Cardinal endorses condom use

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 01:48 PM']Exactly.  That's why I would let my children starve before I would steal food.
[right][snapback]783957[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wouldn't. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death when there were avenues of recourse available. And chances are, in such an extreme case, gaffling a box of twinkies from the kwiki-mart would not be sinful.

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 9 2005, 03:01 PM']I wouldn't. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death when there were avenues of recourse available. And chances are, in such an extreme case, gaffling a box of twinkies from the kwiki-mart would not be sinful.
[right][snapback]783976[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But isn't this an extreme case? If hubby caught AIDS and knows it, then mom has to risk her life and kiddies have to risk losing their mom so as to not use a rubber?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 02:05 PM']But isn't this an extreme case?  If hubby caught AIDS and knows it, then mom has to risk her life and kiddies have to risk losing their mom so as to not use a rubber?
[right][snapback]783981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
from me:
[quote]Sure, if a women was in a situation where she was being raped by an aids infected sex addict she would be doing no wrong by asking that he at least wear a condom. But this hardly means the Church should start supporting condoms.[/quote]

If there was a place where you had people who didn't have much food, and perhaps some were starving to death, the proposed solution wouldn't be to promote stealing and looting, it would be to promote initiatives which would bring food to the area; ideally long-term initiatives which would make the area self-sufficient, and these are generally the most difficult, but the most worthy. Similarly, I'm saying the emphasis should be on real solutions to the problem, not extreme and most unfortunate band-aid solutions which can never really heal the problem.

[RemnantRules]

[quote name='cappie' date='Nov 6 2005, 06:44 PM']
...Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who chairs the Pontifical Council for Health, believes the use of condoms to be acceptable when abstinence is not an option. Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, has said that opposition to condoms amounts to a death sentence for women who cannot insist on abstinence or fidelity.
[right][snapback]780518[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This part I didn't understand with "...When abstinence is not an option."
When is it not an option?

hmmm *prayers*

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='RemnantRules' date='Nov 9 2005, 02:14 PM']This part I didn't understand with "...When abstinence is not an option."
When is it not an option?

hmmm *prayers*
[right][snapback]783989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's the part that makes me think this is just propaganda. When a women is in a situation where she is forced to have sex, she is a rape victim. If that's what these clergymen were speaking of, I suspect their intentions have been distorted by this article.

[MichaelFilo]

I don't know. This seems like a legitmate problem. I'm prone to agreeing with Jasjis. While I agree, abstinence over contraception, intent is what makes a sin a sin (with other things, but it is neccessary to intend to sin).

The Church engages in the same logic. What is an indirect abortion? The intent is to help the woman, and the baby dies. Equally so, the intent is to reduce the chances of passing HIV to one's spouse but you get contraception going on. In both cases there is another option; dieing or abstaining. However, the Church doesn't require the other option for the former, so why the latter?

God bless,
Mikey

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='RemnantRules' date='Nov 9 2005, 03:14 PM']This part I didn't understand with "...When abstinence is not an option."
When is it not an option?

hmmm *prayers*
[right][snapback]783989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're kidding, right? How naive are you? A woman can't always say no to her husband.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:47 PM']You're kidding, right?  How naive are you?  A woman can't always say no to her husband.
[right][snapback]784070[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If the husband has HIV/AIDS it would be sinful to pass it on to his wife. You're calling someone else what you are yourself doing. A woman can indeed say no to her husband and as L_D said it is rape to force his wife to have sex. Sounds like you need to catch up on moral theology.

[Mrvoll]

He should be excomminated for this.

[tojo]

So lets say that there is a good Catholic woman who has a husband with HIV/AIDS. The husband insists on an active sexlife, and for various reasons (say extreme poverty) she can't get seperated from him. She has to have sex with him. Should she consider asking him to wear a condom in hopes of reducing her risk of getting HIV/AIDS? Would it make a moral difference whether or not she was a mother?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:57 PM']If the husband has HIV/AIDS it would be sinful to pass it on to his wife. You're calling someone else what you are yourself doing. A woman can indeed say no to her husband and as L_D said it is rape to force his wife to  have sex. Sounds like you need to catch up on moral theology.
[right][snapback]784085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So the wife and children are abandoned and the marital bond is broken.
Or do you expect a husband and wife to live in the same house for the rest of their lives and never touch each other?How long do you realistically expect a situation like that to last?

Edited November 11, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='tomasio127' date='Nov 9 2005, 05:08 PM']So lets say that there is a good Catholic woman who has a husband with HIV/AIDS. The husband insists on an active sexlife, and for various reasons (say extreme poverty) she can't get seperated from him. She has to have sex with him. Should she consider asking him to wear a condom in hopes of reducing her risk of getting HIV/AIDS? Would it make a moral difference whether or not she was a mother?
[right][snapback]784106[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]DING. DING. DING. DING.
So she says no. The husband says too bad. What's she going to do? Laudate and Remmnan, I'll assume you're not dumb. You are naive. The cardinal was only saying there are circumstances within a marriage where it may be neccessary. Or you could choose to let your kids starve before you would steal food for them.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:28 PM']DING.  DING.  DING.  DING.
So she says no.  The husband says too bad.  What's she going to do?  Laudate and Remmnan, I'll assume you're not dumb.  You are naive.    The cardinal was only saying there are circumstances within a marriage where it may be neccessary.  Or you could choose to let your kids starve before you would steal food for them.   
[right][snapback]784121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wouldn't that be considered marital rape? In many jurisdictions, I believe that is a crime.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:28 PM']DING.  DING.  DING.  DING.
So she says no.  The husband says too bad.  What's she going to do?  Laudate and Remmnan, I'll assume you're not dumb.  You are naive.    The cardinal was only saying there are circumstances within a marriage where it may be neccessary.  Or you could choose to let your kids starve before you would steal food for them.   
[right][snapback]784121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is asinine. If a woman says no to sex and the man forcibly insists, it is rape. Or perhaps if he emotionally abuses and manipulates/blackmails the woman to get sex, it is still rape.
Abstaining from sex, is hardly comparable to starving to death. sorry.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 9 2005, 04:09 PM']So the wife and children are abandoned and the marital bond is broken.
Or do you expect a husband and wife to live in the same house for the rest of their lives and never touch each other?Hoe long do you realistically expect a situation like that to last?
[right][snapback]784109[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If the man is a rapist or sleeps around, that's quite possible, and his own d*mn fault. But abstinence certainly does not mean that the marital bond is broken and the children are abandoned. There are countless tragedies that can occur in life that make the conjugal life impossible.
I've seen couples in which one of the spouses has become paralyzed, yet the marriage is not over. Or perhaps the husband lost his Don Johnson in the war or something.

The fact is, there is no 100% effective means of preventing the transmission of aids apart from abstinence, and it would be against charity, common sense, and the vows of marriage to coerce or pursue sexual activity with your spouse if you had contracted aids or any other sexually transmitted, terminal disease.

In the case where a woman was essentially forced to engage in sex with an aids infected man, sure, she might do well to insist that the monster at least have the courtesy to wear a condom so that she wouldn't acquire the immune deficiency syndrome.

And if you want to talk about the children, how is risking the mothers life serving the best interest of the children. Certainly the best course of action from this standpoint would also be abstinence.
I do wonder about the licitness of a vasectomy, assuming such a procedure would render the sexual transmission of aids impossible.