Belgian cardinal says condom may be "lesser evil"

[kateri05]

there is actually a thread about this right now (AGAIN ). so take it over there.

[kdewolf2]

Well, I don't really have anything else to say....I was more interested in the implications of Cardinal Danneels' remarks with, uh, regard to the relationship between Church and State, and the role of Catholics in a modern democracy. It seemed to me like, uh, his suggestion was that the wall of separation between Church and State is practically infinite, as far as the East is from the West, and faithful Catholics have no role in a modern democracy, other than to passively and docilely accept whatever the secular powers have decreed. I simply don't accept that, because, uh, if it holds true of marriage and sex, it will also hold true of war and peace, labor, social justice, etc.; we'd have no more real obligation to the poor, the weak, and the destitute, or the denizens of the occupation regime in Iraq and Afghanistan (in uniform or turban), than we have to the current party platform, if you see what I mean.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Myles' date='Mar 12 2006, 01:47 AM']Daneels says things like this all the time. As they say on the Sopranos 'forgetaboutit'. His era is already passing into history...
[right][snapback]909315[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
gosh, I hope so.

i have heard many things about this man, most of them negative. I am glad he didn't become Pope too.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Myles' date='Mar 12 2006, 01:47 AM']Daneels says things like this all the time. As they say on the Sopranos 'forgetaboutit'. His era is already passing into history...
[right][snapback]909315[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
actually, the correct spelling is "fuhgeddaboudit."

Hugh Grant in Mickey Blue Eyes had some trouble pronouncing it, with hilarious result.


ok, not 'hilarious' but mildly entertaining.

[morostheos]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Mar 13 2006, 12:52 AM']there is actually a thread about this right now (AGAIN ).  so take it over there.
[right][snapback]909888[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's aready been closed.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 11 2006, 08:27 AM']I'm sorry, since when did sex with a person carrying the plague become expected?  Yeah, it's very [b]sad [/b]that someone's wife or husband gets AIDS...primarily because it would no longer be healthy to sleep with them.  But get over it.  Sex or my health?  hmmmm.[right][snapback]908676[/snapback][/right][/quote]because nowadays, people have a 'right' to everything, didn't you know?

like a 'right' to kill their baby if they want to
like a 'right' to flaunt all of your body in the public eye
like a 'right' to sleep with whomever you please without any consequences
like a 'right' to 'marry' whomever you please, no matter of what gender

i could go on, but i'm hoping you caught my point

[kateri05]

have a right to have their personal life even tho they are teaching/leading by example high school students.

but i digress

[N/A Gone]

condoms as a way of not getting aids?

someone take a health class...it just cuts down the risk, it doesnt make it impossible. There is still fluid transfers.

plus, do you think the poor countries in africa that have aids in plague amounts have the money to buy trojans?

If you are so worried about Aids, how about preach your people to keep their pants on. Not to go against clear church teaching

[kateri05]

that is so true. i explain that to my kids who have been "condomized" that the holes in latex are like giant windows compared to the size of the HIV virus.

silly (and evil!) condom companies trying to make money off lies!

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Mar 12 2006, 02:04 PM']Don't overlook this last paragraph guys.  Sounds like the Vatican will be saying something definitive on this matter eventually.  It's a complex issue, and while my gut reaction is that it's not right, I'll wait to see what the Church says.
[right][snapback]909503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think you're right in that the Church hasn't said anything definitive, so in that sense, Danneels recommendations at the very least are inappropriately premature.

I think your gut reaction is correct, too... most likely I'm guessing that a review in the matter would result in a Church statement along the lines of a couple being called to chastity. Even condoms aren't fool proof.

[Sojourner]

I watched a fascinating documentary on AIDS in Swaziland last fall called "Dear Francis."

[url="http://www.chronicleproject.org/dearfrancis/press2iv.html"]Here's an interview with the directors.[/url]

Some questions they pose, which I think have some bearing on this conversation:
[quote]While hearing these tragic stories, you can’t help but throw your hands up in the air and say it’s hopeless.  I mean, how do you tell a kid to be abstinent when there’s a darn good chance of them getting raped?  How do you hope for moral change when kids are literally starving to death and the only currency they have is their body?  It’s been so hard to communicate hope in such dire realities.  We also realize that it’s hard to try to convince an audience that abstinence could be a viable approach to this problem.

It’s certainly not the only approach, but an important one.  But many people are repelled by that notion, assuming its just a right-wing Christian agenda being pushed on these people.  But the fact is that they’re just trying to save some lives and presenting an important ingredient to the solution.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='cappie' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:33 PM']Belgian cardinal says condom may be "lesser evil"

Brussels, Mar. 10 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels has said that the use of a condom might be a "lesser evil" when it could preserve someone from a deadly disease like AIDS.

In an interview with a Belgian journal, the cardinal said that it is legitimate for government to establish laws that differ from those of the Church on questions such as same-sex unions, prostituion, and contraception.

"I can accept that civil legislation determines the conditions for cohabitation and the rights of homosexual couples," Cardinal Danneels said. He went on to say that he was not willing to accept a civil union between members of the same sex as a marriage. He explained: "If the germ 'marriage' covers all forms of cohabitation-- between a man and woman the same as between man and man-- then the word no longer has any meaning." He suggested the use of another term to describe same-sex unions.

"It is normal that civil legislation, which I respect, will not be completely in accord with my ethical judgment," the Belgian prelate said. While the Church's teaching is clear-- that homosexuality is a disorder-- there is no cause for condemnation or discrimination, he said. Regarding the civil rights of homosexuals, he concluded, he is prepared to accept the government's laws.

Questioned on the use of condoms, Cardinal Danneels said that if an HIV-positive man wishes to have relations with his wife, "she should make him use a condom." Otherwise, he said, the couple might be "adding another sin: homicide." The cardinal reasoned: "A condom, when it is used for the protection of life, is not only a matter in the sexual domain." Cardinal Daneels made a similar statement in a television interview in January 2004. Other influential prelates have adopted similar positions, suggesting that condom use could be justified within marriage to prevent transmission of AIDS. In January 2005, Cardinal Georges Cottier, the theologian to the papal household, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that condom use "could be considered legitimate" under those restricted circumstances.

Although the Church clearly condemns the use of condoms as a means of contraception, there has been no definitive statement from the magisterium on the particular question of whether condom use can ever be justified. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is reportedly studying the question of whether condoms might be used within marriage to prevent disease.
[right][snapback]908536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Another sign of the dragon's tail


[quote][b]2370 [/b]Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is [u][b]intrinsically evil[/b][/u]:159


Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160[/quote]



Intrinsically evil.... intrinsically evil. No way to get around it.

In the very nature of the purpose for a condom is evil. All which is evil is from Satan. Nothing good will ever come from evil, the ends do not justify the means.




Also, condoms only protect people from two of the 63 STD's out there and they do not protect someone from HIV/AIDS.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 13 2006, 10:50 PM']Another sign of the dragon's tail

Intrinsically evil....  intrinsically evil. No way to get around it.

In the very nature of the purpose for a condom is evil. All which is evil is from Satan. Nothing good will ever come from evil, the ends do not justify the means.


Also, condoms only protect people from two of the 63 STD's out there and they do not protect someone from HIV/AIDS.
[right][snapback]910872[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But we have a right to get our freak on. How outdated to suggest we should keep it in our pants!

[kateri05]

how delightfully tasteful and delicate toledo

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:32 PM']how delightfully tasteful and delicate toledo

[right][snapback]911584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]