Cardinal endorses condom use

[jasJis]

[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]If that's your point, I haven't recieved you message. If it's my failure, I apologize.

My posts have been about not categorically condeming the Cardinal and to look deeper into what he may have said and intended. The article title is very misleading. (Which I agree with Laudate on.)

The grow up comment is a pointed reference to the immature idea of what spouses can and can't effectively do within a relationship. Instead of just a black or white issue, one has to have the compassion to try and understand the pressures and choices the mother has to do. Did Maria Goretti have children she has to care for? Did Maria Goretti leave children behind to be cared for by a husband with no morals or who may die soon anyway because he has Aids? Has family and friends who may have helped died of aids or already taking care of other's children in oppressive poverty? Is it moral to sacrifice her children's lives for her perceived morality?

As I origianally commented, it's not a simple situation, nor does it have a simple answer. The article clearly takes the comments of the Cardinal out of context of what qualifications he may have intended. There is the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law. Don't forget, the Law once said to keep the Sabbath holy, one shouldn't work, but Jesus 'worked' when he plucked the grain and healed the blind.

Don't examine the Cardinal's comments for a violation of the Letter of the Law, but look to examine how he may intend to uphold the Spirit of the Law.

[Era Might]

[quote]Did Maria Goretti have children she has to care for? Did Maria Goretti leave children behind to be cared for by a husband with no morals or who may die soon anyway because he has Aids? [/quote]

No. But St. Thomas More did. And he did not sacrifice his eternity for temporal interests, even those as important as your family.

The Christian martyrs did not think "Gee, maybe I should just worship this false God over here, it would make it a lot easier on my family". They were faithful to God, and let him worry about everything else.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[beatty07]

This thread seems to have lost what I humbly suggest is the crucial point. The marital act gives up its very nature when the couple actively interferes against conception. In that sense, the marital act can't be done with a condom, ever. I don't mean it's immoral, I mean it's a contradiction in terms. Saying that "we're going to act out this gift of God and ourselves, but with a condom" is like saying "I'm free-climbing this cliff, but I'm using a rope." It's a contradiction! That's not freeclimbing! and that's not the marital act! It is sex taken outside the context determined by God, and that's immoral. Whether you're married or not.

I would submit that the marital act also loses its fundamental nature when it includes the statement "this will likely kill you sooner or later but hey I really really want to do it." So whether they use a condom or not, this couple is completely incapable of the marital act.

Given that neither option is authentic, I don't see a moral dilemma in whether to use a condom if you're going to have sex anyway. Put it on. Remember that you still might kill her.

But if you want to do the morally right thing, no sex. People with AIDS can't have sex. Period.

[jasJis]

Laudate,
I re-read the thread. My bad. You were clear.
Mea culpa.


Era Might,
I truely feel sorry for you that you can not empathize with the innocent victims in this case. Again, you miss the point.

Should you let your children starve before you steal to feed them? Thomas Moore was a public figure so the benefits of his sacrifice were much more apparent. Also, how old were his children? Did he make arrangements for their care? Did he have a spouse? We are responsible for our children and their spiritual welfare. Their lives are valuable too. God is merciful and just. At what point can we discern the limits of His mercy as we care for the children He has given us in a just manner? Our lives are precious to Him and are not to be thrown away easily.

[Era Might]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 10 2005, 12:33 PM']Era Might,
I truely feel sorry for you that you can not empathize with the innocent victims in this case.  Again, you miss the point.
[right][snapback]784811[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I truly feel sorry for you that you can sum up a person's empathy or lack thereof based on a few posts on the Internet.

I stand with the Pope, and all of his predecessors, on this. Should he decide to speak otherwise, I will listen attentively.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[jasJis]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 10 2005, 11:31 AM']This thread seems to have lost what I humbly suggest is the crucial point.  The marital act gives up its very nature when the couple actively interferes against conception.  In that sense, the marital act can't be done with a condom, ever.  I don't mean it's immoral, I mean it's a contradiction in terms.  Saying that "we're going to act out this gift of God and ourselves, but with a condom" is like saying "I'm free-climbing this cliff, but I'm using a rope."  It's a contradiction!  That's not freeclimbing!  and that's not the marital act!  It is sex taken outside the context determined by God, and that's immoral.  Whether you're married or not.

I would submit that the marital act also loses its fundamental nature when it includes the statement "this will likely kill you sooner or later but hey I really really want to do it."  So whether they use a condom or not, this couple is completely incapable of the marital act.

Given that neither option is authentic, I don't see a moral dilemma in whether to use a condom if you're going to have sex anyway.  Put it on.  Remember that you still might kill her.

But if you want to do the morally right thing, no sex.  People with AIDS can't have sex.  Period.
[right][snapback]784804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Basically, are you saying that when one of the persons has contracted AIDS and is forcing sex, it's no longer a marital act, it's a sin, and the other partner's insistence on using a condemn is protecting her and her children from the effects of the infected person's sin?

[jasJis]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 10 2005, 11:37 AM']I truly feel sorry for you that you can sum up a person's empathy or lack thereof based on a few posts on the Internet.

I stand with the Pope, and all of his predecessors, on this. Should he decide to speak otherwise, I will listen attentively.
[right][snapback]784814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I hope you will remain attentive when the Church speaks more clearly on this you find that you may have missed something.

[Era Might]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 10 2005, 12:39 PM']I hope you will remain attentive when the Church speaks more clearly on this you find that you may have missed something. 
[right][snapback]784816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto.

[Era Might]

For the record, and for the sake of documention in the thread, the Holy See has addressed this already:

[quote]Regarding the term "sexual health", "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive health", the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embraces the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which fosters the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal relationship in accordance with moral norms.

[b]The Holy See wishes to emphasize that, with regard to the use of condoms as a means of preventing HIV infection, it has in no way changed its moral position. [/b]

The Holy See regrets that not enough emphasis has been given to an understanding of the relationship between the promotion and protection of human rights based upon the recognition of the human dignity in which all human beings share, and the ability to be protected from the irresponsible behaviour of others. It is only through respect and mutual understanding that people can truly be empowered to protect themselves and others from HIV infection.

The Holy See also regrets that irresponsible, unsafe and high-risk or risky behaviour were not adequately discussed and addressed in preparing this Declaration.

Finally, [b]the Holy See continues to call attention to the undeniable fact that the only safe and completely reliable method of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV is abstinence before marriage and respect and mutual fidelity within marriage. The Holy see believes that this is and must always be the foundation of any discussion of prevention and support. [/b]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010627_declaration-aids_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretar...on-aids_en.html[/url][/quote]

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[jasJis]

[quote]The Holy See also regrets that irresponsible, unsafe and high-risk or risky behaviour were not adequately discussed and addressed in preparing this Declaration. [/quote]This is the part that needs your attention. Also, read [b]beatty's[/b] post. I don't think the Cardinal is saying that it's morally okay to use a condom in a normal marriage, but that in the cases in Africa, the relationship and marriage are already disordered and it may possibly be used to mitigate the effects of another's sins. It's like killing one is not okay, unless it is in self defense. Is it better to die in all cases? Since martyrs have died for their faith, does that mean killing in self defense is wrong?

[Era Might]

[quote]The Holy See also regrets that irresponsible, unsafe and high-risk or risky behaviour were not adequately discussed and addressed in preparing this Declaration. [/quote]

The Holy See regretted that it did not address these kinds of behavior. Why? Because people were drawing false conclusions that condoms were acceptable in these situations.

Its condemnation does not differentiate between "condom use in marriage" and "condom use in other situations". It opposes condom use "as a means of preventing HIV infection. ...it has in no way changed its moral position." If you are supporting condom use to prevent HIV infection, the Holy See has already indicated its opposition.

Nowhere does the Holy See suggest otherwise.

If someone wanted to raise the question, and petition the Holy See for a response, that would be great. But this has not been done. By all indications, the Apostolic See regards this as sinful.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Era Might

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:21 AM'] And the Pill is just hormones and NOT an abortificant if one is not having sex.
[right][snapback]782585[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And sometimes it's not an abortificant even if one does have sex while taking it. In fact, many forms of the pill are not because the prevent the ovulation that makes conception possible. (Conversation with STD councelor, Sept 11/2005)

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Nov 10 2005, 12:04 PM']And sometimes it's not an abortificant even if one does have sex while taking it. In fact, many forms of the pill are not because the prevent the ovulation that makes conception possible. (Conversation with STD councelor, Sept 11/2005)
[right][snapback]784840[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
All formulations of the pill contain an abortifacient agent as a backup for when ovulation occurs. The abortifacient prevents implantation of an fertilized egg.

Edited to add:

The formulations of the pill that are more powerful at preventing ovulation contain dangerous doses of estrogen, and so are not available in the U.S.

[beatty07]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 10 2005, 12:38 PM']Basically, are you saying that when one of the persons has contracted AIDS and is forcing sex, it's no longer a marital act, it's a sin, and the other partner's insistence on using a condemn is protecting her and her children from the effects of the infected person's sin?
[right][snapback]784815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually I hadn't thought of it exactly that way, but it's an intriguing line to take. At first glance, I think it holds up.

However, it's definitely not an easy fix. We have to consider that the woman may have other options. Like living alone and hoping to find some other way of providing for her children. Or, in the opinion of some, starving to death.

Era Might, thanx for digging up a relevant curial document. I'm afraid it's not terribly useful without some context....could you fill us in? That document says the Holy See hasn't changed its position. It seems there must be a previous document saying what the position is.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 10 2005, 01:50 PM']All formulations of the pill contain an abortifacient agent as a backup for when ovulation occurs. The abortifacient prevents implantation of an fertilized egg.

Edited to add:

The formulations of the pill that are more powerful at preventing ovulation contain dangerous doses of estrogen, and so are not available in the U.S.
[right][snapback]784937[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]This digresses from the topic of this thread, but I'm not sure that's true. I've tried to find medical evidence to that fact and couldn't. If you can provide some links? It was my understanding that there wasn't an 'abortificant' per se, but that the hormones were effectively an abortificant by forcing a menstral cycle and defeating the normal hormonal changes that allowed the fertilized egg to implant in the uterine wall or caused the menstral sloughing of the uterine wall after implantation. (I would appreciate some links via PM.)