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.
No, there are some people unwilling to tell them the LIE that condom use prevents AIDS.
Who is more compassionate: the Church, which tells the woman if she has marital relations with him on any regular basis, with or without a condom, she is going to get HIV and knows that to counsel ANY marital relations, WITH OR WITHOUT condom use, is condemning the woman to certain exposure?
Or you, who tells the woman to go ahead and get AIDS and die?
As for the cursing, I apologize if I offended you, but cursing-unless taking God's name in vain-is on the level of spitting on the sidewalk. Probably not recommended, but it's not even a venial sin.
9mm is for Euro-sissies. Real men carry a .45 ;-)
Wow. Ninenot, I agree with you completely here. Of course, had I said that, I would have been accused of heresy, or liberalism or despising Humanae Vitae.
The principle of double effect is a long-established moral principle, in Catholic moral theology.
How do you know it's a lie?
This is something still being debated.
And in general condoms are STILL considered by the mainstream medical community to be effective protection against the transmittion of AIDS.
Who is more compassionate: the Church, which tells the woman if she has marital relations with him on any regular basis, with or without a condom, she is going to get HIV and knows that to counsel ANY marital relations, WITH OR WITHOUT condom use, is condemning the woman to certain exposure?
Or you, who tells the woman to go ahead and get AIDS and die?
NOTHING in anything I've posted has ever told "the woman to go ahead and get AIDS and die". That's absurd.
(don't Catholics believe bearing false witness is a sin?)
Stop twisting what my message was.
I said it is BETTER for people to use condoms and prevent AIDS than to mindlessly spread it, in order to adhere to somebody's theological objection to condom use.
In case you haven't noticed, this is a thread discussing the Catholic doctrine on contraception. According to Church teaching, using contraceptives is always, objectively speaking, a mortal sin(just as masturbation is,and fornication, etc.). The job of the Church is guidance of souls, not medical advice. The only thing that that the Church would recommend for preventing the spreading of the HIV virus is abstinence.
Stop twisting what my message was.
Oh, but its OK for you to say about us
Unfortunately there are some people who would prefer to see people die rather than ever use condoms.
Turnabout is fair game, don't YOU believe bearing false witness is a sin?
How do you know it's a lie? This is something still being debated.
Not by anyone remotely aware of the current research.
I bet you don't know.
I am not arguing with Catholic Church doctrine on contraception as much as I am arguing with what I see as the unbalanced and even inverted application of God's law when two moral principles seemingly come into conflict.
My point is that those who would rather see people die from AIDS in order not to violate some law or statute against contraception has distorted priorities when it comes to genuine morality.
Worse than this, I believe they promote an image of God that is counterproductive and ultimately drives people away from the church.
As for the cursing, I apologize if I offended you, but cursing-unless taking God's name in vain-is on the level of spitting on the sidewalk. Probably not recommended, but it's not even a venial sin.
My objection had little to do with my personal offense at your cursing.
I just wonder how seriously you expect to be taken when in the same post where you lecture people on sin, you commit the sin of swearing at them.
It kind of discredits your statement.
Who the hell was I lecturing about sin?(Oops, I let out another one of those naughty words!). My post was directed to an ordained deacon of the Catholic Church who posts on this site regularly who was undermining the teaching of the Church. As I said in that post, I sympathize with people who struggle with these issues because I'm a fallen human being too. But someone who purports to represent the Church should promote Catholic teaching. Period. End of story.
I also find it amusing that the word "damn" is considered to be so sinful and evil.
Oh well, what can else can you expect from a society and the people that dwell in it that condones the murder of 4,000 babies daily, but outlaws smoking in public places?
There you go again. No one would rather see people die from AIDS except those who tell them to go ahead and have sex but use a condom.
If they have sex using a condom, they WILL still get AIDS. You are saying we're wrong for promoting abstaining. But abstaining is the ONLY option available to definitely not get AIDS.
Promoting condom use instead is condemning these folks to definitely eventually getting AIDS.
So YOU are the one who would rather see people die from AIDS in order not to have them adhere to foundational Christian moral theology.
CAtholic Family Association;Oh, but its OK for you to say about us
Jorge"Unfortunately there are some people who would prefer to see people die rather than ever use condoms."
Turnabout is fair game, don't YOU believe bearing false witness is a sin?
Nice try but it won't work.
You haven't been following the dialogue.
I was addressing one of your Catholic FR fellow representatives, johnb2004, who in response to cajungirl clearly implied that it was better for a wife to die from AIDS, than to resort to the "intrinsically evil" act of condom use.
So I had the perfect right to say what I said.
You on the other hand can find NOTHING in any of my posts where I state that I believe it is better for people to contract AIDS and die rather than adhere to what I believe.
I said it would be better for people to use condoms than die from AIDS.
That is NOWHERE near what your Catholic buddy said.
In any case if he doesn't represent your views, all you had to do was say so.
Condoms have a one in five failure rate at preventing HIV transmission. Its worse than Russian Roullete.
If you are saying its better for people to have sex anyways but use a condom, you are saying its better for them to die of AIDS. Period.
Condoms have a 15% failure rate in preventing pregnancy. A woman can only get pregnant 7 to 10 days each month. She can get HIV any day of the month. Therefore a one in five chance at getting HIV with condoms is at best a hopeful wish.
No one debates this except those advocating condom use between a wife and her HIV + spouse in the face of overwhelming evidence that such is suicidal.
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.