Cardinal endorses condom use

[Norseman82]

Is using [i]deadly[/i] force to defend one's self against a rapist considered to be self-defense (from a [i]legal[/i] standpoint)?

[MichaelFilo]

All I have to say, is that this is quite like the indirect abortion thing like I stated already.

Also, it is absurd to think that a married couple will not enter into the maritial act.

"A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife[b]. Do not deprive each otherexcept perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer[/b], , but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." (1 Cor 7: 4-5)

So, I ask, if the intent of the use of the condom is to not pass on HIV, is it immoral as its purpose is not to stop procreation, but that it accidentally does so, is it wrong? We seem to think through some other morals in this manner, so why not condoms?

God bless,
Mikey

Edited November 9, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[qfnol31]

There are two parts to the act and if you take away one, then can you take the other away licitly? If the wife does not want to have sex then the unitative aspect is gone. Can you therefore also take away the procreative?

I think that's the argument about the nuns who are raped in such places as these.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Nov 9 2005, 06:58 PM']All I have to say, is that this is quite like the indirect abortion thing like I stated already.

Also, it is absurd to think that a married couple will not enter into the maritial act.

"A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife[b]. Do not deprive each otherexcept perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer[/b], , but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." (1 Cor 7: 4-5)

So, I ask, if the intent of the use of the condom is to not pass on HIV, is it immoral as its purpose is not to stop procreation, but that it accidentally does so, is it wrong? We seem to think through some other morals in this manner, so why not condoms?

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]784269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That verse is talking about a normal marital situation, not one in which sexual intercourse is a danger to your spouses life.
Condoms are messy and not 100% effective even when used properly. And there is a categorical difference with indirect abortion, I don't think the analogy applies like you think it does. That is a case of saving one persons life and allowing another person to die, rather than allowing both persons to die. This is a case of allowing a person to live in health, verses risking their life needlessly.
I'm sorry, but people with aids should not have sex. And people married to persons with aids would be most reckless and foolish to pursue a sex life with an aids infected person. It would be sinful if you ask me.
I agree such a situation would be a great tragedy, and I wish such people could live a normal conjugal life, but shtuff happens and life smells of elderberries sometimes.

[Socrates]

[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]
You know, like, when you just gotta do it!

[jasJis]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Nov 9 2005, 06:16 PM']Is using [i]deadly[/i] force to defend one's self against a rapist considered to be self-defense (from a [i]legal[/i] standpoint)?
[right][snapback]784250[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Good question. But in this case, it's not defending against rape, its defending against a deadly disease. And it's not 'deadly force'. A condom is not an abortificant, but a fertilization preventative.

I'm not sure how many of you who seemed to not understand that one spouse cannot just say 'no to all sex' in a marriage and still stay married. Sex in a marriage is much more than physical stimulation or statisfaction. It is emotionally necessary, etc. That's different than living with an impotent or a person who is physically unable to perform the sexual act.

The point I was raising was to not just jump down the Cardinal's throat. I don't think the article gave a very clear idea of his parameters, but his insistence that it would have to be within a married relationship clues us that there are qualifications. I think that the Cardinal may be trying to cite extreme cases that might not be that rare in Africa right now. I think the article kind of was ambiguous so it could make a sensational story and sell papers or advertising space. That is the main goal of media, don't forget.

Obviously, in the example provided by the 'troll', the husband's sin has corrupted the marriage and the marriage act. The poor woman now has to decide how best to care for the children by keeping herself alive. Us Americans find it very difficult to imagine the oppressive poverty that exists in Africa and how few options they have to feed and clothe themselves and their family. Just as it's unlikely that anyone in America can ever justify stealing to feed their family with all the charities available, it's just as unlikely there are close to the food charities there.
[hijack](Please, contribute to Catholic Relief Services! [\hijack].

I think it's a complicated moral issue that serious theologians have to discuss. Also, the conditions there are extreme, and not likely to apply to what most poor people experince in America or Europe.

[RemnantRules]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 9 2005, 03:47 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]

Why can't a woman so no to her husband when it comes to sex? If she knows that it can possibly bring harm to herself then why doesn't she have the right to say no? Your telling me that if your mother said no I don't want to have sex to your father, your telling me your father doesn't have to listen to what she has to say and force her to have sex?

Now back to the debate topic...
What is a condom also referred to as?
It's also called the "barrier" method. It's putting a barrier between you and your spouse in this case. Giving you a false sense of unity and a false sense of saftey that isn't totally there.

I would go with Qfnol on this one. There has to be two things when having sex or it's not good.
It has to be for the unity of a couple and open to pro-creating. It must have BOTH of those things.

[RemnantRules]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 9 2005, 08:03 PM']
I'm not sure how many of you who seemed to not understand that one spouse cannot just say 'no to all sex' in a marriage and still stay married.  Sex in a marriage is much more than physical stimulation or statisfaction.  It is emotionally necessary, etc.  That's different than living with an impotent or a person who is physically unable to perform the sexual act.

[right][snapback]784308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Mary and Joseph did it. :
Just giving ya hard time. Much love man! much love!

[Era Might]

Not only [i]can[/i] a couple abstain perpetually, but sometimes they [i]must[/i]. When one spouse is gravely ill, or perhaps in a coma, or maybe they have lost all function in their body, the other spouse is not thereby justified to pleasure himself or go seek out someone else. He must accept the fact that normal marital relations are not possible, and deal with it. If he is so devoured by his flesh that he cannot control himself, there's a greater problem he needs to deal with.

Here's an excellent, to the point, article by Jeff Culbreath. He gets to the heart of what marriage is:

[url="http://www.daveblackonline.com/what_marriage_really_is.htm"]http://www.daveblackonline.com/what_marriage_really_is.htm[/url]

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[jasJis]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 10 2005, 10:08 AM']Not only [i]can[/i] a couple abstain perpetually, but sometimes they [i]must[/i]. When one spouse is gravely ill, or perhaps in a coma, or maybe they have lost all function in their body, the other spouse is not thereby justified to pleasure himself or go seek out someone else. He must accept the fact that normal marital relations are not possible, and deal with it. If he is so devoured by his flesh that he cannot control himself, there's a greater problem he needs to deal with.

Here's an excellent, to the point, article by Jeff Culbreath. He gets to the heart of what marriage is:

[url="http://www.daveblackonline.com/what_marriage_really_is.htm"]http://www.daveblackonline.com/what_marriage_really_is.htm[/url]
[right][snapback]784742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Come on now. Grow up. You are assuming both of the spouses are willing to do the 'right' thing. A woman may say "no" and the husband should heed that, but if he's already sleeping around and got aids, you should have an idea of his moral fiber. It's not a simple black and white answer, that's ludicrous. Also, do a little reading about the culture there in Africa. It's not that supportive of monogmay and fidelity.

To properly evaluate what this Cardinal has said, you have to look deeply into the circumstances. So let's say the man is devoured by his flesh and can't control himself. What's the woman to do in the situation she finds herself? What realistic choices does she have?

[Era Might]

Ok. The couple is not willing to do the right thing. The answer is to try and get them to do the right thing.

Children are going to smoke cigarettes. They aren't "willing to do the right thing". The answer is not to hand out Menthol Lites, so they don't smoke regular Menthols. The answer is to try and get them not to smoke. If they do, well, they will have to deal with the consequences. But you have not corrupted yourself in the process.

[quote]What's the woman to do in the situation she finds herself? What realistic choices does she have?[/quote]

What did St. Maria Goretti do?

He who saves his life shall lose it. He who loses his life, for my sake, shall save it.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[Sojourner]

Aaah, the luxurious days of youth, when everything can be black and white ...

[qfnol31]

[quote]Come on now. Grow up.[/quote]

This is the second time I've seen this this week. Ya'll (whoever says this) have got to cut out cutting down everyone.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I doubt most people have read my posts, even some people who have responded to them, but in summary my main issue is with the title of the article: "Cardinal endorses condom use for married couples".
There is a huge difference between an "endoresement" of rubbers, and admitting that a women who is forced to have sex (aka "has no choice") with an aids infected man would be doing no wrong in suggesting he wear a condom. I take it even further and think it would be licit to wear a wet suit and plastic underpants during intercourse in such a case. But this is something far different from an endorsement of condoms.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 10 2005, 11:04 AM']I doubt most people have read my posts, even some people who have responded to them, but in summary my main issue is with the title of the article: "Cardinal endorses condom use for married couples".
There is a huge difference between admitting that a women who is forced to have sex with an aids infected man would be doing no wrong in suggesting he wear a condom, and an "endoresement" of rubbers. I take it even further and think it would be licit to wear a wet suit and plastic underpants during intercourse in such a case. But this is something far different from an endorsement of condoms.
[right][snapback]784781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree. The headline was poorly chosen.