Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Can someone give me an actual run down of what was said? My Catholic in laws are convinced that condoms (and the pill by extension) are now all ok.

And if the statements I have seen are close (condoms ok in only grave circumstances) than I have wonder if no thought was given to the progression the Church of England began when it gave the OK to contraception in similar circumstances.

22 posted on 11/29/2010 6:36:45 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: redgolum
I have wonder if no thought was given to the progression the Church of England began when it gave the OK to contraception in similar circumstances.

Yeah, sigh ... See post #21.

24 posted on 11/29/2010 6:49:57 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: redgolum
Its impossible to explain it concisely, which is the crux of this condom conundrum:

Pope Approves Restricted Use of Condoms? – M.J. Andrew, TAC

Understanding Pope’s Dilemma on Condoms – Jimmy Akin, NCRgstr

Condoms, Consistency, (mis)Communication – Thomas Peters, AmP

Pope Changed Church Condoms Teaching? – Q. de la Bedoyere, CH

A Vatican Condom Conversion? – Mollie, Get Religion

Pope: Condoms, Sex Abuse, Resignation & Movie Nights – John Allen

What The Pope Really Said About Condoms in New Book? – Janet Smith

Ginger Factor: Pope Approves of Condoms! – Jeff Miller, The Crt Jstr

The Pope and Condoms – Steve Kellmeyer, The Fifth Column

Condoms May Be ‘First Step’ In Moralization of Sexuality – Cth Herald

Pope Did Not Endorse the Use of Condoms – Fr. Zuhlsdorf, WDTPRS?

Did Pope Change Teaching About Condoms? – Brett Salkeld, Vox Nova

25 posted on 11/29/2010 6:52:45 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: redgolum
Can someone give me an actual run down of what was said? My Catholic in laws are convinced that condoms (and the pill by extension) are now all ok.

What he said was nothing different than what Catholic moral theologians have said for years. In essence, to use a condom in a homosexual act to prevent the spread of disease may be morally praiseworthy, though of course the act itself is still gravely wrong.

There can be no question in such cases of separating the unitive and generative aspects of the sexual act. There is no generative aspect at all, and the unitive aspect is non-existent as well, because the act attempts to unite two people who cannot be sexually united at all according to natural law.

Orthodox Catholic moral theologians have used the same reasoning to argue that a woman who is at serious risk of rape (e.g., someone doing charitable work in a war zone) can carry a condom with her and attempt to persuade her rapist to use it. The unitive aspect of the act is completely destroyed already, so there can be no question of separating the unitive from the procreative.

This argument has absolutely nothing to do with anything married couples do, and so your in-laws are very seriously mistaken. (Do they live in the Diocese of Lincoln, NE? A quick call to Bp. Bruskewitz will set them straight! :-))

29 posted on 11/29/2010 7:55:26 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: redgolum
For context, this is what the Pope said in his recently released book, Light of the World:

From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

imageOn the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen.

Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.


31 posted on 11/29/2010 8:14:00 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

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