Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Belgian cardinal says condom may be "lesser evil"
Directions to Orthodoxy ^ | 10 March 2006 | CWNews.com

Posted on 03/10/2006 2:18:42 PM PST by jecIIny

Belgian cardinal says condom may be "lesser evil"

Brussels, Mar. 10 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels has said that the use of a condom might be a "lesser evil" when it could preserve someone from a deadly disease like AIDS.

In an interview with a Belgian journal, the cardinal said that it is legitimate for government to establish laws that differ from those of the Church on questions such as same-sex unions, prostituion, and contraception.

"I can accept that civil legislation determines the conditions for cohabitation and the rights of homosexual couples," Cardinal Danneels said. He went on to say that he was not willing to accept a civil union between members of the same sex as a marriage. He explained: "If the germ 'marriage' covers all forms of cohabitation-- between a man and woman the same as between man and man-- then the word no longer has any meaning." He suggested the use of another term to describe same-sex unions.

"It is normal that civil legislation, which I respect, will not be completely in accord with my ethical judgment," the Belgian prelate said. While the Church's teaching is clear-- that homosexuality is a disorder-- there is no cause for condemnation or discrimination, he said. Regarding the civil rights of homosexuals, he concluded, he is prepared to accept the government's laws.

Questioned on the use of condoms, Cardinal Danneels said that if an HIV-positive man wishes to have relations with his wife, "she should make him use a condom." Otherwise, he said, the couple might be "adding another sin: homicide." The cardinal reasoned: "A condom, when it is used for the protection of life, is not only a matter in the sexual domain." Cardinal Daneels made a similar statement in a television interview in January 2004. Other influential prelates have adopted similar positions, suggesting that condom use could be justified within marriage to prevent transmission of AIDS. In January 2005, Cardinal Georges Cottier, the theologian to the papal household, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that condom use "could be considered legitimate" under those restricted circumstances.

Although the Church clearly condemns the use of condoms as a means of contraception, there has been no definitive statement from the magisterium on the particular question of whether condom use can ever be justified. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is reportedly studying the question of whether condoms might be used within marriage to prevent disease.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; waffles

1 posted on 03/10/2006 2:18:45 PM PST by jecIIny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

they're only evil when they break!


2 posted on 03/10/2006 2:21:45 PM PST by pipecorp (Let's have a CRUSADE! , the muslims never stopped. a 2010 useless reply odyssey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny
While the Church's teaching is clear-- that homosexuality is a disorder

Hmm. Is that really the church's teaching?

3 posted on 03/10/2006 2:23:40 PM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny
I have a Roman Catholic medical ethics book from 1958 (while Pius XII was still Pope).

It says clearly that the use of barrier methods to prevent transmission of syphilis is licit.

What should be taught about HIV is that it is a mortal sin for an HIV-infected person to have unprotected sexual intercourse with anyone, and that the use of means to prevent the death of the partner, while also sinful, may mitigate the gravity of #1.

4 posted on 03/10/2006 2:23:47 PM PST by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny

Thank God, literally, that this man did not become pope.


5 posted on 03/10/2006 2:53:46 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

Whenever I see his name I think that too.

God bless Pope Benedict.


6 posted on 03/10/2006 4:50:16 PM PST by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: jecIIny
Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels has admitted today that he is an "Evil Lesser" for promoting the societal normalization of sodomy, sodomite marriage, and contraceptive use.
8 posted on 03/10/2006 7:17:29 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I have a Roman Catholic medical ethics book from 1958 (while Pius XII was still Pope). It says clearly that the use of barrier methods to prevent transmission of syphilis is licit.

There are plenty of old books, especially in Moral Theology, filled with just as much nonsense such as this, as we can find in new books published today.

It is wrong for diseased persons to have sex, even with their own spouse, if there is a remote possibility of death or crippling disfigurement. They certainly cannot do so with a condom, since the use of condoms is always forbidden as an illicit form of birth control.

What should be taught about HIV is that it is a mortal sin for an HIV-infected person to have unprotected sexual intercourse with anyone, and that the use of means to prevent the death of the partner, while also sinful, may mitigate the gravity of #1.

Actually, I'd argue that it makes it worse, since it allows the perversity to be carried on more readily, gives a false sense of security against infection, and of necessity requires the implicit promotion of birth control among the general populace.

Sodomy is one of the most repulsive of crimes. There is nothing that can be done to mitigate its specific malice in any way.

9 posted on 03/10/2006 7:24:30 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Actually, I'd argue that it makes it worse

Well,I don't know about that.

My point was that discussion of condoms for disease prevention presupposes the act of sodomy by the infected person, which is where the focus of condemnation should be placed.

10 posted on 03/10/2006 8:27:04 PM PST by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
the use of condoms is always forbidden as an illicit form of birth control.

Sodomizing another man is a pretty good form of birth control on its own, the condom does nothing to increase its efficacy.

11 posted on 03/10/2006 8:31:07 PM PST by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Navel gazer Danneels fails to mention that a prophylactic is nothing but a colander to HIV. What a buffoon. Hopefully he'll be hearing from Benedict XVI in the near future.


12 posted on 03/10/2006 11:42:02 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jecIIny
He suggested the use of another term to describe same-sex unions.

How about "Butt Buddies"?

13 posted on 03/11/2006 12:15:37 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Peace Begins in the Womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Hmm. Is that really the church's teaching?

-some links to documents and some excerpts:

Catholic documents and teaching on subject of homosexuality:

  1. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family

    104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.

    Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.

    For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".

  2. Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics

    VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

    A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

    In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

    In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

  3. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

    10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

    But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

    11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

    Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

  4. Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

    II. Applications

    10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

    11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

    13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

  5. Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress

    Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.

  6. Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress

    We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.

    Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.

  7. Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

    4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

    7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

    Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

    As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

  8. Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

    2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry

    From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

    Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

    Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

    In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".

    Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

    Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.


14 posted on 03/12/2006 8:18:43 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Was going to ping you.

Sent you an email a while ago.


15 posted on 03/12/2006 8:31:56 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Ping me to this or something else?

P.S. Got your email...


16 posted on 03/12/2006 8:33:25 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

One person I sent it to thinks it's a bunch of madeup lies. Now I am sorry I sent it. What do I know?

Any opinion from you would be welcome. By email.


17 posted on 03/12/2006 8:52:30 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson