 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 02:55 pm |
|
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- At the request of Benedict XVI, a dossier on the question of condoms was submitted by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The cardinal, who is president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, revealed this today during a press conference to present the council's upcoming conference on "Pastoral Aspects of the Treatment of Infectious Diseases."
The question is now in the hands of the doctrinal congregation, Cardinal Lozano explained, "because our pontifical council does not have doctrinal but pastoral tasks."
"Thus, in keeping with the Holy Father's wish, we have carried out a careful study on the use of condoms, both from the scientific as well as the moral point of view, and we have submitted it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," the cardinal said.
Mentioning Pope John Paul II's postsynodal apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio," Cardinal Lozano clarified that no position of the Church on the matter should lead to thinking that it can encourage frivolous conduct in the matter of sexual morality.
The cardinal revealed that the dossier gives objective data on the use of condoms, as well as a range of pastoral positions adopted in the world.
He noted that it is not up to the Council for Health Care Ministry to decide whether it is necessary to make a pronouncement or to respond to this question.
The prelate added that the matter remains in the hands of the "special wisdom" of Benedict XVI and his charism as Successor of Peter, assisted by the Holy Spirit.
The above article is available from Zenit. The condom study deals with the issue of using condoms to minimize the spread of HIV/AIDS, especially in situations where one spouse is infected and the other is not.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 169 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2006 12:22 am |
|
Stated another way, the Church does not command adherance by a married couple to the act of marital sex and it's accompanying unitive and procreative dimensions when the same act also carries with it the high risk of transmission of an incurable deadly disease to one's spouse. CCC # 1649.
In other words, for the sake of the unitive dimension, it does not morally justify an accompanying risk of exposure to an incurable disease. The separation of the unitive from the procreative dimensions are never morally justified. CCC # 2363.
Also see CCC # 1754-55, # 2264, # 2269.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 02:01 pm |
|
mg57 wrote:
Stated another way, the Church does not command adherance by a married couple to the act of marital sex and it's accompanying unitive and procreative dimensions when the same act also carries with it the high risk of transmission of an incurable deadly disease to one's spouse. CCC # 1649.
In other words, for the sake of the unitive dimension, it does not morally justify an accompanying risk of exposure to an incurable disease. The separation of the unitive from the procreative dimensions are never morally justified. CCC # 2363.
Also see CCC # 1754-55, # 2264, # 2269.
Actually, the Church is in the process of evaluating this question. Essentially the question is, "Is the use of condoms permitted within a marriage if the purpose is to prevent disease and not to prevent conception?"
Frankly, the likely answer is no. The Church says the sexual union of a man and woman must be a total giving and receiving, open to the possibility of creation of life. Even if the possibility of conception is taken away, such as by age or sterility, the act must still involve the total gift and reception of self. Condoms are not permitted under any circumstances, even when conception cannot take place. Statements made by Vatican officials in the last few days support this conclusion.
However, under the principle of double effect, the matter is being studied, and no final decision has been made.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 02:19 pm |
|
Frankly, the likely answer is no. The Church says the sexual union of a man and woman must be a total giving and receiving, open to the possibility of creation of life. Even if the possibility of conception is taken away, such as by age or sterility, the act must still involve the total gift and reception of self. Condoms are not permitted under any circumstances, even when conception cannot take place.
Not only is this true, but the likelihood of condoms actually being effective AIDS deterrents has been greatly exaggerated by its proponents. Their maximum barrier effectiveness has been measured at about 20 percent. Is this even worth considering?
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 03:21 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Is this even worth considering?
]
Probably not, but at least the resulting statement will reemphasize the Church's position and, like in the case of Humanae Vitae, the Church will honestly be able to say it investigated the issue. This will remove international pressure to "cave" as the Vatican will have the opportunity to explain the doctrinal and scientific reasons for its position. No one will care, but there will be a written answer on the table.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 5th, 2006 10:50 pm |
|
This will remove international pressure to "cave" as the Vatican will have the opportunity to explain the doctrinal and scientific reasons for its position.
My thought exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth. If I had had time, I would have saved you the trouble of adding another post. 
My primary point, however, was that the utter ineffectiveness of condoms in the face of AIDS has been lost in the constant barrage of advocacy by practically everybody but the Catholic Church. When one considers that abstinence is, within its domain, 100 percent effective in preventing AIDS, it should be a no-brainer.
David
|
|
|
sweetyface17
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Mandy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Lutheran, Considering Catholicism |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
| Interestingly enough, there is another solution to the question of AIDS in marital situations. There is now medication available that is taken by the spouse carrying the disease that decreases the risk as much as a condom. And...it does not interfere with conception. I read about it in a health magazine.
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 01:12 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Actually, the Church is in the process of evaluating this question. Essentially the question is, "Is the use of condoms permitted within a marriage if the purpose is to prevent disease and not to prevent conception?"
Frankly, the likely answer is no.
I understand what you are saying, but how is this different from a woman using birth control pills to control something like ovarian cysts or PCOS? To me it's the same thing. Can it be explained further to me?
Thanks,
Ali
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 01:53 pm |
|
Ali wrote: cajunrick wrote:
Actually, the Church is in the process of evaluating this question. Essentially the question is, "Is the use of condoms permitted within a marriage if the purpose is to prevent disease and not to prevent conception?"
Frankly, the likely answer is no.
I understand what you are saying, but how is this different from a woman using birth control pills to control something like ovarian cysts or PCOS? To me it's the same thing. Can it be explained further to me?
The Church permits the use of medication for medicinal purposes, even if contraception is an unintended secondary effect. For example, sterilization is considered evil; the removal of both ovaries due to ovarian cancer is not, even though it will result in sterilization. Abortion is evil; removal of a portion of a fallopian tube infected due to an ectopic pregnancy is not, even though the result is an aborted pregnancy.
It is the intended purpose of the act that determines whether it is evil. If I have to kill someone to defend my family, that is not an evil act. If I take exactly the same action to kill the same person in the same manner without the intent of defense, it is murder.
This is known as the principle of double effect. If the desired effect is good, the action is moral even if an undesired secondary effect would otherwise be evil.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the Principle of Double Effect. To quote from that document:
The basic moral principle that we follow is to pursue and do good, and avoid that which is evil or bad (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1732, 1955).[1] The principle of double effect is an ethical formula that enables someone to evaluate the moral dimensions of complicated moral issues that may involve consequences or side effects which are both positive and negative, good and bad. This principle may be employed when one is considering an action that is morally good, yet the action involves one or more unintended bad consequences. Because these consequences are side effects, and not directly willed, the choice that brings them about is morally acceptable.
Boldface emphasis added. There is a much more extensive discussion available in the document.
So in other words, if contraceptive pills are used to control ovarian cysts, the desired effect is good and the action is permissible, even though the unintended secondary effect is considered evil.
Regarding condoms, the question in this case is whether the principle of double effect can be used to justify the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of disease in a marriage (a moral good) even though it serves as a barrier to the transmission of life (a moral evil).
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 02:45 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Regarding condoms, the question in this case is whether the principle of double effect can be used to justify the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of disease in a marriage (a moral good) even though it serves as a barrier to the transmission of life (a moral evil).
So, IYO, why do you think the answer will be no? What you say seems contradictory.
Ali
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 03:06 pm |
|
Ali wrote: cajunrick wrote:
Regarding condoms, the question in this case is whether the principle of double effect can be used to justify the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of disease in a marriage (a moral good) even though it serves as a barrier to the transmission of life (a moral evil).
So, IYO, why do you think the answer will be no? What you say seems contradictory.
I don't believe the evidence will be strong enough to support the use of condoms as being completely effective in the prevention of AIDS transmission. I believe the Church will say that abstinence is the only truly effective method to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
However, that is only my opinion, and the Holy Father has not yet called me to discuss it with me.  Nor am I any kind of a scientist who could actually pretend that I know what I'm talking about.
Your mileage may vary, close cover before striking...
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 03:08 pm |
|
mg57 wrote: In other words, for the sake of the unitive dimension, it does not morally justify an accompanying risk of exposure to an incurable disease. The separation of the unitive from the procreative dimensions are never morally justified. CCC # 2363.
That is the current Church teaching, and it is the issue that is currently under review.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:07 pm |
|
I don't believe the evidence will be strong enough to support the use of condoms as being completely effective in the prevention of AIDS transmission. I believe the Church will say that abstinence is the only truly effective method to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
Thanks, this is actually a new thought to me. I've never been presented with an opposing argument about condoms not being as effective as preached.
However, that is only my opinion, and the Holy Father has not yet called me to discuss it with me.
Wait . . . what's that I hear? A phone ringing? I think the Vatican is line one, please pick up, Rick
Nor am I any kind of a scientist who could actually pretend that I know what I'm talking about. No, I'm not a doctor, but I do play one on the internet. ROFLOL
Hehehe, Thanks 
Ali
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:13 pm |
|
Ali wrote: Wait . . . what's that I hear? A phone ringing? I think the Vatican is line one, please pick up, Rick
Should the Holy Father ever be so desperate as to seek my opinion, condoms will be far down the list of things I would like to discuss! 
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 04:42 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Should the Holy Father ever be so desperate as to seek my opinion, condoms will be far down the list of things I would like to discuss!
OMGoodness, Rick, that made me LOL! Yeah, I would imagine so. Can you imagine how that conversation would go? LOL
Thanks for the laugh.
Ali
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 07:58 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Regarding condoms, the question in this case is whether the principle of double effect can be used to justify the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of disease in a marriage (a moral good) even though it serves as a barrier to the transmission of life (a moral evil).
Rick, This seems to be rather an issue of a person's individual conscience rather than a matter of objective immorality. There may be a couple, where one person has been unfaithful, but both decide to stay married. The AIDS infected spouse may feel that it is unfair and even wrong for them to expect sexual intimacy. However, the offended spouse may be willing and desirous to have sexual relations with the infected spouse, as long as they use condoms. The offended partner is acting in charity toward his/her spouse as well as showing a total forgiveness for the wrong that has been done to them. For the church to condemn such behavior is unreasonable, not just humanly, but from a spiritual perspective.
I'm sure if I thought about it, there are some other scenarios I could present that would be applicable as well. I think in this case, the church is getting involved way too much on a personal level. This is coming from someone who was in a sect/cult, where intrusiveness into the personal lives of its members was common place. I don't ever want to live under that kind of scrutiny again.
Some choices we make in life are left up to our consciences, and what a person's conscience allows them to do may vary considerably from one person to another. I think regarding the matter above, this is a conscience issue and should be left up to each individual couple as to what they decide.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 11:33 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: cajunrick wrote:
Regarding condoms, the question in this case is whether the principle of double effect can be used to justify the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of disease in a marriage (a moral good) even though it serves as a barrier to the transmission of life (a moral evil).
Rick, This seems to be rather an issue of a person's individual conscience rather than a matter of objective immorality.
And that is the purpose of the discussion. Under current teaching, the use of condoms is never permitted under any circumstance. As always, individuals may choose to defy the teaching of the Church at the risk of their souls, but it is the current, official teaching of the Church that the only way to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, even within a marriage, is abstinence.
In countries such as Haiti and most of sub-Saharan Africa, the transmission rate for AIDS is astronomical in part because the infected male partner will not abstain (using force if necessary), and the use of condoms is prohibited by the Church. Uganda is the only country on earth where the rate of AIDS transmission is falling because the government has officially adopted a position of abstinence. In other countries, condoms are handed out like candy on Halloween, but Catholics are officially forbidden to use them by the Church. Instead, the healthy partner (usually the woman) is infected and given a death sentence. Given the high rate of incest, siblings and children are also being infected.
This is the reality that exists in many third world countries. The question facing the Church is whether it should officially allow the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease, or whether it should continue to insist on abstinence.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 169 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 11:55 pm |
|
Darlene -
I understand your experience, - control and pressure to conform, as you said "intrusiveness into the personal lives of its members was common place". Without writing more here, here's a link to an excellent audio program which discusses and clarifies the points you've brought up, and also includes live-call-in portion.
Dr. Janet Smith discusses Natural Law, conscience, objective and subjective truth -
http://www.catholic.com/audio/2001/real/ca010319.ram
God bless.
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 5th, 2007 08:41 am |
|
God's peace. Darlene wrote: "I'm sure if I thought about it, there are some other scenarios I could present that would be applicable as well. I think in this case, the church is getting involved way too much on a personal level. This is coming from someone who was in a sect/cult, where intrusiveness into the personal lives of its members was common place. I don't ever want to live under that kind of scrutiny again. "
One thing my older teens in sacramental preparation class really hate to hear is my statement that sex, even (especially?) in marriage, is always a threesome. Like it or not, the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord of the bedroom. To act is if we have the wisdom to tell Jesus when to "butt out" regarding our personal lives is precisely what ruined the human race back in the garden!
I understand your reluctance to have someone tell you what to do--I went through an experience of attempted cult intrusiveness bordering on mind control myself. But we aren't talking about the nutball opinions of some sect here; we're talking about the Church. When I became Catholic, I did so in the complete understanding that I was giving up my "right" to personal interpretation--of the Scriptures, of morality, of everything within the Church's domain of faith and morals. Unlike the personal opinions of the charismatic "leaders" of sects, the Church teaches from the heart of Christ. The responsibility for the teaching of truth falls upon the Church, not upon me. My responsibility lies with obedience, not coming up with a second opinion!
Darlene, please understand that we do not become mindless robots when we choose to believe all that the Church believes and teaches. I must renew my promise to do this daily, and confess my failures in doing it regularly. This is a big part of what it means to be Catholic--to steal a quote from the Barry Goldwater campaign, it is "a choice, not an echo." Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Current time is 03:01 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
