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.
Anyone who is born again is saved. Of the billion Catholics I'm sure there are many who believe in the Lord Jesus and are, therefore, born again. The Catholic church has been engineered to be all things to all people. If you like the Goddess you have a place, if you like humanism you have a place, if you love Jesus you can find a place, if you really want to be a Jew but without having to work in hollywood or NYC, you have a place in the Catholic church. There is nothing good about being all things to all people. The Gospel is what is good and the RCC lacks that.
The authority of St. Peter is a great gift to the Church. And because we Catholics know what the authentic teachings of the Church are, we can agree in this thread that what our Belgian cardinal said about condoms was not Catholic. We can joyfully mock the heathen media who hope the next Pope would condone condoms.
This is a sad misinterpretation of that verse. There is no authority of St Peter, no seat of Pope and no priesthood either. All believers are priests but there is no celebate priesthood in the bible that is to serve the Church.
Can the sanctimony, OK? You're not old enough to be anybody's spiritual director.
We're arguing whether or not the woman is even allowed to ask him to do so. As you can see, there are lots of people who think she should just lay there and take it.
And it seems you think she should just lay there and take it, as long as he's wearing a condom.
I never presented them as your words, but rather my interpretation of the ultimate consequence your stated position.
I never implied I wanted anyone to die. I stated the truth that a condom is intrinsically evil. To commit an evil act is worse than physical death. Get it?
I got it the first time you said it.
When asked if you would agree to use of condom by a married couple if the man was HIV+, in order to protect the woman, you responded negatively.
How is this different than anything I've said about your position?
I said that it appeared you would prefer the woman to contract AIDS(and die)rather than a condom be used.
If I am wrong then show me where.
I'll ask you again.
Do you think it is better for the wife to contract AIDS,(a death sentence) than for a married couple to use condoms if the husband is HIV+?
Do you think the Pope would really say it is better for a woman to contract AIDS from her husband and die rather than for them to use condoms to protect her?
I don't believe the Pope would see this as a balanced application of moral law.
Personally I probably would not trust a condom to protect me against contracting AIDS from an HIV+ partner.
Just the chance that it could fail is too much of a risk as far as I'm concerned.
But when it comes to those who are already married to, or so much in love with an HIV+ person that they are willing to take that chance, I could not on moral grounds condemn the use of condoms as some degree of protection.
Actually any HIV+ person who knowingly infects another person, either by not telling them or forcing unprotected sex on them can be prosecuted under the law and thrown in jail.
Anybody knows this is wrong.
I believe the questions raised here are about the morality and health risks of condom use when it comes to protecting one partner against HIV.
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.