No compromise in latest Vatican ruling on condoms

Timesonline ^ | JUNE 6, 2006 | Ruth Gledhill and agencies

[NYer]

The Vatican today published a sweeping condemnation of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilisation and same-sex marriage, declaring that the traditional family has never been so threatened.

The document was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, whose head, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, is a strong opponent of the use of condoms under any circumstances.

Gay activists in Italy condemned the report as a grotesque attack against modern life, freedom and social redemption.

The 57-page document does not break any new ground but summarised traditional Vatican positions.

"Man of modern times has radicalised the tendency to take the place of God and substitute him," it states. "Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today’s culture."

It makes no mention of the debate within the Catholic church on whether condoms could be used in the fight against Aids, in particular to protect the wife of a man who has the virus. It reaffirms the 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, that stated the Vatican’s opposition to contraception.

The document also condemns IVF treatment, artificial insemination and the use of embryos. "If a man takes on the power to fabricate man, he also takes on the power to destroy him," it says.

"The human being has the right to be generated, not produced, to come to life not in virtue of an artificial process but of a human act in the full sense of the term: the union between a man and a woman."

There was controversy when Cardinal Trujillo asserted three years ago that condoms do not prevent Aids and may help spread it because they create a false sense of security. The Vatican insists sexual abstinence is the only sure way to fight Aids.

Several other cardinals have argued that the use of a condom within a marriage would be the lesser of two evils if it prevents passing on HIV infection to the partner.

The document made a broad attack on what it said were threats to the "the natural institution of marriage".

"Couples made up of homosexuals claim similar rights to those reserved to husband and wife; they even claim the right to adoption. Women who live a lesbian union claim similar rights, demanding laws which give them access to hetero fertilisation or embryo implantation.

"Moreover, it is claimed that the help of the law to form these unusual couples goes hand in hand with the help to divorce and repudiate," the document said.

"Abortion and infanticide show the absence of efficient juridical protection for the conceived. Such practices in fact constitute a violation of the fundamental right to life which is the right of every human being from the moment of conception," it said.

Franco Grillini, a deputy in the Italian Parliament and honorary president of the activist group Arcigay, condemned the Vatican document as "grotesque," and said that other European countries that give legal recognition to unmarried and gay couples have done so with great benefit to society.

"To maintain, therefore ... that this would represent an attack against the traditional family is a falsehood that has been scientifically contradicted by the facts," said Signor Grillini.

[conservative physics]

- Using the rhythm method is totally acceptable because it does nothing to circumvent a natural process that already exists.

Purposely having sex only when you know you can't get pregnant IS circumventing a natural process.

- In vitro fertilization removes the elements from the body, manipulates them, then reintroduces them after the process of reproduction has already taken place. The fertilization is a mechanical process, not a natural one, and that's an evil.

Then I guess it is "evil" to have a transplant or worse yet a pacemaker or artificial heart, or to use a artificial lung to keep someone breathing, not to mention prosthetic arms and legs, new titanium kneecaps and shoulders, ect, ect....

[conservative physics]

But you just said "The Catholic Church does not teach that it is morally wrong to prevent pregnancy"

Now your saying it's wrong to use a condom...

Am I missing something?

[blowfish]

Presumably you aren't allowed to use the 'withdrawl method' either, since this interferes with a 'natural process' (whatever that really means).
But it's OK to use the rhythm method because, while you *are* circumventing a 'natural process', you're doing it in a subtle way, subtle enough to fool God, who evidently isn't very clever.

Frankly, the spinning, rationalizations and justifications here would do Clinton proud.

[Rutles4Ever]

Purposely having sex only when you know you can't get pregnant IS circumventing a natural process.

Not really. The natural process has periods of infertility, but it's still possible to become pregnant since user mileage may vary when it comes to actual fertility. If intercourse takes place and the egg is present, there is nothing to stop fertilization from occurring if the sperm makes it to its final destination. A condom is designed to interrupt any possibility of fertilization. Whether or not a couple is aiming to avoid fertilization, there is still an implicit openness to conception since they are allowing nature to take its course, one way or another. Contraception is "against conception" by definition, so there is implicity NO openness to the creation of life on the part of the participants.

Then I guess it is "evil" to have a transplant or worse yet a pacemaker or artificial heart, or to use a artificial lung to keep someone breathing, not to mention prosthetic arms and legs, new titanium kneecaps and shoulders, ect, ect....

The procedures you mention are done for the purpose of preserving/improving/healing someone who is already alive. They don't have anything to do with the synthetic creation of life.

[Rutles4Ever]

But it's OK to use the rhythm method because, while you *are* circumventing a 'natural process', you're doing it in a subtle way, subtle enough to fool God, who evidently isn't very clever.

But you're not circumventing anything with the rhythm method. The natural process IS a period of infertility. And as anyone whose tried it can tell you, I wouldn't place any large bets against conception occuring anyhow. The process isn't fool proof by any stretch, so couples are well aware that conception is still a reasonable possibility. Also, if the rhythm method was as reliable as you seem to think it is, no one would bother with condoms, end of story.

Frankly, the spinning, rationalizations and justifications here would do Clinton proud.

Touched a nerve? Sheesh. There's no law saying you have to be a Catholic. If you can come up with an argument that trumps 2000 years of Catholic theology, then go for it.

[BaBaStooey]

The Church is pretty consistent on everything across the board. What is the purpose of sex? For pleasure only? Or to procreate? Which is the responsibility of a man and a woman, who create a family structure through marriage.

Condoms and other birth control devices remove the procreation aspect from sex, which goes against the reason why God created it. It becomes only pleasure, which is also what same-sex partnerships are, as well as male-female sex outside of marriage.

Maybe its tough to be on board with all this if you aren't Catholic. But the good Catholics understand where all this comes from.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But you just said "The Catholic Church does not teach that it is morally wrong to prevent pregnancy." Now your saying it's wrong to use a condom...Am I missing something?"

Yes. You've not considered the distinction between means and ends. Even if you have a perfectly legitimate end (avoiding pregnancy because of a serious problem) you still have to use good means.

Remember that, unlike animals, humans are created "in the image and likeness of God." That's not just a bit of cheap self-flattery ("Woohoo, lookit me, I'm so godlike") but a mandate to respect the "human form divine" (as the poet Blake put it.) Briefly, you can aim to correct and perfect us human beings, but you shouldn't aim to re-engineer or redesign us. "Deconstruction" of humans is morally objectionable.

With this in mind, you can see why using a deconstructive means (like, for instance, castration) would be morally wrong, even if your aim is to avoid pregnancy. The main problem with contraception is that it treats fertility as if it were a disease or at least a design flaw. Contraception aims not to perfect the human sexual design but to extirpate parts of it. Contraception deconstructs natural sex.

Interestingly, part of the human sexual design is that we females are only intermittently fertile. That's why using a little forethought about the timing of intercourse can put you in a good position to either achieve or avoid pregnancy.

The whole aspect of the sacredness of the created human design is so seldom spoken about, or even thought about, that it seems almost culturally inaccessible to us. We're more likely to think of our sexual design --- or even human life itself --- as being literally insignificant and inconsequential. Perhaps it seems that way to you.

If that's the case, it would be easy to blow off the whole discussion at this point. However, the Catholic view --- if you sincerely want to understand it --- is very much based on the idea that our sexual nature has a sacred aspect.

I think this article is worth looking into:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-01-020-v

Thanks for reading this far. Thanks for your patience.

[Lazamataz]

The Church is pretty consistent on everything across the board. What is the purpose of sex? For pleasure only? Or to procreate? Which is the responsibility of a man and a woman, who create a family structure through marriage. Condoms and other birth control devices remove the procreation aspect from sex, which goes against the reason why God created it. It becomes only pleasure, which is also what same-sex partnerships are, as well as male-female sex outside of marriage.

It sounds as if ideal Catholic sex is short, infrequent, and utterly devoid of any pleasure -- and if you accidently feel some, it's a sin.

[xsmommy]

not at all. within the bounds of marriage, and so long as you are open to procreation it can be long, nonstop and extremely enjoyable. it's why God MADE sex.

[BaBaStooey]

I guess my take wasn't quite clear. Catholics do not believe sex is only for pleasure. This is the main gripe of the whole deal, which brings about the opposition to contraception, abortion, and homosexuality.

This does not mean that they don't consider it pleasurable. They just know that it comes with the added responsibility of procreation. You cannot separate these two things. You simply cannot. It is a sin against God, who never intended for them to be separate.

[Lazamataz]

not at all. within the bounds of marriage, and so long as you are open to procreation it can be long, nonstop and extremely enjoyable. it's why God MADE sex.

Can we still bring the orange marmalade, the rubber chicken suit, and the monkeys?

[Lazamataz]

You explained it well. Thanks for taking the time. Now put on those stilettos for me.

[conservative physics]

I disagree, but respect your willingness to stick to your beliefs.

to me it's clear cut, once your married:

1. sex with your marriage partner is not a sin.
2. using a condom, the pill, the patch, the rhythm method, or the withdraw method with your marriage partner to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not a sin.
3. having a doctor take the sperm of the husband and combine it with the egg of the wife and then re implant it back into the wife for the purpose of enhancing their chance of having a baby is not a sin.

Sinful behaviors are:
1. Having sex with someone outside of marriage.
2. Killing an unborn child in an abortion.


The gray areas for me are:
1. Using donated eggs or sperm to conceive a child.
2. Marriage to more than one wife.

[BaBaStooey]

I remember you. You didn't like Coldplay. Or rather, you had never heard their music, and didn't plan on doing it anytime soon.

[Lazamataz]

I still am very proud that I have never listened to Coldplay.

[Antoninus]

Gay activists in Italy condemned the report as a grotesque attack against modern life, freedom and social redemption.

Uh, no. How about a defense of traditional values, liberty (as opposed to license) and human LIFE!

[blowfish]

But you're not circumventing anything with the rhythm method. The natural process IS a period of infertility.

So, it's OK to try to avoid pregnancy by avoiding periods of fertility? (Even though, presumably, God wants you to take advantage of that fertility.):
Withholding sperm from a fertile egg: OK
Blocking sperm from getting to a fertile egg: BAD

And as anyone whose tried it can tell you, I wouldn't place any large bets against conception occuring anyhow.

So unreliable contraceptive techniques are OK, reliable ones are bad.
Ok, I almost think I understand....

[Antoninus]

It sounds as if ideal Catholic sex is short, infrequent, and utterly devoid of any pleasure -- and if you accidently feel some, it's a sin.

Nice. Devout Catholics have lots children. How do you think those kids got here? Practice makes perfect as they say. Nowhere does the Church teach that intercourse must not be pleasurable. You're picking that up from the conventional wisdom of our Catholic-hating culture.

And you do realize that wearing a condom actually can make the act less pleasurable, don't you? Personally, I'd rather not treat my wife like a prostitute.

[Antoninus]

to me it's clear cut, once your married:

1. sex with your marriage partner is not a sin.

Agreed.

2. using a condom, the pill, the patch, the rhythm method, or the withdraw method with your marriage partner to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not a sin.

OK, that's your belief. You're not Catholic. No one is forcing you to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church has a more noble view of the sex act than you do: it teaches that the sex act should always be open to procreation and thus, artificial means should not be used to prevent conception. In most instances, those who practice planned artificial sterility do so for selfish reasons that are not consonant with Catholic teaching anyway. If someone fears pregnancy for legitimate health or economic reasons, they have a perfectly reliable alternative open to them: abstinence.

3. having a doctor take the sperm of the husband and combine it with the egg of the wife and then re implant it back into the wife for the purpose of enhancing their chance of having a baby is not a sin.

Even if the extra embryos which are created and not implanted are then destroyed? This is why the Church objects to invitro fertilization.

[conservative physics]

Even if the extra embryos which are created and not implanted are then destroyed? This is why the Church objects to invitro fertilization

No, that would be abortion. Any extra embryos would have to be eventually used by the husband and wife for it not to be considered a sin in my opinion.