Replies

Bishop Kevin Dowling, bishop of Rustenberg, South Africa, also favors allowing the use of condoms in the context of marriage in Africa.

In some tribes, refusing sexual relations to a marriage partner can result in physical punishment.

From an article in NCR last week:

Dowling said he endorses the “ABCs” of abstinence, being faithful to one partner and living in a committed relationship, but noted that this is only possible in a “regular” or freely chosen partnership. When someone is forced into prostitution in order to eat or when a woman cannot refuse her spouse and transmission of the AIDS virus is likely, the bishop said, she ought to be able to safeguard her life by using a condom and microbicides.

Wearing a condom to protect one’s life or the life of one’s partner is not the same as using it to prevent new life, Dowling said. When used to shield the body from the AIDS virus, a condom is not a contraceptive, he added, and thus does not conflict with traditional church teaching.

Dowling said he is encouraged by support he has received from theologians. The Southern African bishops’ conference remains firmly opposed to their use, but the bishops have “opened the door” a crack in the case of “discordant couples,” he said, allowing a partner to make “an informed choice” if the other partner is infected with the deadly virus.

There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect.

I await a reply form the vatican. I doubt they will agree with the dissenters. I have heard for years that the vatican will allow x or y and so go and do it now.

These issues did not just arise. If there is some problem with tribes in Africa and married men imposing their will on their wives than the authorities need to step in and change that culture.

Condoms are not the answer.

There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect.

Oh please. We can always depend on you to uphold the radical position and attack traditional Church teaching. Your animus toward Humanae Vitae is showing, "deacon." Since when do we change Church teaching just to cater to some cultural oddity like wife beating for refusing sex? The traditional way the Church handled this type of situation was to strongly condemn sinner (in this case, the wife-beater), not by altering doctrine.

There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect.

The principle of double effect cannot be used in this instance since every marital sexual act must be open to life. The use of a condom, even when used to attempt to prevent a disease, stills impairs the marital act and is morally and intrinsically wrong.

This argument of lesser/greater evil cannot be applied in this case. I'm not sure what sort of consolation one could give married couples in this situation, except perhaps to suffer the consequences of engaging in the marital act with the fullness of love, or abstain - in effect, to accept and do the will of God.

That would make sense since how is it dealt with in the Catholic church when a woman has a medical condition that prohibits having further pregnancies even though she is still fertile? Let's say a woman would love the blessing of more children, but because of a serious medical condition has been advised to avoid pregnancy for the remainder of her life? I know a woman who developed a serious heart problem after the delivery of her last child and she absolutely could not be pregnant again because of the strain on her heart. She was so weak that she could not even be "fixed" so her husband got snipped instead. She is Catholic btw and altough she desired more kids, she could not risk pregnancy again because of her health. How is that viewed?

There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect.

I dunno about your reasoning, Sinkspur. Promiscuity inside of marriage is never acceptable. How much you wanna make a bet that the husband who has HIV has slept with many women besides his wife?

Men that care about their wives don't routinely sleep with other women. Wives with husbands who routinely sleep with other women should consider whether any kind of sexual intimacy is in their best interest.

That's an interesting theory (double effect.)

Would get a lot more traction if it weren't Danneels, who specializes in getting under people's skin.

"There might be some applicability of the principle of double effect here: the woman uses the condom to save her life. That is the primary use. The fact that it also serves as a contraceptive is a secondary effect."

sinky, I agree with you on this issue. Life is the highest value. Spouses with AIDS should be allowed an exception.

I do not approve of condoms solely as contaceptives or for use by unmarried persons.

Homosexuals should use them at all times.