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

[biblewonk]

But, whether you consider us "unsaved" or not, you must admit that the Pope's highest authority in the matters of faith and morals makes things very simple. We don't have to worry too much about splitting of the Church in half over some openly screwy bishop - as our Anglican brethren do.

Anyone who is born again is saved. Of the billion Catholics I'm sure there are many who believe in the Lord Jesus and are, therefore, born again. The Catholic church has been engineered to be all things to all people. If you like the Goddess you have a place, if you like humanism you have a place, if you love Jesus you can find a place, if you really want to be a Jew but without having to work in hollywood or NYC, you have a place in the Catholic church. There is nothing good about being all things to all people. The Gospel is what is good and the RCC lacks that.

The authority of St. Peter is a great gift to the Church. And because we Catholics know what the authentic teachings of the Church are, we can agree in this thread that what our Belgian cardinal said about condoms was not Catholic. We can joyfully mock the heathen media who hope the next Pope would condone condoms.

This is a sad misinterpretation of that verse. There is no authority of St Peter, no seat of Pope and no priesthood either. All believers are priests but there is no celebate priesthood in the bible that is to serve the Church.

[johnb2004]

I have not challenged you because I thought you could read what I have posted already. Let me make it clear to you. You put words in my mouth. You took my words out of context.

[johnb2004]

Like? I hope you receive eternal salvation. That does not require me to be your bossom buddy.

[johnb2004]

I see you finally accept the truth. The next step would be in trying to be more faithful. Did not Augustine say to accept first and try to understand second?

[johnb2004]

Funny. You claim to know the "true" heart of God and I claim differently. Now either one of us is right and one wrong or we both are wrong. If we are both correct than truth would contradict truth. Happily, Christ left the pope to decide such things. I bind myself to his teachings, not yours and not sink.

[johnb2004]

You added the words to my post that claimed I said I would rather a woman die. Those are not my words. I never implied I wanted anyone to die. I stated the truth that a condom is intrinsically evil. To commit an evil act is worse than physical death. Get it?

[sinkspur]

I see you finally accept the truth. The next step would be in trying to be more faithful.

Can the sanctimony, OK? You're not old enough to be anybody's spiritual director.

[johnb2004]

Who said I wanted to be anyone's spiritual director. I just do not like false advertizing. BTW, how do you know my age?

[Shethink13]

You guys are too funny. Do you actually believe that a man who forces a woman to have sex with him if he's HIV+ would be considerate enough to even use a condom? Obviously his interest lies solely in his own satisfaction.

[sinkspur]

Do you actually believe that a man who forces a woman to have sex with him if he's HIV+ would be considerate enough to even use a condom? Obviously his interest lies solely in his own satisfaction.

We're arguing whether or not the woman is even allowed to ask him to do so. As you can see, there are lots of people who think she should just lay there and take it.

[johnb2004]

(there are lots of people who think she should just lay there and take it.)

Untrue. Many have said to leave, abstain, use force, but not engage in sin.

[Shethink13]

As you can see, there are lots of people who think she should just lay there and take it.

And it seems you think she should just lay there and take it, as long as he's wearing a condom.

[fatima]

CAtholic Family Association,Thank you for the ping.

[Jorge]

You added the words to my post that claimed I said I would rather a woman die. Those are not my words.

I never presented them as your words, but rather my interpretation of the ultimate consequence your stated position.

I never implied I wanted anyone to die. I stated the truth that a condom is intrinsically evil. To commit an evil act is worse than physical death. Get it?

I got it the first time you said it.

When asked if you would agree to use of condom by a married couple if the man was HIV+, in order to protect the woman, you responded negatively.

How is this different than anything I've said about your position?

I said that it appeared you would prefer the woman to contract AIDS(and die)rather than a condom be used.

If I am wrong then show me where.
I'll ask you again.

Do you think it is better for the wife to contract AIDS,(a death sentence) than for a married couple to use condoms if the husband is HIV+?

[Jorge]

Funny. You claim to know the "true" heart of God and I claim differently. Now either one of us is right and one wrong or we both are wrong. If we are both correct than truth would contradict truth. Happily, Christ left the pope to decide such things. I bind myself to his teachings, not yours and not sink.

Do you think the Pope would really say it is better for a woman to contract AIDS from her husband and die rather than for them to use condoms to protect her?

I don't believe the Pope would see this as a balanced application of moral law.

[fatima]

Shethink13,Bump

[Jorge]

That's why Christians don't tell a woman whose spouse has AIDS that a condom will save her. They tell her that ANY sex can transmit AIDS, and a condom does not change that fact.

Personally I probably would not trust a condom to protect me against contracting AIDS from an HIV+ partner.

Just the chance that it could fail is too much of a risk as far as I'm concerned.

But when it comes to those who are already married to, or so much in love with an HIV+ person that they are willing to take that chance, I could not on moral grounds condemn the use of condoms as some degree of protection.

[fatima]

Not sure, call a priest,no priest's on this forum.

[Jorge]

Do you actually believe that a man who forces a woman to have sex with him if he's HIV+ would be considerate enough to even use a condom? Obviously his interest lies solely in his own satisfaction.

Actually any HIV+ person who knowingly infects another person, either by not telling them or forcing unprotected sex on them can be prosecuted under the law and thrown in jail.

Anybody knows this is wrong.

I believe the questions raised here are about the morality and health risks of condom use when it comes to protecting one partner against HIV.

[johnb2004]

You may think gravity does not exist, but it does. Objective Truth exists. The pope believes in an objective Truth