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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-384 next last
To: sinkspur
If these men are that evil then much greater intercession is needed than giving out condoms.
51 posted on 01/13/2004 10:33:21 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
I offer abstaining from sex.

That's unresponsive. The bishops in Africa are struggling with this, like no other clergymen on earth.

Admonishing couples to avoid sex when you know that the man has no intention of doing so is simply avoiding the issue.

Since the woman will be exposed to death, which will deprive her of life and her four other children of a mother, it seems that the Church ought to be able to offer a little more guidance than "well, unite your sufferings to those of Christ."

52 posted on 01/13/2004 10:34:33 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
you offer abstention. Since when did you get to make what are God's offers. I prefer to think that God offered a condom to protect this woman. That seems a whole lot more loving. But who am I to know? And who are you to know? You sir are not religious at heart, you are cold and presumptious to think that you know God.
53 posted on 01/13/2004 10:34:35 AM PST by cajungirl (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
John, you have no answer for this woman, do you? (Platitudes are not an answer).

Your "answer" is to tell her it's ok to commit a mortal sin. Some answer. The wages of sin are death.

The only correct answer to this problem is abstinence and cultural change. Any other "answer", such as the one you propose, will result in more death, and more suffering in both the short and long term.

This whole issue is like the "cases of rape and incest" arguments for abortion. The proponents create "worst case scenarios" to get the nose of the camel under the tent. We know what happens from there.
54 posted on 01/13/2004 10:35:58 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You are the foolish one. You can't even follow moral reasoning. 9/11 was an evil act. Forcing sex on someone is an evil act. Both need to be addressed. Condoms do not address the evil act of the doer. The wife needs to leave if she would be raped.
55 posted on 01/13/2004 10:37:05 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
I chose life. Eternal life.
56 posted on 01/13/2004 10:37:59 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
"and has said he advocates women playing a larger role in the church."


1 Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (NIV)
57 posted on 01/13/2004 10:38:27 AM PST by Fast 1975 (Let me know if you want removed from this list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
God does not offer evil to His children. You are confused.
58 posted on 01/13/2004 10:39:07 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
The traditional way the Church handled this type of situation was to strongly condemn sinner (in this case, the wife-beater), not by altering doctrine.

Like others here, you just wash your hands of the problem.

So, a guy who's not Catholic or even Christian is gonna CARE that you condemn him?

No thought or concern for the woman here? She's the one begging for some help.

59 posted on 01/13/2004 10:39:23 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dead
It's okay. He'll never be Pope now -- the Holy Spirit won't allow it. If he was to become Pope he'd be teaching heresy, and as the Pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals, he will never be allowed to succeed JPII.
60 posted on 01/13/2004 10:40:12 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
I chose life. Eternal life.

Bravo! Isn't it amazing the lengths certain "Catholics" will go to in order to undermine Humanae Vitae?
61 posted on 01/13/2004 10:40:17 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
Perhaps I am too subtle for you. ABSTAIN!
62 posted on 01/13/2004 10:41:38 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dead
I've got to slow down when reading titles. I read this as Cardinal flavors condoms to stop AIDS and expected a completely different article.
63 posted on 01/13/2004 10:41:59 AM PST by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Wash hands? Give me a break. You are so secular. Passing out condoms will save her life? Hardly. How about sweeping cultural changes and a committment to Christ. There is a radical idea.
64 posted on 01/13/2004 10:44:20 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Your "answer" is to tell her it's ok to commit a mortal sin.

Objectively, you're right. However, if her motivation for using the condom is to protect her life, that is a mitigating factor.

The only correct answer to this problem is abstinence and cultural change. Any other "answer", such as the one you propose, will result in more death, and more suffering in both the short and long term.

How? What do you do for the women who are exposed while we're waiting for this "cultural change" to take place? Just tell 'em "tough luck"?

This whole issue is like the "cases of rape and incest" arguments for abortion.

Nope. Abortion involves intentionally taking the life of a fetus. Using a condom, in this situation, protects the life of a mother.

To think that protecting women exposed to AIDS will somehow result in the collapse of the Church's teaching on contraception leads me to wonder how strong you think that teaching is in the first place. I think it's strong enough to admit of an exception like this.

65 posted on 01/13/2004 10:46:02 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
There agenda is transparent
66 posted on 01/13/2004 10:48:49 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Like others here, you just wash your hands of the problem.

Stop it. We know what your agenda is here and it has nothing to do with saving these poor women from spousal abuse for refusing intercourse. It has everything to do with your simmering animus toward Humanae Vitae. That's all this is and for you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

So, a guy who's not Catholic or even Christian is gonna CARE that you condemn him?

Do some reading as to how missionaries, priests, and bishops have traditionally dealt with unChristian sexual and cultural mores, then get back to me, ok? Hint: there was never a question of changing Christian moral teaching to accomodate cultural oddities.

No thought or concern for the woman here? She's the one begging for some help.

No, you're using her plight to callously advance a disgraceful political agenda within the Church. You're only interested in her insofar as she can provide an emotional component to your completely specious argument.
67 posted on 01/13/2004 10:49:28 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dead
So the concept of abstinence is theologically passé now?
68 posted on 01/13/2004 11:03:39 AM PST by conservonator (To be Catholic is to enjoy the fullness of Christian faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
'Admonishing couples to avoid sex when you know that the man has no intention of doing so is simply avoiding the issue.

Since the woman will be exposed to death, which will deprive her of life and her four other children of a mother, it seems that the Church ought to be able to offer a little more guidance than "well, unite your sufferings to those of Christ."'

You act as if Christ's teachings are empty words. You seem to think the "real" answer is hardcore secular propaganda.
69 posted on 01/13/2004 11:03:41 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Passing out condoms will save her life? Hardly.

How do you know? Doing nothing condemns her to death.

How about sweeping cultural changes and a committment to Christ. There is a radical idea.

How about it? What do you tell the women who are waiting for cultural changes to be driven by the very men who are exposing them to the AIDS virus?

You accuse me of being secular, yet anything you offer is of NO HELP to them, whatsoever, and of small comfort to the family the woman will leave behind.

70 posted on 01/13/2004 11:05:43 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Yes. Sinkspur apparently values the ways of the world more.
71 posted on 01/13/2004 11:05:53 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Please explain how following Christ's will is of no help?
72 posted on 01/13/2004 11:06:52 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No, you're using her plight to callously advance a disgraceful political agenda within the Church

I can no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you!

I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems.

You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

73 posted on 01/13/2004 11:09:07 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No, you're using her plight to callously advance a disgraceful political agenda within the Church

I can no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you!

I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems.

You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

74 posted on 01/13/2004 11:09:17 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
No, you're using her plight to callously advance a disgraceful political agenda within the Church

I can no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you!

I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems.

You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

75 posted on 01/13/2004 11:09:24 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
So the concept of abstinence is theologically passé now?

To some African men with the AIDS virus, it is. What does this mean for their wives?

76 posted on 01/13/2004 11:10:39 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I ask again. May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?
77 posted on 01/13/2004 11:12:01 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I ask again. May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?
78 posted on 01/13/2004 11:12:10 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Please explain how following Christ's will is of no help?

It's of help after the woman contracts the AIDS virus.

What do you tell her to avoid getting the AIDS virus? Accept the passive will of Christ? Lay back and enjoy it? Wait for the culture to change?

79 posted on 01/13/2004 11:12:51 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
For the 52nd time she should abstain or get out.



80 posted on 01/13/2004 11:15:49 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?

Using a condom is objectively evil. Yes.

Taking the life of a fetus is objectively evil as well. But, taking that life is permitted under the principle of double effect, when that life is taken as a result of some other action, such as removing a diseased womb.

I see this as little different. Using the condom will save her life. That it prevents conception is a secondary effect. That is not the primary purpose of using the condom; saving the woman's life is.

81 posted on 01/13/2004 11:17:18 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?

Using a condom is objectively evil. Yes.

Taking the life of a fetus is objectively evil as well. But, taking that life is permitted under the principle of double effect, when that life is taken as a result of some other action, such as removing a diseased womb.

I see this as little different. Using the condom will save her life. That it prevents conception is a secondary effect. That is not the primary purpose of using the condom; saving the woman's life is.

82 posted on 01/13/2004 11:17:25 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Danneels is only a "leading candidate for the Papacy" in the wildest fantasies of the most demented, homo-promoting, liturgical dancing, wreckovating, wacked-out liberals

You got that right!

83 posted on 01/13/2004 11:18:11 AM PST by NeoCaveman (McNaab is still overrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I agree with the first part. I do not agree with the second part. Intention is important, but a condom is a contraceptive device at all times. Removing an ectopic pregnancy does not intend an abortion. Condom always intends contraception.
84 posted on 01/13/2004 11:20:17 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I can no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you! I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems. You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

Ha! For you to clamor about "honest conversation" is indeed a joke.

You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation. Answer the following question truthfully:

Do you accept and support Humanae Vitae in its entirety?
85 posted on 01/13/2004 11:22:39 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
?$ no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you! I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems. You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

Ha! For you to clamor about "honest conversation" is indeed a joke.

You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation. Answer the following question truthfully:

Do you accept and support Humanae Vitae in its entirety?
86 posted on 01/13/2004 11:22:55 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Intention is important, but a condom is a contraceptive device at all times. Removing an ectopic pregnancy does not intend an abortion. Condom always intends contraception.

It intends it as a secondary effect when the primary effect is saving the life of the woman. It also preserves the marriage for the good of the other children.

Abstinence always avoids conception, too.

87 posted on 01/13/2004 11:23:18 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not. I anticipate they never will. I bind myself to the barque of Peter. Many bishops dissent in many areas. I reject their teachings.
88 posted on 01/13/2004 11:23:37 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

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

Catholics, Protestants and Jews all count the Commandments differently.

89 posted on 01/13/2004 11:25:04 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Abstinence always avoids conception, too.

And you know that can be a contraceptive mentality too, but it can be morally licit. Condoms are never licit.
90 posted on 01/13/2004 11:25:19 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
To some African men with the AIDS virus, it is. What does this mean for their wives?

A difficult life will become even more difficult? Chastity is a virtue? Controverting the teachings of the Bride of Christ is ok as long as you have good reason? Suffering is unacceptable? Martyrdom is not an option? All morality is relative?

Since when has being a Christian been easy? I know that sounds horribly dispassionate, even spiteful but it shouldn’t. Abstinence from an act that would most likely be fatal is not a hardship, it may be a challenge, but it’s not on par with abstaining form food, drink or shelter.

91 posted on 01/13/2004 11:26:37 AM PST by conservonator (To be Catholic is to enjoy the fullness of Christian faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not.

So, you admit there's logic to the use of condoms in certain, very exceptional situations!

Thank you. That's what these bishops are saying.

Don't you think the purple in Rome ought to at least discuss this issue?

92 posted on 01/13/2004 11:26:38 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not.

So, you admit there's logic to the use of condoms in certain, very exceptional situations!

Thank you. That's what these bishops are saying.

Don't you think the purple in Rome ought to at least discuss this issue?

93 posted on 01/13/2004 11:26:49 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Abstinence from an act that would most likely be fatal is not a hardship, it may be a challenge, but it’s not on par with abstaining form food, drink or shelter.

The article states that the men will not abstain. That would condemn their wives to exposure to AIDS.

So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

94 posted on 01/13/2004 11:30:12 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
That is not at all what the bishops are saying or doing. If any of them encourage condom use they are responsible for that person's soul. God have mercy.

I would accept any infallible teaching from Rome. But, that is only if it came to pass. I am not saying theologians can't discuss such things among themselves. I am saying for Bishops to promote such things in the popular press and such does no good for the faithful. They are delicate, complex discussions that must take place within the confines of Church teaching. Not dissent.
95 posted on 01/13/2004 11:31:51 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Amen. You are a voice of reason.
96 posted on 01/13/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
I am saying for Bishops to promote such things in the popular press and such does no good for the faithful.

Bishops are teachers too. Perhaps they're frustrated in trying to get anybody in Rome to listen.

If you can find another situation in which condoms would have to be permitted in order to prevent DEATH, I'd be willing to listen to a slippery slope argument.

This is an EXCEPTION!! To prevent DEATH!!!

97 posted on 01/13/2004 11:36:28 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation

No. I'm sick of the ad hominems.

98 posted on 01/13/2004 11:38:00 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

I don't know, actually. I can’t help but feel less than enthusiastic about the use of condoms for anything. There are other solutions, this one happens to be both the easiest and the most socially acceptable. Doesn't mean it’s the right solution.

99 posted on 01/13/2004 11:38:23 AM PST by conservonator (To be Catholic is to enjoy the fullness of Christian faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Do you think that Rome is not familiar with death? Condoms? Controversy? They know, but I say again we too often look to the secular for all solutions. Does not the Holy Spirit guide the Church?

Is it so hard to imagine God allows all types of suffering? 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?
100 posted on 01/13/2004 11:41:44 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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