Cardinal favours condoms to stop AIDS (leading candidates to succeed Pope John Paul)

The Guardian via SMH ^ | January 14, 2004 | John Hooper in Rome and Andrew Osborn in Brussels

[dead]

A Belgian cardinal who is among the leading candidates to succeed Pope John Paul has broken the Catholic church's taboo on the use of condoms, declaring that, in certain circumstances, they should be used to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Godfried Danneels was careful to say he preferred abstinence as a means of prevention, but added that if someone who was HIV-positive did have sex, failing to use a condom would break the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill.

His comments are a further sign that the ailing Pope may be losing some grip on the more liberal wing of his immense church. Shortly after being named a "prince of the church" last September, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, of Scotland, said the ban on contraception should be debated, along with such issues as priestly celibacy and homosexual clergy.

In an interview with the Dutch Catholic broadcaster RKK, Cardinal Danneels said: "When someone is HIV-positive and his partner says, 'I want to have sexual relations with you', he doesn't have to do that . . . But when he does, he has to use a condom."

He added: "This comes down to protecting yourself in a preventive manner against a disease or death. [It] cannot be entirely morally judged in the same manner as a pure method of birth control."

The cardinal's argument emphasises the importance of human life, the very factor that Pope John Paul has long evinced as justification for a ban on all forms of contraception.

The Catholic church teaches that abstinence, including between married couples, is the only morally acceptable way to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Cardinal Danneels's views clash with those aired last year by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican's top adviser on family questions. The Colombian cardinal claimed that condoms could not halt HIV because it was small enough to pass through them. He said relying on them to prevent infection was like "betting on your own death".

Those remarks were condemned by, among others, the World Health Organisation, which said condoms reduced the risk of infection by 90 per cent.

In 2000, Cardinal Danneels caused consternation in the Vatican by suggesting that popes should not remain in office until they died but have limited terms.

Cardinal Danneels, 70, and Archbishop of Brussels and Mechelen,

has also called for flexibility and leniency for Catholics who divorce and then remarry without obtaining a church-sanctioned annulment, and has said he advocates women playing a larger role in the church.

[AsYouAre]

Either the article is wrong, or the cardinal is a f#cking moron -- the Sixth Commandment is as follows: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Neither. Depending on which 10 Commandment list you look at, traditionally the 6th commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." The Roman Catholic list I grew up with combines/omits the 2nd commandment and splits the (traditional) 10th commandment into 2 separate commandments. Thus making the 7th commandment the 6th commandment. I hope all that made sense. :-)

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

I think that part of the confusion is in who, precisely, commits the sin.

I remember reading once (if I recall correctly, the source was a document from the Vatican giving guidance to confessors on how to handle those who raise the issue of contraception within the context of the confessional), about contraception, that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, it is quite possible that the non-Catholic will refuse the Church's teaching regarding contraception. In this case, there are two issues: the right of even the non-Catholic spouse to the use of the marriage; and the immorality of contraception.

I remember reading that should the non-Catholic spouse absolutely insist on always and everywhere using a means of contraception, the Catholic spouse may not deny the use of marriage because of it. The Catholic spouse is obliged to raise the matter of the immorality of contraception with his or her spouse, and within the context of the marital relationship, try to persuade, over time, the non-Catholic spouse to accept the Church's teaching.

But the Catholic spouse did not sin by engaging in marital relations even though his or her spouse used contraceptive methods.

Even more so in a culture where men take the use of marriage often by force, it seems that the use of condoms by the man might be tolerated by the woman.


sitetest

[conservonator]

Amen. You are a voice of reason.<

I get nervous when mortal sin is advanced as a solution.

[BlackElk]

Ping for later

[Antoninus]

My question: Do you accept and support Humanae Vitae in its entirety?

"Deacon" sink's response: I'm sick of the ad hominems.

This, coming from the king of the ad hominem, should tell you all you need to know on this subject.

[johnb2004]

I think what you wrote is 100% true. That does not mean a spouse may use a condom because the other spouse is infected. Now, If the man insisted on using a condom and the woman agreed that is different than the woman disagreeing, but trying to persuade him over time. Make sense?

[johnb2004]

I hear you.

[lrslattery]

There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect.

The principle of double effect cannot be used in this instance since every marital sexual act must be open to life. The use of a condom, even when used to attempt to prevent a disease, stills impairs the marital act and is morally and intrinsically wrong.

This argument of lesser/greater evil cannot be applied in this case. I'm not sure what sort of consolation one could give married couples in this situation, except perhaps to suffer the consequences of engaging in the marital act with the fullness of love, or abstain - in effect, to accept and do the will of God.

[sinkspur]

There are other solutions, this one happens to be both the easiest and the most socially acceptable.

What's the next one up the scale? The next less easy and less socially acceptable? I'm serious.

[sinkspur]

I find it funny when so many couples say to me that they sterilize because they could not imagine God not wantimg them to be happy. I could use the same reasoning 1000 times a day to exert my will over Christ's will. Where is the submission to His will?

When you have to face death, get back to me.

[sitetest]

Dear johnb2004,

Yes, what you say makes sense, but I don't think that it takes the logic far enough.

A woman may say to her HIV + husband, "Husband, you are infected. You have been unfaithful, and have not done right by me. We ought to entirely abstain from relations."

And he might respond, "I will use a condom, dear wife, don't deny me."

And she continues, "No, that is a sin. We must abstain."

And he responds, "I will not abstain. I will have relations with you whether you cooperate or not. You are my wife, and I will have relations with you. But if you wish, I will use a condom."

She continue on, "I do not wish. I wish that you would not have any relations with me at all. But if you will not relent, then I have a choice between unwelcome sex with no protection against death, or unwelcome sex with a little protection against death. The sin is on your head, husband, whether you use the condom or not, but I prefer some small protection to none. I desire sex with you under neither circumstances, but will be less uncooperative if you use the condom."

I'm not sure that isn't morally licit. The wife isn't consenting to contraception. She is asking her husband, who is little more than a rapist, to reduce the likelihood of harm that he does to her.

That there are "marriages" like this is both undeniable and extremely regrettable.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

I remember reading that should the non-Catholic spouse absolutely insist on always and everywhere using a means of contraception, the Catholic spouse may not deny the use of marriage because of it.

I think you're correct about that. In this case, however, the woman is the one who is iniating the use of the contraceptive device, to protect herself from the non-consenting spouse.

[Polycarp IV]

I'm sick of the ad hominems.

You're the king of ad hominems among the Catholics here, so quit your own use of ad hominems or quit your pathetic whining.

[johnb2004]

Thank you. I value that insight.

[johnb2004]

Thank you. I value that insight.

[sinkspur]

That does not mean a spouse may use a condom because the other spouse is infected. Now, If the man insisted on using a condom and the woman agreed that is different than the woman disagreeing, but trying to persuade him over time. Make sense?

No, it doesn't.

[sinkspur]

That does not mean a spouse may use a condom because the other spouse is infected. Now, If the man insisted on using a condom and the woman agreed that is different than the woman disagreeing, but trying to persuade him over time. Make sense?

No, it doesn't.

[cajungirl]

well, it may not be the "right solution" for you but hey, you aren't the one who is going to die and leave your children as orphans. Easy to take a moral stand when someone else pays the priice. Pure moral vanity.

[sinkspur]

That does not mean a spouse may use a condom because the other spouse is infected. Now, If the man insisted on using a condom and the woman agreed that is different than the woman disagreeing, but trying to persuade him over time. Make sense?

No, it doesn't.

[johnb2004]

I really question your commitment to your faith. In fact, I find you disingenuous in many ways. I hope you take these comments in the spirit with which they are intended.