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.

[Cacique]

bttfl

[sinkspur]

Yes.

[sitetest]

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

[Polycarp IV]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[verity]

You have been brainwashed!

[independentmind]

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.

[Clintons a commie]

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.

[Clintons a commie]

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.

[Jorge]

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.

[Jorge]

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.

[ninenot]

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.

[Jorge]

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.

[ninenot]

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.

[ninenot]

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.

[Jorge]

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?

[ninenot]

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.

[ninenot]

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.

[ninenot]

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.

[Polycarp IV]

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.