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.

[sinkspur]

May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?

Using a condom is objectively evil. Yes.

Taking the life of a fetus is objectively evil as well. But, taking that life is permitted under the principle of double effect, when that life is taken as a result of some other action, such as removing a diseased womb.

I see this as little different. Using the condom will save her life. That it prevents conception is a secondary effect. That is not the primary purpose of using the condom; saving the woman's life is.

[sinkspur]

May one commit an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances?

Using a condom is objectively evil. Yes.

Taking the life of a fetus is objectively evil as well. But, taking that life is permitted under the principle of double effect, when that life is taken as a result of some other action, such as removing a diseased womb.

I see this as little different. Using the condom will save her life. That it prevents conception is a secondary effect. That is not the primary purpose of using the condom; saving the woman's life is.

[NeoCaveman]

Danneels is only a "leading candidate for the Papacy" in the wildest fantasies of the most demented, homo-promoting, liturgical dancing, wreckovating, wacked-out liberals

You got that right!

[johnb2004]

I agree with the first part. I do not agree with the second part. Intention is important, but a condom is a contraceptive device at all times. Removing an ectopic pregnancy does not intend an abortion. Condom always intends contraception.

[Antoninus]

I can no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you! I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems. You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

Ha! For you to clamor about "honest conversation" is indeed a joke.

You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation. Answer the following question truthfully:

Do you accept and support Humanae Vitae in its entirety?

[Antoninus]

?$ no longer talk to a friggin' disingenuous jerk like you! I try to have an honest conversation, and you come in with the ad hominems. You're an example of why the Church has trouble reaching people, because of arrogance!

Ha! For you to clamor about "honest conversation" is indeed a joke.

You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation. Answer the following question truthfully:

Do you accept and support Humanae Vitae in its entirety?

[sinkspur]

Intention is important, but a condom is a contraceptive device at all times. Removing an ectopic pregnancy does not intend an abortion. Condom always intends contraception.

It intends it as a secondary effect when the primary effect is saving the life of the woman. It also preserves the marriage for the good of the other children.

Abstinence always avoids conception, too.

[johnb2004]

If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not. I anticipate they never will. I bind myself to the barque of Peter. Many bishops dissent in many areas. I reject their teachings.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Either the article is wrong, or the cardinal is a f#cking moron -- the Sixth Commandment is as follows: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Catholics, Protestants and Jews all count the Commandments differently.

[johnb2004]

Abstinence always avoids conception, too.

And you know that can be a contraceptive mentality too, but it can be morally licit. Condoms are never licit.

[conservonator]

To some African men with the AIDS virus, it is. What does this mean for their wives?

A difficult life will become even more difficult? Chastity is a virtue? Controverting the teachings of the Bride of Christ is ok as long as you have good reason? Suffering is unacceptable? Martyrdom is not an option? All morality is relative?

Since when has being a Christian been easy? I know that sounds horribly dispassionate, even spiteful but it shouldn’t. Abstinence from an act that would most likely be fatal is not a hardship, it may be a challenge, but it’s not on par with abstaining form food, drink or shelter.

[sinkspur]

If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not.

So, you admit there's logic to the use of condoms in certain, very exceptional situations!

Thank you. That's what these bishops are saying.

Don't you think the purple in Rome ought to at least discuss this issue?

[sinkspur]

If Rome were to speak with that logic I would accept it, but they have not.

So, you admit there's logic to the use of condoms in certain, very exceptional situations!

Thank you. That's what these bishops are saying.

Don't you think the purple in Rome ought to at least discuss this issue?

[sinkspur]

Abstinence from an act that would most likely be fatal is not a hardship, it may be a challenge, but it’s not on par with abstaining form food, drink or shelter.

The article states that the men will not abstain. That would condemn their wives to exposure to AIDS.

So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

[johnb2004]

That is not at all what the bishops are saying or doing. If any of them encourage condom use they are responsible for that person's soul. God have mercy.

I would accept any infallible teaching from Rome. But, that is only if it came to pass. I am not saying theologians can't discuss such things among themselves. I am saying for Bishops to promote such things in the popular press and such does no good for the faithful. They are delicate, complex discussions that must take place within the confines of Church teaching. Not dissent.

[johnb2004]

Amen. You are a voice of reason.

[sinkspur]

I am saying for Bishops to promote such things in the popular press and such does no good for the faithful.

Bishops are teachers too. Perhaps they're frustrated in trying to get anybody in Rome to listen.

If you can find another situation in which condoms would have to be permitted in order to prevent DEATH, I'd be willing to listen to a slippery slope argument.

This is an EXCEPTION!! To prevent DEATH!!!

[sinkspur]

You want to have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation

No. I'm sick of the ad hominems.

[conservonator]

So, the wives should just endure martyrdom? Just like that?

I don't know, actually. I can’t help but feel less than enthusiastic about the use of condoms for anything. There are other solutions, this one happens to be both the easiest and the most socially acceptable. Doesn't mean it’s the right solution.

[johnb2004]

Do you think that Rome is not familiar with death? Condoms? Controversy? They know, but I say again we too often look to the secular for all solutions. Does not the Holy Spirit guide the Church?

Is it so hard to imagine God allows all types of suffering? I find it funny when so many couples say to me that they sterilize because they could not imagine God not wantimg them to be happy. I could use the same reasoning 1000 times a day to exert my will over Christ's will. Where is the submission to His will?