[Antoninus]

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.

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? 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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[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.