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.
There you go again. No one would rather see people die from AIDS except those who tell them to go ahead and have sex but use a condom.
Once again, you're completely wrong.
You've jumped into the middle of an exchange without reading the posts, and your responses and accusations are totally off the mark.
Let me fill you in on what you've missed;
___________________________
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.
9 posted on 01/13/2004 10:42:06 AM EST by cajungirl
To: cajungirl Yes. The act of contraception is intrinsically evil One may never commit an intrinsically evil act even if some limited good may come from it. 10 posted on 01/13/2004 11:10:17 AM EST by johnb2004 _____________________________
Read it!
Johnb2004 clearly says that he believes it is better for a wife not to commit the "intrinsically evil act" of condom use "even if some limited good may come from it." (preventing AIDS and death)
NOWHERE will you find a post of mine saying anything like the above statement.
Nowhere do I ever state that I prefer anybody to die rather than adhere to my moral principles.
Who the hell was I lecturing about sin?(Oops, I let out another one of those naughty words!).
You were lecturing sinkspur about sin.
I quote;
_________________________
"Using a contraceptive is, objectively speaking, always a mortal sin, so you're damn right it's a problem of the soul."
_________________________
178 posted on 01/13/2004 6:26:06 PM EST by Clintons a commie
You obviously prefer to assign positions you feel most comfortable attacking to posters you disagree with...rather than address what they ACTUALLY post.
Because YOU believe that condoms don't offer 100% protection against AIDS..you think that actually justifies you in accusing those who believe condoms protect people of "saying its better for them to die of AIDS. Period".
That is not only a lame argument, it is unreasonable and meanspirited. Not a very good testimony for Christ or the "CAtholic Family Association".
Being young as I am, and still in studies, I will make no claim to mastery of Catholic moral theology. However, it is obvious to me that the principle of double effect cannot apply in this case, and that your analogy to the case of ectopic pregnancy is incorrect.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, an abortion is not performed. Instead, the fallopian tube (which, as I understand, typically becomes infected in an ectopic pregnancy) is removed, and the fetus (which may already be dead) along with it. The death of the fetus is the secondary evil effect of the moral object, which is the prevention of the death of the mother through the removal of an infected fallopian tube.
In the case discussed in this thread, the primary action is the direct commission of a moral evil: the use of a contraceptive. St. Thomas, and all other theologians who argue for the soundness of the principle of double effect, make abundantly clear that an evil action may never be performed for the sake of a good effect. It, frankly, seems that you either misunderstand the principle of double effect, or you are intentionally misusing it.
I suppose I'll say one other thing: the word martyrdom came out of your e-mouth in a post quite a ways up on this thread... so how about it? Is it morally licit for a man or a woman, under the threat of death for being a Christian, to deny the faith in order not to be killed? By your reasoning, that which is "objectively" a mortal sin may be done in order to save a life. Either you believe that the use of a condom is not really a mortal sin, or you must, by your reasoning, accept that public denial of the faith to save one's life is morally acceptable.
But, as one other poster pointed out, this is a matter for the woman and her confessor, which is what I should have said in the first place. Much can be worked out in the internal forum.
You are guilty of same. You've done it on this thread as well as many others. I'm just throwing it back to your side of the court.
If you tell a woman whose spouse has AIDS that a condom will save her, you are condemning her to death. That's why Christians don't tell a woman whose spouse has AIDS that a condom will save her. They tell her that ANY sex can transmit AIDS, and a condom does not change that fact.
You are guilty of same. You've done it on this thread as well as many others. I'm just throwing it back to your side of the court.
You haven't thrown a single thing of substance back at me. All you've been able to manage is to copy and parrot statements I've already posted to you. Polly wanna a cracker?
The fact is, I was responding to a "Catholic" who told another poster he would prefer to a woman die from AIDS than commit the evil of having sex with a condom.
You accused me this, but can't find ANYTHING I've posted that compares to this statement.
You've had plenty of time to come up with something, ANYTHING I've posted..but have yet to do so.
You are a liar.
You might want to defend your good name and your statement from his willful misrepresentation.
ROFL! I posted the EXACT QUOTE from john2004 as well as the post he was responding to so there could be no mistake as to the context.
Your characterizing this as "grossly and deceitfully misrepresenting" by me is just too funny for words.
I would love to see his response.
I'll bet you anything he stands by his comments which I posted word for word. And not run from them as you have done.
Come back johnny. The so-called "CAtholic Family Association" wants to dispute that your post disagreed with wives of HIV+ men using condoms. Even though that is what you said.
Obviously "CAtholic Family Association" thinks such a statement tarnishes your "good name". LOL
Why do I need to speak to a priest? I know moral theology as well as many of our local diocesan priests, better than some. Also, many local priests are heterodox and not trustworthy. Do you feel I must consult a priest before offering an educated opinion on this cardinal's statements?
He DID NOT tell another poster he would prefer a woman die from AIDS than commit the evil of having sex with a condom.
No. You must fast and pray that the Lord will show you the truth.
He never said this. You are putting words in his mouth and twisting what he said. I prefer a woman never use a condom to prevent AIDS because it would be sinful. That DOES NOT mean I prefer her to die from AIDS.
It simply means I prefer her to abstain.
Stop putting words in others' mouths, son.
He HAS shown me the Truth. That's why I'm sharing it with those whose intellects are darkened by the "wisdom" of this world and false YOPIOS doctrines.
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.