Cardinal favours condoms to stop AIDS (leading candidates to succeed Pope John Paul)

The Guardian via SMH ^ | January 14, 2004 | John Hooper in Rome and Andrew Osborn in Brussels

[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.

[lrslattery]

Thanks. I do understand that condoms are hardly effective, either as birth control OR as Aids-preventives, but for the sake of the discussion (finally getting lslattery to explicate) I ignored that fact. Frankly, I still prefer the use of a 9mm, but I fear lslattery will have other thoughts.

Actually, if that much force is necessary to repel the rapist husband, then so be it. My only problem with the deacon's short, snide answer was that he was making a leap to equate "commensurate" or proportional force with killing.

Were I the the intended victim of the assault, the aggressor would have one chance to back off or he would be dead.

[verity]

Because I bind myself to the Truth I am brainwashed?

Ecclesiastical zealots usually are brainwashed!

[johnb2004]

To: cajungirl
Yes. The act of contraception is intrinsically evil One may never commit an intrinsically evil act even if some limited good may come from it.

10 posted on 01/13/2004 11:10:17 AM EST by johnb2004

The above is my original post. Jorge is a liar and murderer of reputations. CFA has correctly represented my post and my intentions. Contraceptive devices are intrinsically EVIL and are always wrong. Using one with full knowledge, consent would be committing a mortal sin. That is not my teaching it is Christ's and I bind myself to Him.

The post from Fr. Torracco of EWTN fame should settle this discussion. Too many do not except that there exists an eternal Truth.

[johnb2004]

You are brainwashed by pop culture. You are one more dissenting left wing follower.

[johnb2004]

except=accept

[verity]

How many years of Catholic education have you had?

[johnb2004]

16 and no catechesis in any of those years. Felt banners, situational ethics, dissent, left leaning compromisers who wanted secular acceptance at any cost.

What is your point?

[johnb2004]

In the case of married people, even if the use of a condom were without contraceptive intent, or even if one partner were sterile and thus there would be no contraceptive effect, it is important to note that the intrinsic disorder (moral malice) of condomistic intercourse in marriage derives not only from a contraceptive intention but likewise from the fact that condomistic intercourse is simply not marital intercourse.


This is the crux of the issue. Using a condom is not a marital embrace. It is faux intercourse.

[AppyPappy]

Headline: CARDINAL FAVOURS CIGARETTE FILTERS TO STOP CANCER

[johnb2004]

You are correct. Facts are stubborn things.

[verity]

I have no idea what your rambling 2d sentence means. Regardless, you are espousing ecclesiatical tenets to which not everyone subscribes. You are entitled to your views; however, others are entitled to their views!

[verity]

Politics and religion always bring out the best in people. :~)

[johnb2004]

You call me names. I respond in kind. Then you claim intolerance?
You never answered why you asked me about my education.

[johnb2004]

The truth is like a sword. It divides. You are on one side or the other.

[Polycarp IV]

Obedience to who???

Its this Cardinal that is being disobedient to the Vatican. I'm defending the Vatican position!

[Polycarp IV]

The above is my original post. Jorge is a liar and murderer of reputations. CFA has correctly represented my post and my intentions.

Thank you for that verification, Johnb2004.

Jorge, you owe John a massive apology.

You owe one to me also, but I won't hold my breath.

[Polycarp IV]

On two counts, the argument for the moral justification of the use of a condom (as the "lesser evil") by unmarried people as protection against AIDS does not hold. First, note that the so-called "lesser evil" is a moral evil, namely "fornicated fornication," that is, marital intercourse between unmarried partners that is further distorted by condomistic intercourse as described above, which is a further violation of marital intercourse. The so-called "greater evil" is the contraction of AIDS, which is a physical evil. It is worse for one's soul to commit a moral evil than to suffer a physical evil. Secondly, the moral justification of choosing a "lesser evil" is possible only if the criteria of the principle of double effect are met. The very first criterion is that there be no alternative action to the one in question, or that there be a genuine dilemma. In the case at hand, there is no genuine dilemma.

The second point to be made about the use of condoms as protection is of a technical nature. Contrary to the popular myth according to which condoms enable people to have "safe sex," condoms are NOT safe. At best, when taking into consideration the cycles of fertility and infertility, condoms are 60% safe. That means that 40% of the time, they are not safe. If you learned that 40% of the time airplanes crash, would you fly? If you learned that 40% of the time, when eating at a restaurant, you die of poison, would you eat at a restaurant? In the end, it is turning out to be the case that the indispensable key to the solution of these sexually related problems is chastity, even celibacy.

--Fr. Stephan Torraco, EWTN Ask The Experts "Expert"

Fatima,

Here is a priest's view. Hope you accept it.

[ninenot]

I was acquainted with the 'proportionality' theory and did not think it was meritorious in this case.

Having read the post, however, it occurs to me that there's another angle on this.

We are focusing on the woman; on the other hand, let us examine the husband. We recognize that for practical purposes the husband, by forcing himself on the wife, is likely committing a mortal sin, and perhaps more than just one, if infection with a deadly disease ALSO results.

Thus, let's hypothesize two cases: first, the husband, on his own volition, puts on the condom. This is not an act attributable to the wife--thus, she is not 'in sin,' correct?

In the second case, the wife asks the husband to use the condom, and he does. By her request, is she now guilty, and to what degree?

[sinkspur]

Well, the fallacy of my initial agreement with your thesis has been pointed out by both Pseudo and lrslattery (?), I think.

But there is no fallacy in simply leaving the decision to the woman and her confessor.

[johnb2004]

In the second case, the wife asks the husband to use the condom, and he does. By her request, is she now guilty, and to what degree?

I raised the same point yesterday in a more clumsy way. She would be committing a sin.