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.

[lrslattery]

Thank you. I value that insight.

Actually, it's the insight of great Catholic moral theologians. And I value their insight greatly. This discussion can be subject to much confusion (as can happen here), especially when used to obfuscate the teachings of the Church and corrupt the moral law.

[johnb2004]

"this is some of the hierarchy discussin a tough issue. Is that OK in your world, or are they not allowed to even do that?"

I think "discussions" are fine as long as they do not contradict Church teaching. There are others here much more schooled than I am about moral theology. I bow to them.

What I see as damnable is the constant pushing of the moral envelope by some who have a liberal, heterodox agenda. It is always the same drum beat. Rome is out of touch. Good people are suffering because big bad Rome will not sell out to the secular relativists. If they would just give a little on this one issue...

[sinkspur]

The use of a condom is morally evil.

Objectively, yes. The woman is also being forced to perform an action under duress.

Forcing what is essentially a rapist to use a condom is not subjectively evil, in this case. No person is required to participate in his own death. Self-defense, IOW.

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Steve0113]

bump for later

[cupcakes]

Perhaps God had a reason for that little mess up in either the Cardinal's language or the language of the article;-)

[Salvation]

**Godfried Danneels,**

Sorry, we don't want this person as a Pope.

[cupcakes]

That would make sense since how is it dealt with in the Catholic church when a woman has a medical condition that prohibits having further pregnancies even though she is still fertile? Let's say a woman would love the blessing of more children, but because of a serious medical condition has been advised to avoid pregnancy for the remainder of her life? I know a woman who developed a serious heart problem after the delivery of her last child and she absolutely could not be pregnant again because of the strain on her heart. She was so weak that she could not even be "fixed" so her husband got snipped instead. She is Catholic btw and altough she desired more kids, she could not risk pregnancy again because of her health. How is that viewed?

[Polycarp IV]

"And I'm sure you'll give it to me."

Christ, through His Church, gives it to you. Whether you accept or reject His catechesis is up to you.

Read the following data very carefully before you accept such nonsense as that of the Cardinal quoted in this thread:

___________________

Dear Colleague,

The drumbeat for condoms continues as does the evidence mount that they
are not the silver bullet for the HIV/AIDs pandemic. We report today on
evidence presented in Washington DC a few days ago by a researchers from
Harvard and the University of California - San Francisco. It is vital that
this information be distributed all over Africa.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President

__________________________________________________________________________


CULTURE & COSMOS

January 13, 2004 Volume 1, Number 23

New Research Shows Dangers of Condoms in HIV Prevention

Availability of condoms statistically increase promiscuity and
risk of contracting HIV according to medical experts who presented their
findings on the "ABC" approach to the HIV/Pandemic in Washington, DC last
week. The presentations, hosted by the Medical Institute for Sexual
Health, were critical of the insistence by some NGO's and policy makers
that the "C" (condom) approach will stem the tide of the pandemic.

"20 years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms
leads to less AIDS," stated Dr. Edward C. Green of Harvard's' Center for
Population and Development Studies. Citing data on condom availability in
many African counties, Green went on to say that "we are not seeing what
we expected: that higher levels of condom availability result in lower HIV
prevalence." Dr. Norman Hearst of the University of California --- San
Francisco supported this analysis with statistics on Kenya, Botswana, and
other countries, which show an increasingly alarming pattern of increased
condom sale correlation with rising HIV prevalence by year.

Promotion of the "safe-sex" message has reportedly increased
numbers of sexual partners. The spread of HIV is a behavioral problem,
according to Green, who said that "having multiple sexual partners drives
AIDS epidemics. If people did not have multiple sex partners, epidemics
would not develop or, once developed, be sustained." He continued, "over a
lifetime, it is the number of sexual partners [that matter].condom levels
are found to be non-determining of HIV infection levels."

Unfortunately, Hearst stated, we are "raising a generation of
young people in Africa that believe that condoms will prevent HIV." This
is concerning because condoms are not 100% effective, even when used
properly. According to Hearst, "the most recent Met-analysis came up with
80%.but even if it is 90%, over time it's the question of when, not if.you
don't want to give people a false sense of security and A and B are better
in the long term."

In other cases, often reported by proponents of the safe-sex
message, countries such as Thailand saw incidence rates for HIV decrease
after the government mandated 100% condom use in brothels. Unfortunately,
according to Hearst and Stoneburner, proponents rarely look closer at the
data, and in such instances behavior change had much more to do with the
decreased rates of transmission. "This is usually attributed to 100%
condom use, but visits to sex workers declined by 60%.they did so out of
fear and risk avoidance."

It is the behavior change advocated by the "A" and "B" approach
that is additionally supported by data, such as in the famed Uganda case.
According to Dr. Rand Stoneburner (formerly of the WHO and an independent
advisor to USAID), "declines of HIV in Uganda are linked to behavior
change.[and] include primary risk avoidance with a 65% decline in causal
sex." The Ugandan government, which promoted abstinence and faithfulness,
helped bring about a 75% decline in HIV prevalence among 15-19 age group,
60% in the 20-24, and a 54% decline overall by 1998.

Stoneburner and others believe the change was due to different
language used. In Uganda, President Museveni reportedly repeated to
Ugandans "you are going to die if you don't stop this!" whereas in other
countries, there is little talk of death. Stoneburner pointed out "25% of
South Africans don't believe HIV causes AIDS" and in many countries "they
do not talk about death links to AIDS." This information proves the
unfortunate effectiveness of the "safe sex" message that increasingly
places individuals at risk for HIV transmission and STDS worldwide.

Copyright---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org Website: www.colfi.org

[CWW]

The Pope and the Church have been very clear on this issue -- no condoms AIDS notwithstanding. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Cardinal is speaking out of school and will be taken to task.

[lrslattery]

The use of a condom is morally evil.

Objectively, yes. The woman is also being forced to perform an action under duress. Forcing what is essentially a rapist to use a condom is not subjectively evil, in this case. No person is required to participate in his own death. Self-defense, IOW. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

We must look at the situation objectively in order to understand it. This should not be a case of "situational ethics" or moral relativism, which is what is becoming the "norm" for most discussions of sexuality.

This is a no brainer! All orthodox moral theologians will concur. One may not commit a moral evil to defend one's life. This is basic moral theology.

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.

[Tantumergo]

"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.

[AAABEST]

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.

[johnb2004]

Thanks again. Although your words would not advance certain people's agendas.

[johnb2004]

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.

[Salvation]

**All heresy begins below the belt.**

So true!

[johnb2004]

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.

[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.

[Salvation]

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.

---

[Clintons a commie]

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.

[Tantumergo]

"but most have an agenda."

Yup - the name of it is apostasy!