discordant couples in Haiti, 1 of 42 uninfected partners (2%) became infected with consistent condom use and 19 of 135 who used condoms inconsistently (14%) became infected.

Condoms are classified as medical devices and are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Every latex condom manufactured in the United States is tested for defects before it is packaged. During the manufacturing process, condoms are double-dipped in latex and tested electronically for holes.

Several studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2%. Most of the breakage and slippage likely is due to incorrect use rather than poor condom quality. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken latex, causing the condom to break. In addition, condoms can be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Studies also indicate that condoms slip off the penis in about 1-5% of acts of vaginal intercourse and slip down (but not off) about 3-13% of the time.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm"]http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm[/url] offers similar information citation from the studies and the CDC.




I am not arguing that condoms are in any way moral (although I will follow the Holy Father in what he says); I am not even arguing that my source is 100% correct but it is consistent with what I have always been taught. My point, however, is that we have to offer accurate information in this debate. What sources do you have for a 1/3 failure rate of condoms?

Edited April 25, 2006 by Pennypacker11

[Servant_of_Eve]

I found it on a abstinance website a while back, I don't know where it is
my statistic may not be perfect but there is a high percentage of condom failure

[url="http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html"]http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html[/url]
[url="http://www.afronets.org/archive/200207/msg00022.php"]http://www.afronets.org/archive/200207/msg00022.php[/url]
[url="http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/sex/misc/stats.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/sex/misc/stats.html[/url]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' post='960198' date='Apr 25 2006, 11:12 AM']
Source?
I am not arguing that condoms are in any way moral (although I will follow the Holy Father in what he says); I am not even arguing that my source is 100% correct but it is consistent with what I have always been taught. What sources do you have for a 1/3 failure rate of condoms?
[/quote]
I couldn't source my claim, sorry
But that isn't the issue
Condoms fail
If they were 100% effective that would be one thing
But they aren't
Which puts the partner at risk
And to reverse doctrine would allow people within the church to twist church teaching to bolster their own agenda. It would be complete chaos Edited April 25, 2006 by Servant_of_Eve

[Norseman82]

[quote name='jasJis' post='960113' date='Apr 25 2006, 09:12 AM']
Sorry, toledo. God didn't make us that way. We have free will and intellect. We are self responsible for what we do to ourselves and others. We will do harm to ourselves and others, but the Good New is we can do good and heal as well. God makes both possible and real. We are not simple machines or simple beings. We are creatures of depth and nuance and uniqueness with unique circumstances, unique flaws, unique talents, unique gifts. The gate is visible but the way is hard and the path is narrow.
[/quote]

I think the point that TJ was trying to get across is that people are looking for straight answers and not answers that only leave them more confused than they were originally.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='959539' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:35 PM']
you thought wrong.
[/quote]


Actually he's not completely wrong. It's kind of a catch 22. Condoms do on any one instance of relations decrease the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. They, however, give a false sense of security that such deseases will not be transmitted, thus increasing sexual relations, offsetting some or all of the preventive effects of the condom. Back in the 60's the incidence of sexually transmitted deseases in the sexually active was around 1 in 50 as I recall from a talk by Pam Stenzel. Today it is 1 in 2. We have condoms. We have birth control and both STD's and pregnancy are way up. Tell me they have helped curb the problems? Tell me they have aided us in our fight against these problems. You can't. And you can't say they have not increased the problem either. Not if you are objective.

I will definitely wait for the document. I believe it is all media hype and the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to a wise response on the matter. Pray for them.

Blessings

Edited April 25, 2006 by thessalonian

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Servant_of_Eve' post='960211' date='Apr 25 2006, 09:28 AM']

And to reverse doctrine would allow people within the church to twist church teaching to bolster their own agenda. It would be complete chaos
[/quote]

Yes, some will use this to twist the church teaching; but these people are already probably the ones who are in open dissent against the teaching already. I really doubt that, if the the news outlets are correct about the change, faithful Catholic couples without one partner infected with HIV will all of a sudden use this to rationalize an ability to use condoms. From what I understand, this change would be limited to 1) married couples with 2) an infected person. I doubt that those who already accept Church teaching are going to be thrown into chaos by this.

[thessalonian]

A little math to go with the above post. Let's say a couple (whether married or not) learns that one of the partners has Aides or another STD. Without a condomn being available the only way for them to be guaranteed to not transmit the desease to the other partner is to abstain. They will have a 100 % success ratio with this method. Now condoms come in the the picture. They are told they can prevent the passage of the virus by the use of the condom. Therefore it is a viable option in which they can still engage in sexual activity. Yet studies show that condoms are only 85% effective in preventing pregnancy. I.e. that 15% of the time semen is getting through in some fashion. So they engage in activity 10 times. What is the likelyhood that they have transmitted the virus on the average. 150%!!!!! if we take a cross section of all couples who use condoms.

No, ENNS, by the math he is not wrong for the purpose of not spreading Aides. It may in fact in the end be worse.

Blessings

[luciana]

First read the story from catholic news agency Here's one: [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43737"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43737[/url], not the bbc. BTW, you got to be a member to read the whole article, and or comment on it like I did there similar to here, btw.

Before the encyclical [b]Humanae Vitae[/b] came out, there was a whole lot of speculation on what it was going to say regarding brth control, and the media was using it to the liberal advantage, just like in this case..
Like Humanae Vitae, this study is probably to [b]restate[/b] the Church's teaching amid modern controversy.


Also read here:[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/morality.html"] <a href="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/morality.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Fa...7/morality.html[/url]</a>

for this quote on why contraception will not change for this case according to Benedict XVI when he ws Cardinal Ratzinger (words bolded by me):

[quote]Tolerating condoms to prevent AIDS amounts to letting the camel park his proverbial nose in the tent; soon the rest of the beast will take up permanent residence inside and he will likely bring his friends along, too. Cardinal Ratzinger had it right when, in 1988, he responded to a point about condoms in the U.S. bishops' statement, The Many Faces of AIDS. He noted that allowing condoms to prevent AIDS is "a kind of behavior which would result in at least the facilitation of evil," not merely its toleration.

Catholic moral teaching sometimes permits a person to tolerate a lesser evil that one cannot eradicate without causing a greater one. [b]But, argued Cardinal Ratzinger, promoting condom use as a way of preventing AIDS does not simply tolerate an existing evil, it facilitates evil. That a Christian may not do, even for a good end, as Pope John Paul II reminds us in Veritatis splendor.[/b][/quote]

Also, btw, the previous Cardinall Martini and Darneels comments are their comments who are coming at it from a liberal stance, so ofcourse they are quoted and requoted by the media.

Don't Be afraid ! (Jesus and JPII) Don't listen to the wishful thinking and predicting of the media, and like Thessalonian said pray for B16 and the Church.

[cappie]

[quote name='TheConvertKid' post='960106' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:02 AM']
Saw it on NBC Nightly News. This is not a hoax.

I just know that some Catholics are going to twist this around and use this as justification to use condoms for "recreational purposes". It's only a matter of time.
[/quote]


Vatican Clarifies Its Condom-AIDS Study
For Internal Dialogue, Explains Cardinal Lozano Barragán

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See is preparing a "study" for internal dialogue, not a "document," on condoms and AIDS, says the president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, clarifying information published recently in the media, told ZENIT that this "profound study," requested by Benedict XVI, takes into account "both the scientific and technical aspects linked to the condom, as well as the moral implications in all their amplitude."

The Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers does not have the "competency to present a document to the Church. It is the Holy Father who has the competency or whoever he entrusts" with the task, the cardinal explained.

"In the last analysis this Vatican dicastery is not a doctrinal dicastery; this dicastery does not produce documents," he continued. "Herein lies the error of some information. We are a pastoral dicastery to carry out the Church's presence with the sick, in particular, those who suffer from the AIDS virus.

"Within this competency, we have our medical, technical and theological consultors and we are doing this study with them."

"We are in the first stage," the 73-year-old cardinal said. "This study is promoting a dialogue only at the level of the Holy See and it is not finished yet. Once it's finished, will there be a document? There might or might not be. To issue a document is not proper to this dicastery. That it is or is not issued by another dicastery depends on the Holy Father."

'04 foundation

The question the study addresses in particular is that of couples united in sacramental marriage, in which one of the spouses suffers from AIDS.

The discussion as to whether in such cases it would be licit to use a condom to save a life arose with the idea of the establishment of the Good Samaritan Foundation in September 2004. The Vatican-headquartered group aims to financially support the neediest sick, in particular those suffering from AIDS.

"In that process the discussion arose over the action of condoms in cases of married couples with AIDS," Cardinal Lozano Barragán said. "This discussion took place in John Paul II's last months of life, but John Paul II was very, very conscious of these problems. I know it through personal experience, because I had access to him in this respect."

"When the Holy Father Benedict XVI did me the favor of granting me an audience he told me that it would be appropriate to talk about this subject" among competent persons of the Holy See, the cardinal said. "It is a question of examining scientifically and morally how things are."

The study responds first to the question: What guarantee exists to prevent infection with AIDS through a condom? A second question is: Is it morally licit to use a "technical" condom?

To respond to these two questions, the cardinal explained, "there are two important principles, which are the Sixth Commandment that says, 'You will not commit impure acts,' and the Fifth, which must always be taken into account: 'You shall not kill.'"

General principles

"Both commandments must be taken into account," he said. "But these are very general principles. The study is being done reflecting on the different opinions of experts on the application of both principles to the concrete case of the condom in these specific circumstances.

"The theologians give their opinions. We, as a council, cannot say, 'I adopt this opinion.' We contribute the existing opinions to the dialogue that, on the other hand, are known."

Cardinal Lozano Barragán added: "The Holy Father will see the results of this dialogue and with the help he has from the Holy Spirit must tell us, if he wishes, where we must go. He might also think that it isn't the appropriate moment to pronounce himself.

"I repeat: What I think and my commitment is simply to be an echo of what the Pope says. I don't have a personal opinion as head of this dicastery. My official opinion is to reproduce exactly to the letter what the Pope says."

ZE06042505

[luciana]

Like Cappie quoted above it's a study not a document., and don't rely on NBC or BBC for sources. LOL

Also, from my post which got bumped right to page 2 by cappies right after mine :

Before the [b]encyclical Humanae Vitae [/b]came out, there was a whole lot of speculation on what it was going to say regarding brth control, and the media was using it to the liberal advantage, just like in this case..
Like Humanae Vitae, this study is probably to restate the Church's teaching amid modern controversy.


Also read here: h[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/morality.html"]ttp://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/morality.html[/url]
for this quote on why contraception will not change for this case according to Benedict XVI when he ws Cardinal Ratzinger (words bolded by me):

QUOTE
Tolerating condoms to prevent AIDS amounts to letting the camel park his proverbial nose in the tent; soon the rest of the beast will take up permanent residence inside and he will likely bring his friends along, too. Cardinal Ratzinger had it right when, in 1988, he responded to a point about condoms in the U.S. bishops' statement, The Many Faces of AIDS. He noted that allowing condoms to prevent AIDS is "a kind of behavior which would result in at least the facilitation of evil," not merely its toleration.

Catholic moral teaching sometimes permits a person to tolerate a lesser evil that one cannot eradicate without causing a greater one. [b]But, argued Cardinal Ratzinger, promoting condom use as a way of preventing AIDS does not simply tolerate an existing evil, it facilitates evil. That a Christian may not do, even for a good end, as Pope John Paul II reminds us in Veritatis splendor.[/b]

[Brother Adam]

I'm glad to see the clarification.

"Stop. But if you are not going to, at least do this." - this is where where the whole thing falls short. To say such is immoral.

As far as what dUSt is saying, you can abstain, there is nothing wrong with it to prevent the transmittion of disease. Using evil to avoid the transmission of disease for sexual pleasure doesn't work.

[musturde]

[quote name='Servant_of_Eve' post='959247' date='Apr 24 2006, 02:26 PM']
The church cannot allow a sin to suddenly become not a sin

[/quote]

No, but they can clarify rules for it. Maybe the Church would allow it in extreme circumstances... like for instance ,someone holding a gun to the Pope's head unless you have sex with your barren wife who has aids (who you can't have sex with because of this) with a condom. Perhaps under these circumstances, the Church would allow it.

[St. Gerard]

No need for worry. Holy Mother Church will never change Its position on this issue.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='jasJis' post='960113' date='Apr 25 2006, 10:12 AM']
Sorry, toledo. God didn't make us that way. We have free will and intellect. We are self responsible for what we do to ourselves and others. We will do harm to ourselves and others, but the Good New is we can do good and heal as well. God makes both possible and real. We are not simple machines or simple beings. We are creatures of depth and nuance and uniqueness with unique circumstances, unique flaws, unique talents, unique gifts. The gate is visible but the way is hard and the path is narrow.
[/quote]
[quote]
I think the point that TJ was trying to get across is that people are looking for straight answers and not answers that only leave them more confused than they were originally.[/quote]



We are simpler beings than you think. Clear direction works for those who don't over-analyze. Likewise I feel that nuance confuses laypeople who have the theological brains of...sheep.