Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 01/13/2004 6:30:40 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; catholic; godfrieddanneels; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-384 next last
To: sinkspur; johnb2004
"This is so much nonsense to a woman who is expected to be submissive to her husband every time he asks for sex, and she knows he has the AIDS virus. Oh, and she has four other children she has to care for, and stay alive for.

And she can't use a condom to save her life?"

In case it had escaped your attention, women do not use condoms - men do.

If it is a relationship/culture where the man feels free to force himself on his wife against her wishes, then he is not going to be the type who would use a condom.

Ask any prostitute how difficult it is even in "enlightened western societies" to get men to wear condoms - most won't.
151 posted on 01/13/2004 1:31:50 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm not saying I'm against condoms if they're not used for birth control.

But you speak of death as if it's a bad thing that hasn't been defeated.

152 posted on 01/13/2004 1:39:21 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
Thanks again. Although your words would not advance certain people's agendas.
153 posted on 01/13/2004 1:39:49 PM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Good point. I believe the issue here has nothing to do with condoms. It is part of an agenda. Perhaps some of the bishops who promote sin do so because they believe in some type of false compassion, but most have an agenda.
154 posted on 01/13/2004 1:42:25 PM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
**All heresy begins below the belt.**

So true!
155 posted on 01/13/2004 1:48:55 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Changing social mores is a solution that condemns a certain number of these women to certain death.

So the answer is mortal sin over physical death? Another false choice.
156 posted on 01/13/2004 1:49:36 PM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The whole premise of your argument is a lie: condoms do not provide 100% protection against the spread of AIDS.

But you want to sell this hypothetical (?) family a lie.

157 posted on 01/13/2004 1:50:26 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dead
For Catholics and everyone else who may think this Cardinal represents the Magisterium, please check the following link to The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Key words: The Pope and those in communion with him. In my opinion this Cardinal is not in communion with either the Pope or the Magisterium, my opinion only.

Magisterium

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."


100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.


2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.


2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.



158 posted on 01/13/2004 1:54:08 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Y'know, Sinkspur, from a human point of view, I understand why people use condoms and other forms of birth control. I certainly understand the weakness of human nature, especially in regards to the sixth and ninth Commandments.

But, frankly, reading your posts remind me what is wrong with the Church today. You are an ordained deacon, and as such should be a representative of Jesus Christ. You should champion the position of Christ and the Church even when it's difficult. Instead, you look to secular solutions for problems of the soul. People need to hear the truth; eternity is at stake. If they can't hear it from an ordained representive of the Church of Christ, where can they hear it?

As Pius XI said in his encyclical on contraception, a confessor or churchman who tells someone that it's ok to practice contraception is a blind guide leading the blind, and both will fall off a precipice.

Would that we had strong churchmen who represented the truth again, and not wimps who don't even seem to believe that there is a supernatural element to religion at all.

159 posted on 01/13/2004 2:00:59 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
"but most have an agenda."

Yup - the name of it is apostasy!
160 posted on 01/13/2004 2:28:33 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Instead, you look to secular solutions for problems of the soul.

Problems of the SOUL? Trying to prevent the death of a mother is a problem of the soul? Tell her children that.

People need to hear the truth; eternity is at stake. If they can't hear it from an ordained representive of the Church of Christ, where can they hear it?

They need to hear the Truth applied to today's problems, and they need to see churchmen struggling with those problems. This is a tough situation, and to blithely dismiss it as a "problem of the soul" is, frankly, putting your head in the sand.

161 posted on 01/13/2004 2:33:51 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The whole premise of your argument is a lie: condoms do not provide 100% protection against the spread of AIDS. But you want to sell this hypothetical (?) family a lie.

Is 85% better than no protection, which is what she's got with nothing?

162 posted on 01/13/2004 2:35:12 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
But you speak of death as if it's a bad thing that hasn't been defeated.

So why not walk in front of a truck?

163 posted on 01/13/2004 2:37:52 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Changing social mores is a solution that condemns a certain number of these women to certain death.

A large number, from the statistics Catholic Family Association provided.

So the answer is mortal sin over physical death?

Is an act performed under duress a mortal sin?

164 posted on 01/13/2004 2:39:40 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
If what you suggest were actual circumstances, then the spouse would be perfectly free to use commensurate force to repel the aggressor. This force would not be morally evil. The use of a condom is always morally evil.

So, if necessary, she could kill him before using a condom?

165 posted on 01/13/2004 2:44:07 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Is 85% better than no protection, which is what she's got with nothing?

No no no. The question is, is 15% better than nothing?

166 posted on 01/13/2004 2:50:15 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
No no no. The question is, is 15% better than nothing?

Seems evident that it is. Unless you prefer she use a baseball bat.

167 posted on 01/13/2004 2:52:00 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The question is, is 15% chance of getting AIDS better than no chance of getting AIDS?

And if the sex is non-consensual, it is rape...a baseball bat would be preferable, yes.

168 posted on 01/13/2004 2:57:19 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The question is, is 15% chance of getting AIDS better than no chance of getting AIDS?

That's not the question here. She cannot abstain; he won't let her. So, is some protection better than none?

169 posted on 01/13/2004 2:59:06 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
She cannot abstain; he won't let her.

If she cannot choose to abstain, the sex is not consensual. Why are you in such a hurry to put a condom in a rapists hand?

170 posted on 01/13/2004 3:00:41 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If what you suggest were actual circumstances, then the spouse would be perfectly free to use commensurate force to repel the aggressor. This force would not be morally evil. The use of a condom is always morally evil.

So, if necessary, she could kill him before using a condom?

Commensurate force does not necessarily equal killing. You are being completely disingenuous and appear to be unable to engage in a thoughtful discussion on Christian morality where people can learn exactly what the Church teaches.

I have tried to be charitable, in spite of the admonitions of others. But they, apparently, are correct and you do seem to be incapable of discussing issues in a manner fitting and proper to your clerical state, let alone as a rational human being.

171 posted on 01/13/2004 3:01:21 PM PST by lrslattery (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam - http://slatts.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
Commensurate force does not necessarily equal killing. You are being completely disingenuous and appear to be unable to engage in a thoughtful discussion on Christian morality where people can learn exactly what the Church teaches.

Congratulations, you have crystallized sinkspur perfectly.

172 posted on 01/13/2004 3:04:16 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
Commensurate force does not necessarily equal killing.

If one is about to expose you to death, are you not able, if you have no other option, to protect your life?

You are being completely disingenuous and appear to be unable to engage in a thoughtful discussion on Christian morality where people can learn exactly what the Church teaches.

I'm trying to discuss what they Church teaches. You want to lecture me on what the Church teaches. I know what the Church teaches.

But they, apparently, are correct and you do seem to be incapable of discussing issues in a manner fitting and proper to your clerical state, let alone as a rational human being.

And you are, with all due respect, a bit sensitive, and apparently cannot engage in a give-and-take if it doesn't follow Robert's Rules of Order.

Good day.

173 posted on 01/13/2004 3:06:45 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; sinkspur
"...a baseball bat would be preferable, yes."

Might I suggest that a machete would be more "inculturated" and probably more scriptural as well:

Mt 18,8 "And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thy husband's member scandalizes thee, cut it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having a eunuch husband to enter into life, than having all the parts to be cast into hell fire."

From the Deacon Tantum ergo translation, copyright whatever.
174 posted on 01/13/2004 3:07:43 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm trying to discuss what they Church teaches. You want to lecture me on what the Church teaches. I know what the Church teaches.

Ah, sinky, you 'know' what the Church teaches. But do you accept what the Church teaches?

Do you accept the letter and the spirit of Humanae Vitae?

175 posted on 01/13/2004 3:08:24 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Ah, yes, the machete. Very good. You and I want to arm the woman in sinky's hypothetical so she can defend herself against rape, sinky want's to hand her a condom.

Thank you for the correction, btw. I doubt she has a Louisville Slugger on the wall in the rec room. LOL

176 posted on 01/13/2004 3:10:10 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Do you accept the letter and the spirit of Humanae Vitae?

I accept it and teach it.

177 posted on 01/13/2004 3:13:25 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Problems of the SOUL? Trying to prevent the death of a mother is a problem of the soul? Tell her children that.

If the issue of contraceptives isn't a "problem of the soul"-both of the individual, and society at large-then the Church shouldn't even be dealing with it at all. Using a contraceptive is, objectively speaking, always a mortal sin, so you're damn right it's a problem of the soul.

Instead of telling me to get my head out of the sand, maybe you'd better put yours in the clouds(ie, Heaven). For an ordained member of the Church, you don't seem to think about that very much(nor Hell, or grace, or purgatory, or the Blessed Mother, or the sufferings of Christ or...).

178 posted on 01/13/2004 3:26:06 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"I'm trying to discuss what they Church teaches."

Admittedly it was more recent for me than it was for you, but I wondered if you remembered laying your hand on a book of the holy Gospels and making the following oaths?:

Nicene Creed...

Furthermore I embrace and uphold each and every doctrine concerning faith and morals which the Church has taught and declared in solemn definition or by ordinary teaching authority - and in the sense in which the Church has proposed such doctrine - especially the teaching concerning the mystery of the Holy Church of Christ, the Sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

I, XXXXXXX have already presented to the Bishop my petition for ordination to the Diaconate. Now that the Ordination is near, I hereby testify and swear, after diligent consideration in the sight of God - Firstly, that in receiving this Order I am in no way driven by coercion or force or by any fear; but that I desire it eagerly and of my own accord, and wish for it with full freedom of will, since I know clearly and realise that I am truly called by God.

And I affirm that I am fully aware of all the duties, responsibilities etc. that are attached to this sacred Order; of my own free will I wish and intend to undertake these, and I am determined, with the help of God, to observe these most faithfully throughout my whole life.

Finally I sincerely promise that, in accord with the sacred Canons, I will comply most obediently with all that my Superiors require of me and with all that the Church's discipline demands; and that I am ready to give an example of virtue both in deed and in word, so that my undertaking of so great an office may indeed be worthy of reward from God.

This I promise; this I vow; this I swear; may God assist me, and these his holy Gospels which I touch with my hand.


179 posted on 01/13/2004 3:29:16 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
For an ordained member of the Church, you don't seem to think about that very much(nor Hell, or grace, or purgatory, or the Blessed Mother, or the sufferings of Christ or...).

Translation: think like me or you ain't much of a Catholic.

Got it.

180 posted on 01/13/2004 3:29:39 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: dead
bttfl
181 posted on 01/13/2004 3:36:24 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Yes.
182 posted on 01/13/2004 3:37:21 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Dear Petronski,

There are places in the world where a man who coerces his wife to have sex is not considered a rapist. Though we agree that it is little more than that, it doesn't help women in these societies.

Yes, there are places in the world where a wife cannot deny her husband's demands for sex, and if he forces her, either physically, or by denying her or her children the things necessary for subsistence, no one in authority will take her side. And should she successfully use physical force against him, she will be required to accept the consequences meted out to her by the society in which she lives.


sitetest
183 posted on 01/13/2004 3:45:03 PM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
think like me or you ain't much of a Catholic.

You are in a very small minority here, Sink.

Its obvious that the line should be, think like THE CHURCH or you ain't much of a Catholic, Sink.

184 posted on 01/13/2004 3:45:18 PM PST by Polycarp IV (http://www.cathfam.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Its obvious that the line should be, think like THE CHURCH or you ain't much of a Catholic, Sink.

Ah, but the Church's teaching develops, all the time. Some bishops are discussing a very relevant topic. I think it's worth a discussion, even if the teaching isn't adapted to the circumstance.

185 posted on 01/13/2004 3:50:12 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
You have been brainwashed!
186 posted on 01/13/2004 3:52:28 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

I dunno about your reasoning, Sinkspur. Promiscuity inside of marriage is never acceptable. How much you wanna make a bet that the husband who has HIV has slept with many women besides his wife?

Men that care about their wives don't routinely sleep with other women. Wives with husbands who routinely sleep with other women should consider whether any kind of sexual intimacy is in their best interest.

187 posted on 01/13/2004 4:04:07 PM PST by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Translation: think like me or you ain't much of a Catholic.

Got it.

Correction: think with the mind of the Church, or you aren't a Catholic at all.

188 posted on 01/13/2004 4:14:54 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Ah, but the Church's teaching develops, all the time.

But in the development of doctrine, a new understanding never contradicts an old one. So, to say that using contraceptives under certain circumstances is not a development of doctrine, but a corruption. John Henry Newman explains this in his classic work ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.

I know that Newman isn't as "relevant" as Hans Kung, Richard McBrien and Edward Schillibeck, but he does have some excellent insights from time to time.

189 posted on 01/13/2004 4:18:29 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
think about it. Married people get aids from either preexisting sexual activity or from blood. Now in the context of marital sex with a spouse with aids, would you be opposed to condom usuage.

You're being too reasonable.
Unfortunately there are some people who would prefer to see people die rather than ever use condoms.
Truly sad.

190 posted on 01/13/2004 4:20:01 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Apparently, you have no answer to this "hobson's choice." It's a reality, john, and it is highly likely that priests on the ground are telling these women to use condoms in order to save their lives!

Would Christ condemn these women to death?

Excellent question.

Some of these people remind me of the Pharisees who implied Jesus deserved the death penalty for healing on the Sabbath and for allowing His disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath.

The answer Jesus gave was that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The best example I can think to demonstrate this would be Paramedics (or spec.ambulance drivers).Just imagine them waiting at traffic lights and making their dying patients wait with them.

Why do you suppose they are allowed to disregard many traffic laws such speed limits?
Could it be because LAWS ARE MADE FOR PEOPLE and NOT the other way around?

Isn't it true that for Paramedic Teams to jeapordize the lives of those they are trying to help to observe such traffic laws would in fact be a gross and wicked distortion of the law?

The same goes for those who prefer to see people die than for anyone to use condoms.
I believe their concept of the law as well as the character of the God who gave it is sadly inverted.

191 posted on 01/13/2004 4:36:13 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
That's an interesting theory (double effect.)

Would get a lot more traction if it weren't Danneels, who specializes in getting under people's skin.
192 posted on 01/13/2004 4:37:08 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Oh please. We can always depend on you to uphold the radical position and attack traditional Church teaching. Your animus toward Humanae Vitae is showing, "deacon." Since when do we change Church teaching just to cater to some cultural oddity like wife beating for refusing sex?

When questioned on divorce, Jesus said that it was allowed under certain circumstances due the the hardness of man's heart.
But it was not God's will that people divorce from the beginning.

In otherwords God did not want people to be trapped in unbearable or terrible marriages, just because He intended marriage to be permanent in the beginning.

I think the idea that God would prefer people to die rather than use a condom takes legalism to grotesque extents.

193 posted on 01/13/2004 4:43:38 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Church doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue either

As you well know, Sinky, this matter should NEVER have risen to the level of BigMouth/NoFinesse Danneels.

Should there be a "double effect" in force here, it is between the spouse and her confessor, NOT Danneels, the Guardian of London, and the Vatican.

Particular circumstances call for particular judgments, (as is the case with allowing use of marriage for Episcopalian priest/converts.)

But Danneels is merely a Rembertine who found an interesting way to get press coverage.

194 posted on 01/13/2004 4:44:06 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
The principle of double effect cannot be used in this instance since every marital sexual act must be open to life.

I don't follow your logic as easily as you write it.

Please explain further.

195 posted on 01/13/2004 4:47:39 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Using a contraceptive is, objectively speaking, always a mortal sin, so you're damn right it's a problem of the soul.

Who says it's a mortal sin?
Jesus said there was only one unforgivable sin and that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, what's with swearing in a post about sin? I thought swearing was a sin?

196 posted on 01/13/2004 4:53:31 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Maybe I missed it, Brian--but I did not see in either the Vatican's article on the topic, nor in your explication, the specific case of a married couple, as is being discussed above.

197 posted on 01/13/2004 4:58:41 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cupcakes
Periodic abstinence is the solution, not deformation of the husband.

It used to be called "rhythm." Likelihood of death is a sufficiently grave reason for avoidance of pregnancy, but not by means so drastic as you outlined.
198 posted on 01/13/2004 5:03:31 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
If what you suggest were actual circumstances, then the spouse would be perfectly free to use commensurate force to repel the aggressor. This force would not be morally evil. The use of a condom is always morally evil.

AHA!!!!She could shoot the so-and-so.

199 posted on 01/13/2004 5:05:27 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
I did not see in either the Vatican's article on the topic, nor in your explication, the specific case of a married couple, as is being discussed above.

I tried to cover that in my other thread:

condoms have a one in five failure rate in preventing HIV transmission. If she has marital relations with him on any regular basis, with or without a condom, she is going to get HIV.

To counsel ANY marital relations, WITH OR WITHOUT condom use, is condemning the woman to certain exposure.

The Church can ONLY tell them to abstain. The Church cannot and will not tell them to have sex but use a condom, ever.

200 posted on 01/13/2004 5:11:04 PM PST by Polycarp IV (http://www.cathfam.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-384 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson