Ox’s post on Tuesday is coincidentally on the same topic as I’m writing about today…
A few weeks ago, I caught a portion of a BBC interview with Bishop Kevin Dowling, of Rustenburg, South Africa. Given my interest, and work, in the area of HIV and AIDS, I’m a little embarrassed to admit I hadn’t heard of him before.
A quick Google search (the height of respectable research…) turns up plenty of information about him, and indeed a 2005 Time magazine article calls him “the first African bishop to call on the church to consider lifting its absolute ban on condom use”.
In the part of the interview I saw he was saying what I discovered and felt when I worked in Africa last year; that in the face of reality, and the death toll and pandemic of HIV and AIDS, the Church’s teaching on condoms is both ineffective and illogical. But as I listened to this softly spoken, but obviously compassionate, man one big question stuck with me.
Why, WHY, would Bishop Dowling and others like him call for a review of this topic? It can’t be because he benefits financially from the distribution of condoms; he clearly has a love of Our Lord and His children, and is truly serving the weakest and poorest; and it would be sanctimonious to say he is ignorant on this subject…
I’m a little loathe to recycle quotes, because of a tendency on this site to discredit the people who made them, but in this case Fr James Keenan, a professor of theological ethics at Boston College, Massachusetts, sums up perfectly how I view this topic: “The issue of the Catholic Church and condoms has to be resolved by listening to men of the church who have the experience, tenacity and wisdom of Bishop Dowling.”
Please, please let’s not revisit tired old arguments that seek to discredit the effectiveness of condoms as a tool in reducing the spread of HIV. My question, and the focus of this post, is have you stopped to ask yourself why people like Bishop Dowling, who are really working on this issue at the coalface (unlike far too many in the Vatican…), have this opinion? Why are we not listening to them?
“the first African bishop to call on the church to consider lifting its absolute ban on condom use”.
Ummm…The Church has never had an absolute ban on condom use.
The Church has never taught definitively that contraception is instrinsically evil.
There is no absolute ban on condoms to lift.
What is taught is that contraception is always evil in marriage, because marriage is ordered to procreation.
Captian, I really do think that you would have very much less problems with the teaching authority of the Church if you understood exactly what the Chruch does teach, and with what authority in each case. Rather than what many claim the Church teaches. Which is a different thing.
Why do bishops like Bp. Dowling raise these issues ? Because they have compassion for the suffering.
“The issue of the Catholic Church and condoms has to be resolved by listening to men of the church who have the experience, tenacity and wisdom of Bishop Dowling.”
I’d dispute that because I think human experience is a very fickle thing.
The matter will be resolved by a deeper study of exactly what the Popes taught on the matter of contraception. And with what degree of authority.
Go to the source papal documents. Examine the sources. Resourcement. Follow the paper trail. Start with Humanae Vitae and work back through the papal documents referenced in its footnotes. You’ll find there’s no absolute ban on condom use.
The Popes always provide clarity. Go to them and study what they teach. Not what others say they teach. But what they actually teach.
God Bless
Captain,
While there is probably no doubting the sincerity and conviction of Bishop Kevin Dowling, but I can also quote to you from priests and bishops in Africa who are just as passionately OPPOSED to condoms in Africa.
So why don’t we listen to those men who oppose condoms and are right there living in that very situation just as Bishop Dowling is?
It is possible that Bishop Dowling is not in full possession of the medical and moral facts – I know of many, many people who aren’t aware of the research about condoms and Africa.
Perhaps he has been wrongly led to believe that condoms will help his people, and maybe that is why he says what he says.
The facts are simple – all the evidence to date shows that condoms have done NOTHING to stop HIV in Africa, in fact HIV has just increased as more condoms have been shipped into Africa.
This is exactly why moral issues are not decided on by popular opinion, or by what feels right.
The whole condoms in Africa/Catholic Church argument is nothing but a red-herring that is designed to denigrate Catholicism.
Just think about what is being proposed for a moment:
The argument goes something like this – because the Catholic Church opposes condoms in the fight against HIV (and she definitely does, despite what some misguided people have said on this blog) she is therefore sentencing millions of Africans to death and she is helping to spread HIV.
What a totally ridiculous and illogical argument.
1. This argument proposes that the Catholic Church is accountable for the free decisions and choices of those who freely choose to engage in risky sex
2. This argument proposes that condoms actually work against HIV in Africa, but all the evidence shows the exact opposite is true – that condoms don’t work
3. This argument proposes that the Catholic Church is accountable for the poverty that leads some African women to prostitution, and it proposes that instead of stopping such practises or addressing the poverty leading to them we should just give out condoms instead
4. This argument fails to take into account the evidence I presented in my post earlier this week about the other causes of HIV in Africa
5. Most damningly of all; this argument is a load of unsupported nonsense; let me explain…
Stop and have a think about this for just a second…
Do you really believe that a Catholic would listen to the Church when she teaches that contraception is gravely immoral, but when it comes to having risky HIV transmitting sex that the same Catholic doesn’t follow the Catholic teaching to abstain?!!!
Because that’s what this argument proposes – that Africans are being 100% faithful to some sexual teachings of the Catholic Church, but they are completely ignoring others.
It beggars belief.
In the case of an HIV marriage (where one partner has HIV) there is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT or NEED for a couple to keep having sex if one of them has become HIV positive.
This means that you can’t invoke Double Effect or the lesser of two evils as an argument to support using condoms – because those arguments (aside from all their other requirements) can only be invoked when there is NO OTHER option available and the action being proposed is ABSOUTELY NECESSARY – which is obviously not the case when it comes to having sex.
Captain,
I just thought of another example, which illustrates why the Church does not change her teachings based on the whims or feelings of others (even those who work in a specific situation).
I know a woman who works with young girls who get pregnant, and this woman is adamant that the Catholic Church is wrong to oppose abortion, because she believes that abortion would help women to avoid poverty, loss of studies, and even abuse from family and boyfriends, etc.
She also believes that it is better to have an abortion than to have a baby in poverty or in a situation of domestic upheaval or problems.
She is adamant that the Catholic Church needs to change her teaching and allow abortion.
I am pretty confident that you would agree with me that it would be wrong to suggest that this women should get her way, and that the Church should change its teachings, just because she works with pregnant women who have to deal with the hardship of unplanned pregnancy.
all the evidence to date shows that condoms have done NOTHING to stop HIV in Africa
Ox, you’re completely wrong here. Condoms do reduce HIV transmission. They are not infallible but the scientific evidence is that they definetly do reduce the risk of infection.
You should stop making such incorrect claims because :-
1. You could lead to people not using condoms and thereby dying. You have encouraged someone to violate the 5th commandment.
2. You are patently and clearly wrong and just encouraging others to disregard what the Church teaches.
I know you mean well but you are doing tremendous damage.
God Bless
Why pay no heed to Bp. Dowling? Because he appears to approach this from the position that “condoms may help, therefore we should permit the use of condoms.” Even granting his premise, the Church has had a longstanding view that the ends do not justify the means. In other words, we are not to do evil that good may result.
In the case of an HIV marriage (where one partner has HIV) there is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT or NEED for a couple to keep having sex if one of them has become HIV positive.
Sure there’s no absolute requirement, but the Church has traditionally taught that the quieting of concupiscence is a secondary end of marriage.
There are certainly negative consequences to the marriage of permanent abstainence (as St Paul counsels).
Can’t we grant that an infected couple work this out themselves as long as no moral law is broken ?
There are cases where one spouse has HIV and the other has freely consented to continued marital relations for the good of the marriage (and their own good) and found that enhanced the marriage.
God Bless
I’m sorry Chris,
But you are the one who means well, but is actually completely and utterly wrong about condoms and Africa.
If you read my post carefully (which I know that you didn’t do, because of the comment you made in reply to it) you will see that I said that there is no evidence that condoms have helped with Africa’s HIV problem.
This is complete fact and it is supported by a lot of different research Chris.
Since the early nineties billions of condoms have been shipped into Africa and given away, and guess what; the HIV crisis has not improved in Africa, it has only got worse and worse.
Check your facts before you speak Chris.
Your response here suggests to me that you probably read Catholic teaching documents in this same rushed and non-listening manner, and this is what has lead you to some of the errors you hold about Catholic teaching.
“ the Church has traditionally taught that the quieting of concupiscence is a secondary end of marriage.”
Chris, the Church also teaches that marriage isn’t just about sex and sexual pleasure.
The only moral requirement relating to the need for having sex in a marriage is that a couple must consummate their marriage for the completion of the marriage vow process.
But once they have had initial consummation, there is absolutely NO moral requirement for them to keep having sex.
The Church has NEVER taught that couples who don’t have sex are not holy or that they have invalid marriages.
There are certainly negative consequences to the marriage of permanent abstainence (as St Paul counsels).
What a load of silliness.
Even the early Church has incontinent couples – that is; married couples who permanently abstained from sex for the sake of the Church, and this was viewed as an act of great self-sacrifice, holiness and courage.
Chris, have you bothered to think about the negative consequences of having sex with HIV that far outweigh the positives?
-Every sexual act becomes a possible death sentence for the other spouse (even with a condom)
-Every sexual act could end up conceiving a child who then ends up being born with HIV
All that, just for the sake of sex
I don’t think so buddy.
True men would never subject their wives to such risks just for sex – only an unthinking animal would expect to keep on having sex and risking his wife’s life each time.
Real men love their wives enough to abstain.
I said that there is no evidence that condoms have helped with Africa’s HIV problem
Of course condoms have helped because they limit the spread of HIV.
Ox, this is so patently obvious to most people that most people reading your argument would rightly dismiss you as a crank with his head in the sand ignoring all scientific evidence because of some entrenched ideological position.
Don’t let yourself be painted into this corner because you are simply inviting people to ignore what you say and to dismiss Catholic teaching as unscientific.
God Bless
Chris,
Don’t be an unthinking idiot – it doesn’t suit you very well.
I’ll state the FACTS once again, and hopefully you’l graps them this time:
Billions of condoms have been shipped into Africa since the early nineties, while HIV in Africa has become a bigger and bigger problem each year since the early nineties.
This means that condoms have NOT limited any HIV in Africa Chris.
You are talking out a hole in your head when you claim that condoms have limited HIV in Africa – in fact the African regions with the most condoms also have the most HIV.
Think about it for two seconds Chris.
Ox,
St Paul taught this in 1Cor7 :-
There certainly is merit in marital relations and we ought to factor this into our thinking about AIDS.
It simply isn’t that easy for every HIV couple to abstain for the rest of their lives. To imply that it is simply turns people away from what you have to say because you show no compassion for them and you absolutise something which people know is not absolute. Attitudes like yours simply invite people to ridicule and ignore Catholic sexual teaching.
Real men love their wives enough to abstain.
I agree. But a wife might desire continued relations. And the husband has a duty to oblige her in that, as St Paul teaches.
God Bless
Chris,
St Paul is referring to normal married couples!
He isn’t talking about HIV positive marriages.
You cannot use that Scripture to suggest that HIV couples should be having sex.
You talk of abstaining being unrealistic and hard.
That’s exactly what our modern sex obsessed culture says about it, but it is complete smoke and mirrors.
Would you say that feeding the poor is too hard, or that it is unrealistic, so we should just ignore those in need and make sure that we are happy?!
Or would you say that when it comes to Iraq, it’s just easier to bomb the crap out the country than it is to negotiate on a political level?
Of course you wouldn’t, yet when it comes to sex this is exactly what you are proposing.
You seem to think that people can’t do the right thing, or that they can’t rise above their urges and desires.
Guess what Chris – the ability to rise above and use our urges and desires for the good, instead of just giving into them all the time, is what separates us from the animals.
You have been fooled by the sexual lies of our modern era Chris.
I know of many couples who have abstained from sexual relations for many years due to health reasons and they have very strong marriages and they love each other very, very deeply.
I yawn in the general direction of anyone who says that we should allow condoms because abstaining is too hard – what a cop out.
“I agree. But a wife might desire continued relations. And the husband has a duty to oblige her in that, as St Paul teaches.”
What a load of nonsense.
Imagine this Chris – you and your wife are driving down the motorway and your kids are in the back of the car, and you really want to travel at speeds of over 150kph, but you know that this is immoral and would be dangerous.
But then your wife turns to you and says “Chris, I really want you to speed at 150kph, so that we won’t be late”.
Would you do the wrong thing just because your wife also wanted you to do the wrong thing?!!!!
So why then would you advocate that someone else should act this way just because sex is involved?!
You talk of abstaining being unrealistic and hard.
I didn’t say that.
You’re putting words into my mouth again OX.
We’re all called to abstain at times.
I just think we need to show compassion and understanding to infected couples who decide to continue marital relations.
If it was me I would abstain.
But I’m not going to condemn those who make a free decision not to abstain.
So why then would you advocate that someone else should act this way just because sex is involved?!
Because of Love. We might love our wife and sacrifice ourselves for her.
That’s the problem with the way you come across OX.
Completely lacking in love and compassion.
Not with people in their suffering.
But lecturing at them from on your own supposed moral high ground.
You will never be magister (teacher) until you’ve learnt to be mater (mother).
God Bless
Thanks for that advice Chris.
I’ll counter with some advice of my own:
True compassion and love is not about feelings, it is about placing the good of the individual above what feels good or seems like a popular answer to the situation.
Oh, and here’s some other advice:
Feelings can be deceptive Chris.
The Church doesn’t teach a candy-coated Gospel of feel good philosophies and soppy, sappy platitudes – she teaches the truth.
And sometimes the truth is not easy to hear.
Jesus had the same problem when He tried to share the truth with the people of His day, but this never caused Him to sell out and start preaching a false Gospel based on blind tolerance.
Truth is not always welcomed, but it is always what is needed.
“I just think we need to show compassion and understanding to infected couples who decide to continue marital relations.”
Okay Chris,
That means that we need to show compassion and understanding to the poor USA as it carried out the invasion of Iraq too.
And we need to show compassion to the poor people who don’t want to feed the hungry, instead they want to oppress them more.
We need to just tell these people that God loves them and He doesn’t care what they do, as long they feel okay about it, that’s just fine with Him.
Ox,
“Billions of condoms have been shipped into Africa since the early nineties, while HIV in Africa has become a bigger and bigger problem each year since the early nineties.
This means that condoms have NOT limited any HIV in Africa Chris.”
This is just the most ridiculous way of arguing I have ever seen. Let’s take an apple, sit it next to an orange and conclude a banana.
To state it the way you have is just stupid and anyone with half a brain can see through what you’re saying. It’s like when George W Bush started linking Al-Qaeda and Iraq, simply by using them in the same sentence… And look where that led.
I understand how you feel about this issue but arguing in such a way just discredits you.
Billions of condoms have been shipped into Africa since the early nineties, while HIV in Africa has become a bigger and bigger problem each year since the early nineties.
If remedy A is applied to problem B but the problem still keeps getting worse, it doesn’t mean that remedy A is not at least partially effective. It may very well mean that A is not consistently applied and/or there are other factors at work (such as those Ox posted Tuesday).
The point isn’t that AIDS keeps getting worse while condoms are being used. It’s that without condoms, the problem would be even worse. It’s proven medical fact that condom use reduces HIV transmission.
As St Josemaria Escriva said to the man who who wondered why he still sinned even though he went to mass every day – “But if you hadn’t gone to daily mass, think of how much worse you would have sinned”.
The problem with your argument OX is that it is completely unscientific. You clearly have an ideological agenda to grind. But opposing basic science and medicine isn’t going to convince anyone of your claims.
It’s just going to convince people that :-
1. The Church is opposed to science.
2. The Church has little compassion for AIDS sufferers.
3. The Church is more interested in stopping contraception than in saving lives.
4. The Church’s sexual morality is out of date, opposed to science and medicine, rigid, authoritarian and lacking in compassion.
I know you don’t mean to lead people down this track Ox but your kind of argumentation is only going to discredit Catholic sexual teaching amongst those who don’t already accept the truth of it.
We need to meet people where they are and we need to bear the love and compassion of Christ. We ought not to expect instant perfection of others, because perfection takes time. As the Didache teaches :-
http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm
God Bless
Well well well people, the title of this blog says it all: you are all just hearing what you want to hear…
Captain
If you have a problem with Oxy’s argument, then provide one of your own. It seems all you can do is call his argument stupid. In fact, you seem confused, because in your post you thrice mention that Oxy’s way of arguing is ’stupid’ or ‘discrediting’, extrapolating from that that his method somehow makes his argument invalid. What nonsense.
If I were to argue that jumping off cliffs without parachutes is a good idea, while jumping off a cliff without a parachute, my method and example might be called stupid, but the argument would not.
The best part of your post is the following:
Fair enough too. Friut is very important, and, as you clearly imply here:
Food, not condoms!
Good on you, Captain, good on you.
Okay, let’s at least look at some facts around this issue:
Fact 1: In countries where condom use has been promoted as a preventative for HIV/AIDS, numbers of people with HIV/AIDS have not decreased, they have increased.
Fact 2: The Philippines, a country which has banned condoms, has a 2% HIV/AIDS infection rate, as opposed to the mid 30s% rates in African countries where condom use is promoted
Fact 3: Condoms are not, primarily, intended to prevent STD’s. They were primarily intended to prevent conception.
Furthermore, if you look at the law of averages, encouraging condom use in couples where one has HIV is going against the 5th Commandment. You have stated that condoms are 80% effective. By the law of averages, that means on the fifth occasion they have sex, the uninfected partner might very well become infected. If they have sex twice a week, that means after 2 1/2 weeks, hey presto, HIV for both.
Brilliant.
Sounds like a poisoned antidote to me.
If I were to argue that jumping off cliffs without parachutes is a good idea
Then that would be an argument opposed to life. A pro death argument. An argument opposed to the 5th commandment. One opposed to Jesus, who is life.
We argue that if people insist on jumping off cliffs then they are obliged to wear parachutes.
If the HIV infected insist on having sex then they ought to wear condoms.
That’s simply the pro-life position.
God Bless
Sorry, Chris, I wrote my example wrong. I should have said:
If I were to argue that jumping off cliffs without parachutes is a bad idea, while jumping off a cliff without a parachute, my method and example might be called stupid, but the argument would not.
The point, at any rate, was directed at the Captain. It wasn’t a comment on condom use etc etc etc.
FXD,
Sure it’s better if the infected abstain. That’s what we advocate and teach and urge.
But if they won’t abstain then we have to do what we can to save life. Condoms do limit HIV transmission.
You see, love never imposes itself on the other. Love always acts for the good of the other even when they make unwise choices. Even when they sin.
God Bless
When we exhausted this issue last time, someone came up with the following:
Despite the obvious issies with the 5th commandment that it raised, none of us noticed the strangeness of the comment about condom use.
How, precisely, is the wife to ‘…defend herself from having sex…’ by using a condom? A condom doesn’t prevent sex. How can defending yourself with a condom prevent sex? Hitting someone with a condom won’t do the job, I’m afraid.
Perhaps he put his (bad) argument badly. I won’t accuse him of stupidity because of it.
FXD,
The Church accepts and the bishops allow Catholic hospitals to perform a procedure on woman raped which removes the rapists semen from the vagina. This is a contraceptive procedure which is allowed because the semen represents a threat to the woman.
Rape is not a conjugal act. It’s an act of violence.
The Church teaches that contraception is evil in conjugal acts. It’s not evil in violent acts.
For similar reasons the Vatican officially approved in the early 1960’s that Catholic nuns in the Congo use the pill because of the danger of rape.
The licitness of contraception outside marriage is well grounded in papal teaching and Church practice, both the bishops and Rome.
These cases of the approval of contraceptive acts outside marriage by the Vatican and the Bishops establishes that contraception is not intrinsically evil. Whether it is evil depends on intent and circumstances.
God Bless
Chris,
Then that would be an argument opposed to life. A pro death argument. An argument opposed to the 5th commandment. One opposed to Jesus, who is life.
We argue that if people insist on jumping off cliffs then they are obliged to wear parachutes.
If the HIV infected insist on having sex then they ought to wear condoms.
That’s simply the pro-life position.
No, it’s not. You can call that position many things, but pro-life is not one of them.
If there is even a chance that the condom will break (which there is), and their spouse will be infected (which means they will die because of that act), how is promoting that a pro-life argument?!?
That’s akin to saying if someone insists on playing Russian Roulette, at least use a gun with more chambers in it so that it improves their chances of choosing an empty chamber. You’re still saying they should play Russian Roulette – which is a pro-death argument.
The only truly pro-life argument is to tell them not to play the game at all…surely?
The only truly pro-life argument is to tell them not to play the game at all…surely?
Yes.
But if they won’t listen, what then ?
Stand on our high moral ground and lecture them ?
Or try to persuade them to at least mininimise the risk.
Look, the pro-life position requires us to do everything reasonably likely to save human life. That includes condoms, even if they are only 80% effective. Even if they rupture, break and slip off.
Heck, there are lots of medical treatments that are less than 80% efefctive, but how heartless would be to refuse them to a someone at risk of otherwise dying ?
The problem with your argument is that is makes the perfect the enemy of the good. We should aim for perfection but if we can’t get there all at once, let us at least do what good we can.
God Bless
Chris Sullivan
You said: “The Church has never taught definitively that contraception is instrinsically evil.”
The Roman Catholic Catechism says:
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil (2370)
You are wrong, and you are a liar on this issue. Mr Ox and the others are much more diplomatic and forgiving than I, but then this isn’t my blog. Judging by your comments on Mark Shea’s blog about the Van Holland report, I would say you are a mischievous dissident of the highest order. Sr Joan Chittister will enthrall you I’m sure.
James, that was a really good post. You said:
To which Chris replied:
Well, Chris, I would say, try to persuade them. Full stop. Do everything in one’s power to persuade them (within reason). Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Goodness me, Chris, ‘lecture them’? ‘Stand on our high moral ground…’. Don’t paint people in that way Chris, bearing false witness. We’re trying to give them the truth – ’sin no more’ type stuff. And it is silly to suggest that we are soap-box preaching on this. We are trying to help set people free.
Encouraging them to sin doesn’t help to set them free.
And Chris, re post #26, I have it on extremely good authority that the Church is becoming convinced that the two examples you give were mistakes, and at odds with the constant teaching of the Church.
MrTips,
CCC2370 speaks of conjugal acts. Contraception is evil in conjual acts (acts of marriage). It’s not evil outside conjugal acts (outside marriage).
Therefore it is not intrinsically evil.
CCC2370 quotes Humanae Vitae. But the part outside the quote marks, the “is intrinsically evil” part, does not appear in Humanae Vitae. It’s something the Catechism added. It’s not in formal papal teaching.
you are a liar on this issue
Such charity, MrTips, such charity.
God Bless
MrTipsNZ,
“Charity in all things” is the motto of this blog. Please remember that in your comments.
Chris
And what happens if they won’t listen to those persuasions? What then? Don’t you see you’re on a slippery slope? If they’re not going to listen to the abstinence argument, and they’re don’t listen to the contracept argument, then what? Where do you draw the line?
That’s the argument that people use to legitimise abortion. It starts with “well, in cases of rape or incest, I think it’s alright”, and they end up with “well, if the mother is not mentally mature enough to be able to handle a baby, then that’s probably okay too.”
Slippery slopes are very slippery.
I though the Catechism was the definitive reference on Church teaching. It is not an entity in and of itself that can add and delete stuff from it. It codifies formal papal teaching – shown previously on this blog by the fact that it comes with a foreword by the Pope!
Everything in the Catechism is teaching of the Magisterium…surely?!?!?
I have it on extremely good authority that the Church is becoming convinced that the two examples you give were mistakes
Evidence ?
Granted that the pill is sometimes abortifacient and therefore illict for that reason. But the principle that contraception after rape is licit was formally approved by the Vatican. And it’s still practised, under the approval of the Church, in Catholic hospitals after rape. Not by abortifacients but by careful mechanical removal of the semen.
Even a douche is contraceptive. Would we say that a raped woman cannot douche ?
To insist that non-abortificient contraception is intrinsically evil after rape is not not only not what the church teaches but is simply heartless and lacking in compassion.
To be intrinsically evil, something must be evil in all circumstances and despite all intents. Contraception after rape simply doesn’t meet that very high bar.
God Bless
I though the Catechism was the definitive reference on Church teaching
No. Teaching in catechisms changes over time.
What’s definitive is what the Poes define, not the explanations of those definitions found in catechisms.
Everything in the Catechism is teaching of the Magisterium…surely?!?!?
No. Some teachings in the catechism contain no footnote references to any papal teaching document. That’s because they are not formally taught by the Popes.
The source of Catholic definitive teaching is the Pope. Not the many and variuos Catechisms.
God Bless
FXD,
Using a stupid and wildly skewed method of arguing does discredit the person putting the argument forward. If you read my comment, you’ll note I didn’t call Ox stupid because I don’t think he is – but I do think that way of arguing is ridiculous and weakens messages.
Much like your outlandish and morally irresponsible scenario put forward in #21 – it’s comments like that that give the Catholic Church a bad name.
To everyone else, how about you read my post then comment on IT rather than everything else but? Forgive me for thinking that’s what a blog was for – I can’t stomach yet another “debate” about HIV and condom use; what I wanted to canvas people’s opinions on was why they think those who are actually working on the frontline of this issue (rather than sitting on their computers reading reports about HIV and morals) say what they say? And who should we be listening to?
Then again, you could just keep going round in circles fruitlessly and uncharitably arguing this topic…
MrTipsNZ,
“Mr Ox and the others are much more diplomatic and forgiving than I…”
Then can I politely suggest you take a few lessons from them then before you post another comment like your last one. Surely, through the grace of God, you can find a more charitable way of making your point.
“Judging by your comments on Mark Shea’s blog about the Van Holland report, I would say you are a mischievous dissenter of the highest order”
Mr Tips, would you be so kind as to post a link to these comments on Mark Shea’s blog? Many thanks.
Chris Sullivan
Wrong again, yet you still try and twist it.
It spoke of THE conjugal act. If you knew any theology, you would know the conjugal act is a singular phrase.
Your duplicity over the wording is incredible; you seriously expect anyone to believe that the Church teaches contraception is evil inside marriage only? And furthermore, you now acknowledge that contraception is evil inside marriage, but before you said the Catholic Church had never stated it. QED to my earlier point.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
“Post entitled “Trendy Eco-Feminist Crap in New Zealand”.
Currently, there are 11 comments.
The Van Holland report is full of distortions, factual errors, inuendo and unsubstantiated allegations.
It is most certainly not an objective analysis of the state of the Church in New Zealand, although some things in it are true (there’s a little truth in every heresy).
It is schismatic and damaging to the unity of the Church and undermines the authority of the bishops.
It’s accusation that the Church in NZ is being run by neo-pagans is not only outrageous and incorrect but damaging and defamatory.
You can read my comments at Mark Shea’s at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/5109463289867130342/#888827
God Bless
you now acknowledge that contraception is evil inside marriage, but before you said the Catholic Church had never stated it
I didn’t say the church had never stated contraception is evil in marriage.
What I said, in the very first comment on this thread was :-
But lets not let the facts get in the way of smearing and discrediting me and accusing me of being a dissident or a neo-pagan.
God Bless
WARNING: THIS IS A LOOOOOOONG COMMENT!! But hopefully useful.
Captain,
You ask us to consider who we should listen to on the topic of HIV/Aids etc. That’s a fair enough request. And I respect what Bishop Dowling has to say. But I found some interesting ideas on the Catholics for a Free Choice website. They support abortion, contraception and a whole range of other things the Church has always opposed.
I’m amazed they’ve even put this stuff on their site, because it doesn’t align with their agenda. I’ll post a few extracts from Africa, the same continent on which Bishop Dowling resides, and PNG, the Pacific “leader” in HIV cases. Here’s the link: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopsopposecondoms.asp
FROM KENYA: During the opening of the national religious leaders’ conference on stigma, denial and discrimination in Kenya, Archbishop Ndingi Mwana a’Nzeki urged the government to ban advertising and distributing condoms. He insisted, “There are no two ways about it…. When condoms are provided anyhowly, chances of promiscuity increase since a majority of our people end up engaging in casual sex.”
FROM TANZANIA: Tanzania’s Episcopal Conference calls material on the Ministry of Education’s recently released school science syllabus “sinful” because it includes the proper use of condoms as one way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. In a statement issued on behalf of the conference, Cardinal Polycarp Pengo, the archbishop of Dar es Salaam, says the “introduction of the [teaching of] use of condoms in schools…is indeed justification and opening the door for immoral lifestyles.”
FROM PNG: Bishop Paul Marx of the Diocese of Kerema in Papua New Guinea insists that an Australian National AIDS Council campaign “is sending out the wrong message that promiscuity is the normal, ordinary way of life.… By distributing condoms all over the place it will facilitate even further that promiscuity, which is the main breeding ground of HIV/AIDS.” The ad, which says “No condoms, no sex,” also promotes abstinence and faithfulness. However, even Bishop Marx believes that there are times when it is morally acceptable to use condoms, as he adds, “I am not of the other extreme opinion that condoms can never be used in any circumstance whatsoever.”
FROM THE EAST AFRICAN BISHOPS CONFERENCE: Tanzanian bishop Anthony Banzi, one of two spokesmen for the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa (AMECEA) rejects condoms as a means to fight HIV/AIDS, stating during the association’s 15th plenary meeting that condoms “are one of the artificial birth control methods and the Church is against birth control.”
FROM ZAMBIA: Commenting on the challenges faced by Pope Benedict XVI, Archbishop Orlando Antonini, the apostolic nuncio to Zambia, defends the church’s ban on condoms and asserts that the “use of condoms still constitutes a false solution” to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
FROM SOUTH AFRICA (Bishop Dowling’s turf): Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, head of the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference, criticizes the South African government for condom promotion. “There’s no medical evidence to prove that condoms prevent the transmission of AIDS and it’s only 70% to 75% effective in preventing pregnancy,” says Cardinal Napier.
These are people at the coalface too, Captain.
Captain,
I can only assume that the people on the front line who are speaking out these thoughts recommending condom usage are saying so because they believe that that will make a difference. And they think this because of what they experience and what they see, and they equate condoms with being part of the solution.
I think that people like Bishop Dowling only have the best interests of his people in mind. That’s why he says what he says, in my opinion. Others who speak on this issue often have a more clouded agenda but, as you point out, the bishop has nothing to gain, personally, from making these statements.
As to my thoughts on what he is saying, there is no way I will ever be able to speak with the same experience that he and others do, without jumping on a plane and getting over there and rolling my sleeves up, so I can’t for a second criticise those who do exactly that. Period. The most I can do to help, in my situation, is support organisations who are “rolling up their sleeves” from a financial perspective.
With that done, what is left for me? What can I do to help the millions who are dying other than my widow’s pence? I want to encourage any debate who’s source is to find the answer to the pandemic. I am convinced that condoms are not the answer – I don’t think anyone is really saying that anyway. Even supporters admit that they’re not 100% effective, which means they can never solve the problem of HIV and AIDS.
The reason I take part in and pay attention to these seemingly circular debates is that I’m looking for ideas and inspiration. Because the whole situation often looks very, very bleak to me.
Scribe,
Bishop Marx believes that there are times when it is morally acceptable to use condoms, as he adds, “I am not of the other extreme opinion that condoms can never be used in any circumstance whatsoever.”
There are many bishops who say this.
The New Zealand bishops teach this too.
They teach the truth.
God Bless
There are some quotes from Uganda on the above link as well, but I know talking about Uganda on this blog can be a tad contentious.
But I came across this BRILLIANT quote that I think need to be shared: Bishop Rafael Llano Cifuentes, the President of the Brazilian Bishops Commission for Family and Life, claims that “using a condom to stop AIDS is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.”
Good post (#43), Scribe.
Chris, I do not have permission to name my source, sorry. Suffice to say it is, in my opinion, very solid indeed.
Captain, I think Scribe, in post #43, has very effectively commented on your post. Very effectively indeed.
And Captain, I hope your work overseas went well.
For more on Catholics for Free Choice, read the following link: War on Faith: How Catholics for Free Choice seek to undermine the Catholic Church
Chris Sullivan
I never said you were neo-pagan. I said you were a liar on this issue and a dissident of the highest order.
You have just posted on Mark Shea’s blog admitting to holding heretical positions and being at odds with the Magisterium on fundamental issues.
That is far worse than anything than I could have stated.
You speak of charity – charity also demands the defence of truth.
Your position in this is clearly one of dissembling the Church’s position, from time immemorial, on the issue of contraception. You may be past debating with, but you are certainly not past praying for.
And for the authors on this blog. You think I’m forceful or lacking in charity? Wait until the coming storm hits…
It seems to me, I might add, that some people seem far too concerned about this idea of ‘giving the Church a bad name’, or who seem to be worried about what impression discussions might have on people viewing the blog.
We can’t water down Church teaching (A.K.A. the Truth) just for appearances.
We can, all of us, be more charitable though (FXD, Captain et al…)
And Chris, interesting to see you say that you hold heretical views on the Mark Shea blog. Were you joking, or admitting something?
To return to The Captain’s actual question :-
Catholic teaching developes, not from the centre (Rome) but from the edges, the coalface, the trenches.
The initiative behind the coming Motu Proprito on restoring the 1962 missal to its rightful place did not come from Rome. It came from the edges. Those who understood what a treasure the Tridentine mass is and why it ought to be retained. They faced lots of opposition from the hierarchy. And it took a long time to convince Rome. But they worked away over many years and did get the necessary change.
This is the usual way doctrine developes. Experience with social reality filters back up thru the Church to Rome which eventually responds. The Church is naturally conservative (a good thing) and often takes many years to respond.
We shouldn’t be discouraged by this.
The Holy Father has acknowledged that the Church took too long to respond to the social changes of 19th century capitalism. You can read his frank critique of the the Church’s response in his first encyclical Deus Caritus Est.
The Captain is right. We need to be open to the witness from the edges of the Church.
God Bless
MrTips,
Thank you for your prayers which are always genuienly appreciated.
Wait until the coming storm hits…
Should we read that as a threat ?
FXD,
you say that you hold heretical views on the Mark Shea blog
Huh ? Where did I say that ?
God Bless
The Captain,
Another reason change takes so long is that many are afraid to speak up because they get accused of being a “liar”, “dissident of the highest order”, “holding heretical positions” and “being at odds with the Magisterium on fundamental issues.” See MtTipsNZ above.
An Opus Dei member recently commented that her generation were guilty of not speaking up in the 1960’s and 1970’s about some things which they ought to have spoken up about. They did not want to be accused of these things. Much easier not to rock the boat.
God Bless
Chris Sullivan
umm…..you said the last two points yourself on Mark Shea’s blog, no-one else said those.
Do not class yourself and Opus Dei in the same frame.
The Ox is back,
All this talk of people at the coalface, and not much talk of the fact that sometimes people at the coalface stop seeing the word for the trees and their judgments become clouded by their desperation for a seemingly easy or speedy solution to the problems they face.
And as has already been pointed out – there are actually conflicting opinions from people at the coal face on this issue – so who is one to listen to?
I know – I’ll listen to the oldest lady in the room – the Catholic Church .
She’s 2000 years old now, and she has 2000 years of wisdom, philosophy, moral understanding and theological development that was forged in the fires of wars, and heresies and social upheavals that even threatened the world as we knew it.
She has outlasted the greatest empires and kings, and she will continue to do so.
And only she has the power to speak the truth.
We can get all caught up in blind emotionalism, and we can send billions of condoms into Africa because some FPA worker or Durex manager tells us that this is the solution to their problems…
Or…
We could take a step back, read the research, observe the facts and then implement solutions and programmes that actually work because they address the REAL issues at the heart of this crisis.
Here are the facts:
Since 1989, more than 4 billion condoms have been shipped into o Sub-Saharan Africa, yet HIV continues to grow at an epidemic rate there.
Between 1994 and 1998 – free condoms in South Africa went from 6 million to 198 million. Despite this, statistics released in 2005 showed that between 1997 and 2002, death rates from HIV/AIDS in South Africa increased by 57%
In Botswana, Cameroon and Zimbabwe the increase in condom promotion has directly correlated in the increase in HIV rates in those countries.
Only a fool or a blind man would see this and then try and claim that condoms are actually working, or have even made a difference in Africa.
If you want to cling desperately to the condom methodology – which results in valuable money and resources being thrown down a huge toilet – then that’s your choice.
But don’t expect me to support such insanity.
Chris,
You are a silly Goose indeed, and you remind me of one of the emperor’s advisors in the story of the emperor’s new clothes.
You keep talking about people who won’t listen to the truth of Catholic teaching, and how we need to make their decisions to do evil much safer for them.
What a silly heretical nonsense.
The Church offers the truth, and we are called to proclaim that truth as James has already stated.
If someone chooses to ignore the truth and sin anyway, we don’t then offer them a way to make their sin “safe”.
If someone chooses to have HIV sex, despite what the Church says, they are FREELY choosing to endanger themselves both morally and physically.
They have been warned about the consequences, but it’s their choice whether they will listen or ignore the truth that has been presented.
Jesus doesn’t preach safe sin, he preaches “turn from sin”.
Hi Chris:
I’ll link to it here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/5109463289867130342/#889422
And this is the actual comment itself:
I’m sure there’s an explanation for what you said here. I can think of one.
If someone chooses to ignore the truth and sin anyway, we don’t then offer them a way to make their sin “safe”.
What a heartless thing to say !
Of course we do what we can to relieve human suffering and misery.
Even when it is the result of sin.
But I take your point Ox about monetary priorities. I don’t give my own money to fund condom distribution. I’m more interested in funding social develepment thru organisations like Caritas.
God Bless
Good use of your giving Chris, excellent stuff.
Could you maybe explain that comment quoted in #58 if you have the time?
FXD,
I never made that comment on Mark Shea’s. Someone has impersonated me (easy enough to do on haloscan). If you want to find out who, just contact Mark. He may have ways of tracing these things.
God Bless
Thanks, Chris. That’s pretty poor form, to be fair. Whether people agree or disagree with you, to do something like that is not on.
Don’t take it to heart or be offended dude; because it is that person who has the problem, not you.
Long time reader first time writer!
Who thinks the bloodhound gang had it right?
“You and me baby ain’t nothin but mammals – so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel”
Yeah right!!!!!
Condoms lesson the likelihood of two people who are involved in sexual intercourse from contracting HIV / AIDS but it is not 100% effective. There is only one thing that is 100% effective and that is abstinance! And guess what… it is possible!!!
Christian’s CANNOT condone sex outside of marriage! Christian’s CANNOT condone sex that leads to death! Death of an infant, death of a fertilised egg, death of a sexual partner… Sex is about life not death! And when HIV is involved it will lead to death!
The Churches position has always been to endorse abstinance as a good and holy thing! There is no point debating whether Condom’s should be allowed!
Use your common sense!
Blessings
NCR
I think the two parties are speaking in different time scales here.
• In single instances, having a condom may be more effective in preventing HIV than having none.
• Given multiple instances, however, the effectiveness is practically reduced to nil over time.
In the second case, the perceived security is a factor in increasing both promiscuity and spread of HIV in Africa.
Given this, the only reasonable thing to do would be to promote abstinence over condom use – encouraging the latter increases both promiscuity and HIV contraction in the long run, whereas the former reduces both.
Allow me to quote the Dumb Ox from a previous thread:
We also know that the more often a person uses a condom the greater the risk becomes of experiencing a condom failure – it’s like latex Russian Roulette (the more often you pull the trigger the greater the chance that the bullet comes out).
The Pearl Index, which is the official medical measure for contraceptive effectiveness, clearly shows that condoms have a failure rate of 10 – 15%.
This means that for every 100 women who use condoms, 10 – 15 of them will experience one condom failure in a one year period.
But this failure rate increases over a ten year period to over 50%; which means that for every 100 women who use condoms over a ten year period – more than 50 of them will experience at least one condom failure.
The Pearl Index only measures condom failures for pregnancy. Even with optimum fertility, the chances of becoming pregnant each month is about 20 – 25%, and you can only become pregnant on approx. 4 – 10 days each month.
Yet HIV can be caught every day of the month and it takes just one failed condom to catch it.
FXD,
I expect it was just a joke. I’m old enough to have a pretty thick skin.
I think the two parties are speaking in different time scales here.
I’d tautoko that.
However, OX’s own evidence suggests that AIDS is rather hard to catch by vaginal intercourse (I think he quoted a figure of 1 in a thousand chance over 1 year).
Personally I suspect the risk is several orders of magnitude higher than OX quotes.
But I certainly agree with TTM’s conclusion – the emphasis must be on abstinence not condom use. In use they frequently break, ruputure and fall off. They are a rather poor protection. The 5th commandment argues persuasively for abstinence.
Nonetheless if someone in the heat of the moment isn’t going to abstain – I’d rather they at least use a condom.
God Bless
I’d tautoko that.
Great
In that case, I think you and Ox aren’t as far apart in the matter as you may appear.
D’Ox is speaking of the situation as a whole, which I for one think is where the focus ought to be. Individual violations of law (be it legislative or natural) ought not dictate what the law should be – or it’ll be another Prostitution Reform Bill.
D’Ox is speaking against the prevalent and erroneous notion that, ‘more condoms equate to less HIV’. As D’Ox points out, the evidence points to the contrary: “the African regions with the most condoms also have the most HIV” (post #10), and Philippines (which has banned condom use) has the lowest rate of HIV. It seems logical enough that these are related, especially given all the other evidence D’Ox has presented (which are numerous enough!).
The reason for increase in HIV is simple. More condoms equals:
• Greater rate of promiscuity (which is bad in itself), and thus;
• Greater rate of infection due to its cumulative failure rate in the long term.
So, speaking on the whole, D’Ox is correct in saying that, “all the evidence to date shows that condoms have done NOTHING to stop HIV in Africa, in fact HIV has just increased as more condoms have been shipped into Africa.”.
God bless,
TTM
Welcome NCR. I agree with you there.
These three-letter acronym names are becoming popular, aren’t they?
However, OX’s own evidence suggests that AIDS is rather hard to catch by vaginal intercourse (I think he quoted a figure of 1 in a thousand chance over 1 year).
Chris,
It wouldn’t be that surprising though. I wrote on this blog weeks ago about the anatomical difference between vagina and anus:
http://www.beingfrank.co.nz/?p=344#comment-9169
I didn’t read what Ox had written on this, but if you quoted him rightly, then it’s much lower than what I expected. But it could be though. There are many ways through which one can be infected with HIV, so not all women with HIV got it from sexual intercourse.
But I couldn’t get how the statistics makers find out whether the women got infected through intercourse/ shared syringes or other stuff/ blood transfusion etc… :roll:
Scribe,
Could you please tell me what you define as “at the coalface”? Perhaps I should have made clearer Bishop Kevin Dowling’s work with HIV and AIDS – you can read about his clinic and initiatives here.
Being a Catholic, or indeed a Bishop, in Africa doesn’t mean you work on this issue at the coalface. For starters, Africa’s a bloody huge continent made up of 53 countries! You could easily live there and not have anything to do with this area. For that reason, I don’t give much personal weight to the sources you’ve quoted. But I’m prepared to listen more if you could give me some more information on this…
Ox,
“If someone chooses to have HIV sex, despite what the Church says, they are FREELY choosing to endanger themselves both morally and physically.
They have been warned about the consequences, but it’s their choice whether they will listen or ignore the truth that has been presented.”
We’ve been over this before, and I’m summoning up all my patience to avoid screaming like a banshee.
Far too many of the people Bishop Dowling is helping, and I’m referring to when I talk about using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURIES YOU AND I HAVE. They do not have the freedoms to make luxurious choices about abstinence.
Poverty is about a lack of choices.
This is the big problem that needs to be addressed but instead of tackling the root causes of extreme poverty, we’d rather sit on our high horses and tell women who are being subjected to a degrading, heartbreaking way of life to feed their children, that not only are they living in hell in this life, they’re heading that way in the next too.
Chris,
I know you don’t need to hear this but I’m going to say it anyway.
Your dedication to what you believe to be right, and the way you conduct yourself when furthering this cause, is nothing but admirable. The abuse, because that’s exactly what it is, you are subjected to as a result of this is embarrassing and I hope and pray you continue to find the strength to carry on doing what you do.
I don’t always agree with you, but I respect the way you charitably argue your points.
Having recently seen the tactics of other bloggers out there, I’m also pretty proud of our regulars on Being Frank, who for the most part are pretty respectful.
Peace out!
“They do not have the freedoms to make luxurious choices about abstinence.”
Hold on a minute, since when did abstaining from sexual intercourse become a luxury decision?
It’s certainly the cheapest of all the options being proposed in the fight against HIV.
“Poverty is about a lack of choices.
This is the big problem that needs to be addressed but instead of tackling the root causes of extreme poverty”
I 120% agree with you Captain, but dolling out condoms is hardly addressing poverty, and it certainly isn’t empowering women and other poor people, or giving them choices.
If women are being subjected to degradation (I presume you are referring to prostitution) for food, then we need to stop the degradation, not simply add condoms into the mix as well.
Condoms don’t address poverty and they don’t provide a proper solution to HIV.
“Being a Catholic, or indeed a Bishop, in Africa doesn’t mean you work on this issue at the coalface.”
So only people who work directly with HIV affected people in Africa are allowed to comment on solutions to HIV in Africa?
I’m sorry, but that’s not enough of a qualification for me, because at the end of the day they are still fallible human beings, prone to wrong judgments and wrong calls – just as much so as someone who is viewing this crisis from afar.
In fact, being at the coalface also has other disadvantages, in that often those closest to a situation are the most unable to be objective about their situation, and in their desperation to send the suffering and turmoil they see around them every day they end up desperately seeking out any possible port in a storm, rather than the most effective or truly right solution.
Yes, we must listen to the people at the coalface, but we must never deify them, or turn everything they say into some sort of infallible truth that can never be questioned or challenged.
since when did abstaining from sexual intercourse become a luxury decision?
Spoken just like a rich Western male sitting at his computer !
Ox, The reality is that many women in Africa don’t have a real choice to abstain. To feed their family they are often forced into prostitution. Others have sexually demanding and infected husbands.
Try to put yourself in their position. That’s where Christ is. With the poor and the suffering not lecturing about them from a computer keyboard.
Show some compassion. From the latin. *** = with. Passion = suffering. Be with people in their suffering.
I salute the likes of The Captain who is actually putting herself on the line to minister to people suffering from AIDS. That’s way more than all the words I and others could ever type on computers.
God Bless
FXD,
So, do you think it is morally licit for a raped women to use a non-abortifacient contraceptive procedure to remove the rapists semen from her vagina ? For example, a douche (washing out the vagina).
If contraception is intrinsically evil then its always wrong regardless of intent or circumstance (that’s the definition of intrinsically evil).
If a douche after rape is morally licit then contraception cannot be intrinsically evil.
What the Popes teach is that contraception is evil in the marriage act. Rape is not a marriage act.
God Bless
Captain,
I think being a bishop in a country where HIV/Aids is one of, if not THE, leading cause of death, qualifies you as working at the coalface. When you celebrate Mass and look into the eyes of the faithful and know they’re dying from Aids, but realise that condoms aren’t the answer, that’s working at the coalface.
I know you, like those bishops, have looked into the eyes of these people. I never have, and may well never do that. But if bishops — the people entrusted as successors of the apostles — say something, and a pro-condom organisation publishes them, I sit up and take notice.
Now, Captain, I’m going to say something that, in isolation, will probably make you want to punch the computer (it would be me if I was within arm’s length). Please read the entire paragraph before cursing me.
Compassion can sometimes lead people away from truth. It can cloud people’s judgement at times. Ox touched on this above. Compassion can see priests/bishops wonder if people in their congregation who are divorced and civilly remarried should be allowed to receive Communion. They’re good people, after all. And those Anglicans who came to this requiem Mass are good people too, I can see it in their eyes. Why not just let them take Communion as well? Compassion might lead a priest to give Communion to those people, but they have strayed from the truth as taught by the Church.
As I said earlier, I don’t doubt Bishop Dowling’s sincerity and desire to do the right thing. I just can’t agree with him.
IMPORTANT POINT: About 12 months ago, and some on this blog who know my true identity will vouch for this, I would have agreed with you and Bishop Dowling on this point, Captain. Reading and listening and learning though — granted, not actually going to Africa — has led me to the opinion I hold today.
Scribe,
There’s an Anglican woman married to a Catholic man in our parish who has a permanent dispensation to receive the eucharist at Catholic mass. The Church allows Anglicans to receive the sacraments from Catholic priests in case of need. I did from time to time when I was Anglican.
We know what Jesus did at the last supper. He gave the eucharist even to Judas.
Jesus remains the model for what compassion really is.
but they have strayed from the truth as taught by the Church.
So do Catholics, Scribe, so do Catholics. A US study found 98% of Catholic women had used contraception.
God Bless
Chris,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. What I meant when I said “they have strayed from the truth” is that priests who distribute Communion in those circumstances or to those people are, in my opinion, diminishing the Eucharist.
I don’t know much, if anything, about dispensation for Anglicans in the Catholic Church, so I won’t comment. But I’m not sure what “in case of need” means. Sounds like something that should be used only when someone can’t get to an Anglican church, rather than just to make it easier for someone.
that priests who distribute Communion in those circumstances or to those people are, in my opinion, diminishing the Eucharist.
It would be pretty hard to diminish the eucharist in any way, being, you know, that it is God. What could we ever do to diminish God ?
Anglicans can receive if they meet the normal conditions (baptised, state of grace, Catholic belief in the real presence) and there is a special need. My first time receiving the Catholic eucharist as an Anglican was in Bolivia where I don’t think there are any Anglican churches.
God Bless
Chris,
The Eucharist is not a free-for-all smorgasbord and it shouldn’t be treated as such. Anyway, we’re getting off topic, so I’ll stop going down this path.
Some very good points Scribe.
It’s become a real problem in our modern era for individuals and groups to want to feel like they are doing something practical to fix the major ills that plague our world.
The problem is that this all too often leads to rushed and poorly thought out solutions that might feel like they are helping, when in actual fact they are either making the situation worse, or they are simply causing other serious problems.
Our compassion must always be grounded in truth – as you rightly point out – otherwise we just end up resorting to any solution – no matter how immoral it may be – in our hurried attempts to fix the problem.
When you think about, the very problem of the Iraq invasion was caused by this sort of mentality – where people in the heat of the moment were desperate to find a solution to the problems that caused 911.
Instead of taking a step backwards and stopping to consider the full social and moral ramifications regarding an invasion of Iraq, they simply rushed in there out of a misguided belief that this would fix the problem the global terrorism (or at least a large part of it).
Anyway, I enjoyed your post Scribe.
“Spoken just like a rich Western male sitting at his computer!”
Chris,
What exactly does this smarmy self-righteous comment actually prove?
It’s the kind of thing that one would expect from someone whose arguments lack reason and sound judgment.
To gloss over this lack of reason, you resort to throwing around feel-good buzzwords that don’t actually mean anything.
Just because I refuse to succumb to the flawed ideology of the aging sexual revolutionaries, who think that every problem can be fixed with either a condom or a Viagra pill.
I want to see African woman freed from the oppression and poverty that forces them into sexual slavery.
Handing an African woman a condom and saying “there you go love, now it’s all better” is just liberal Western BS that just doesn’t cut it; and it certainly isn’t something that Christ would be doing were he here today.
Read my lips:more than 4 billion condoms have been shipped into Africa since 1989 and they haven’t done a thing to halt the spread of HIV!
Someone famous once said that the “definition of stupidity is someone who does the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result each time”.
Don’t forget that the very Church that accuse of being out of touch with the issues surrounding HIV is the very same Church that cares for more HIV positive people that any other organisation or government in the world.
I guess that makes her most qualified of all to say that condoms are not the answer to the HIV crisis.
Ox,
“being at the coalface also has other disadvantages…”
I don’t disagree with you here – I’m not saying the Church should take instruction from people working on these actual issues, nor do I advocate deifying them. But they should be listened to – and for now, I don’t think they are. How many inside the Vatican have any idea what it’s like outside…
How many inside the Vatican have any idea what it’s like outside…
Well, there are actually a number of Cardinals and those in the Vatican who have spoken in favour of the licitness of using condoms in certain circumstances.
The Vatican is by no means as unbending on this as many think.
In the early 1960’s it was the Vatican which formally approved Catholic nuns taking the pill in the condom because of the danger of pregnancy by rape.
What the Popes teach is often rather more nuanced than the fundamentalists would have us believe.
God Bless
Oops.
“in the condom”
should be
“in the Congo“.
Sorry
God Bless
Chris,
“In the early 60s”. I’m reluctact to open up this can of worms, but that was before Humanae Vitae.
Chris,
in the 60s the Vatican was full of raving liberals.
Liberals like to see nuances where there are none.
“How many inside the Vatican have any idea what it’s like outside?”
Actually Captain, when the Church makes a moral pronouncement regarding a specific issue like condoms in Africa she first studies, listens and examines a lot of different things.
Firstly she will take advice from those working in this area, she will also commission detailed reviews of the best available research relating to the issue, as well as examining what the constant teaching of Church Fathers, Saints, Doctors, etc, has been regarding the specific issue.
The top moral theologians will be consulted and asked to provide opinions and input on the issue.
It’s not just a case of a group of pointy hats getting together in a dimly lit room over a couple of Merlot’s and then making an ill informed moral judgment about an issue that will affect millions of people.
Chris,
I find it amazing how far you want to go to bend, and curb, and change the moral laws for those who suffer.
I find that you often use the words “Compassion” and “Mercy” in the same way as those who advocate Euthanasia.
Have others also noticed this?
“In the early 1960’s it was the Vatican which formally approved Catholic nuns taking the pill in the condom because of the danger of pregnancy by rape.”
Chris,
You keep bringing this isolated and very dated incident up as if it is the smoking gun that ends all arguments, but you seem to have missed some really important points:
1.As Scribe has pointed out; this was an isolated incident that occurred BEFORE Humanae Vitae was issued, and Humanae Vitae totally overrides this dispensation.
2. This was a RARE, and special dispensation that was given to a small group of nuns – it was not a blanket exception that applied to all women!
3. This decision carries no official Magisterial weight, it was NOT a Catholic teaching, merely an isolated dispensation
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY – it is almost certain that this decision would NOT be made today if a group of nuns approached the Vatican and asked to use contraceptives.
Why?
Because moral theology has developed a lot since that exception was granted almost 50 years ago, as has our understanding of the serious and dangerous side-effects of chemical contraceptives, and also our understanding of contraceptive failures, etc has become better.
If that’s all you’ve got to back up your argument, then it leads me to believe that you haven’t really examined this issue in any great detail at all.
in the 60s the Vatican was full of raving liberals.
ROTFL !
Ox,
The nun ruling was made after Casti Connubi which also opposed contraception.
Humane Vitae does not override the dispensation because it also teaches against contraception in marriage. Not outside marriage.
That point is that, if the Vatican believed contraception intrinsically evil (always evil regardless of intent or cirumstance) then they would never have officially approved allowing these nuns to use the pill.
it is almost certain that this decision would NOT be made today if a group of nuns approached the Vatican and asked to use contraceptives.
Proof ? Evidence ?
God Bless
Ox,
The Vatican officially allowing Catholic nuns to take the pill wrt rape is not an isolated one off decision.
To this day, Catholic hospitals, with the full aproval of the Church, are allowed to, and do, perform a mechanical procedure after rape to remove semen from the vaginal tract.
Such a procedure is not abortifacient but it certainly is contraception.
There is no way this would be allowed if the Church actually believed contraception to be intrinsically evil (which means always evil regardless of intent or circumstance).
In fact, contraception is only evil in conjugal acts (acts of marriage) and not after rape.
I expect you are probably right that the pill would not be allowed today because we now know it can sometimes cause abortions.
God Bless
Abstinentrix solutionix HIV critifix,
Cool name, bro! Don’t know that even the Gauls have agreed with the Romans on this…
I don’t think it’s like advocating euthanasia though. Chris uses the words to defend life (somehow, someway… if you follow his argument…) whereas euthanasia is to end life.
But I do think that the coalface discussion sounds like the argument of euthanasia. Many who advocate and condone euthanasia are top professors and doctors, i.e. they work at the coalface. Should we be listening to them then? :roll:
Chris,
Where did you get the silly and very wrong idea that the Catholic teaching that contraception is gravely immoral only applies to married couples?
Ox,
I get it from Casti Connubii :-
Conjugal acts are acts of marriage. Rape, fornication, adultery are not conjugal acts.
and I get it from Humanae Vitae :-
Both encyclicals clearly explicity frame their teaching in terms of acts in marriage.
Humanae Vitae adds this
From which it is clear that unintended contraceptive side effects (as in using a condom to prevent HIV transmission, or any other sexual disease) are not illicit.
God Bless
Ox,
I also get it from our Bishops. This is what they teach. For example, the public comments of Bishop Dunn and the NZ Catholic guest editorial of Bishop Cullinane.
God Bless
Chris,
Can you shoe me anywhere in either Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae where it EXPLICITY states that the Catholic teaching on contraception is ONLY for married couples?
Cause if you can’t then you are just inserting words into Papal teaching that aren’t actually there (and considering how you are a legalist, I am SURE that you would never do such a thing).
Oh, and by the way, the NZ bishops don’t actually teach that contraception is only immoral within marriage – one bishop made that comment in an editorial he wrote, but it hasn’t been taught by the bishop’s conference of NZ.
Can you shoe me anywhere in either Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae where it EXPLICITY states that the Catholic teaching on contraception is ONLY for married couples?
I just did.
Cast Connubi explicitly states it’s teaching about the conjugal act. And it is titled “On Christian Marriage”. It begins :-
Similarly, Humanae Vitae begins :-
If one reads these encyclicals from begining to end it is abundantly clear than they are about contraception in marriage.
For example, in HV :-
Rape, prostitution, fornication and adultery are not marital acts.
God Bless
Um Chris…
…how do I put this…
Neither of those quotes state that the Catholic teaching regarding contraception is only for married couples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those quotes simply state is that marriage is good and that contraception in marriage is wrong.
But they DON’T state that contraception is okay if you’re not married.
You haven’t provided any statements from these documents that say that contraception is okay if you are not married.
Can you show us any statement from either of those teachings which says that unmarried couples are free to use cfontraception?
Ox,
Can you show us any statement from either of those teachings which says that unmarried couples are free to use cfontraception?
Yes, I can. This from Humanae Vitae :-
This makes licit (amongst other things) the use of the pill by unmarried women for medical treatment for excessive period bleeding.
Now, a question for you, can you quote any papal teaching that contraception outside marriage is illicit ?
God Bless
Chris,
Once again that quote does NOT state that is it okay for non-married couples to use contraception!!!!
It simply states that certain medications can be used, even if they have a contraceptive effect, AS LONG as they are not being used as a contraceptive, only as a medication to address another condition.
Once again I forced to ask you the question:
Can you please show us any statement from either of those documents which states that it is okay for non-married couples to use contraception?
You need to provide an explicit teaching that states that non-married couples are allowed to use contraception.
Ox,
There is no papal teaching that that contraception is illicit outside marriage.
The Popes teach that contraception is illicit in the marriage act.
Something is licit unless the Church teaches that it is illicit.
It’s clear from Church practice that the Popes allow :-
1. Nuns to take the pill in the Congo.
2. A non-abortifacient procedure to mechanically remove semen from the vagina after rape. This is a contraceptive procedure.
Church practice, approved by Popes, allows contraception in these cases.
God Bless
Chris,
I’ll ask the question again, because you keep failing to give me an answer:
Do either of these documents explicitly state that non-married couples can use contraception?
So far you have failed to show me any quote from either teaching which backs up your theory.
OX,
We both know it’s not explicitly stated. But it is clearly and implicitly stated because the teaching, and the practice, only teaches that contraception in the marriage act is illicit.
God Bless
I’m sorry Chris,
Did you just say that neither of these documents teaches that it is okay for non-married couples to use contraception?
So where do get the idea that the Church teaches that it is okay for non-married couples to use contraception?
It certainly isn’t taught by any Catholic teaching documents.
Ox,
Because the papal encylicals on the matter teach that contraception is evil in marriage.
That’s because procreation is one of the ends of marriage. The other is union.
Neither procreation nor union are the ends of rape, adultery, fornication or prostitution. Therefore, preventing conception during those sins is not evil.
Go back to Theology of the Body which teaches that contraception is wrong because it is not fully self giving. Rape, adultery, fornication and prostitution are not fully self giving either – they cannot be because they are not acts of love – they are acts of lust. By their nature they are not meant to be open to conception. By its nature love is fuitful and open to new life.
Love making in marriage is a completely different kind of moral act to rape/adultery/fornication/prostitution.
If the Popes thought contraception was intrinsically evil then they would have taught that.
They would not have allowed nuns to take the pill.
They would not allow Catholic hospitals to non-abortifaciently remove rapists sperm from the woman.
God Bless
Chris,
You have inserted ideas that are not taught by these documents, and in fact the idea that contraception is okay for non-married couples is not even implicitly taught in either document at all.
If you look at both documents closely you will see that they actually imply that ALL contractive acts are ALWAYS gravely immoral.
There is a very good reason why Humane Vitae does not address non-married couples, and that is because sex outside of marriage is a gravely immoral act.
The Church does not write teaching documents which advise people how to sin in a better way, which is exactly what would happen if she started writing about non-married couples not using contraception.
What we do know for certain is that Humane Vitae teaches that contraceptive sex is against the natural law.
An act that is contrary to natural law cannot be made to be in accord with natural law by simply changing the setting in which that act takes place.
Homosexual sex is always contrary to natural – being married to your gay partner doesn’t make the homosexual act any more or less sinful.
So it is with contraception.
Contraceptive acts are always contrary to natural law – this means that whether you are married or unmarried, anytime you engage in a contraceptive act you are doing something contrary to natural law.
Also, Chris, you have actually lumped a whole lot of acts with very different moral natures together, and this has lead to part of your confusion over this teaching.
Rape is totally different to fornication, adultery and prostitution, and they are all different again to marital relations.
The moral nature of rape is totally different to the moral nature of fornication or marital relations, etc because rape is an act of violence perpetrated upon a person, whereas the others are acts that people freely consent to engage in.
This means that the moral nature of those acts is different, and this has huge ramifications in regards to the moral nature of other associated acts.
Your simplistic grouping of several very different acts is causing you some misunderstanding here.
anytime you engage in a contraceptive act you are doing something contrary to natural law.
I see.
So a raped women douching after the rape is doing something contrary to natural law ?
Ox, do you really think this form of contraception is wrong ?
God Bless
Ox,
I think you’re pretty much on to it in your Jul 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm post.
[How do you get to see the post numbers without having to go back to the annoying classic theme ?]
The point is that an act or rape is a an act with a different kind of moral object to adultery.
Adultery is a different kind of moral object to love making in marriage.
You are right that contracepting rape or adultery is an act with a completely different moral object to contracepting an act of marriage.
I urge you to look again at the Theology of the Body which explains all this. Acts of marriage are acts of love which ought to be open to conception. Adultery, fornication, and rape are not acts of love. They are not supposed to be open to conception because they are acts of sin. Intrinsically evil acts. Never under any circumstance or for any intent are they morally good acts.
One can see this by asking is it good that children be conceived in rape ? Or fornication ? No it isn’t good. It’s very morally and socially damaging. That’s why soliders rape in war – for the social damage it does.
God Bless
“They are not supposed to be open to conception because they are acts of sin.”
Chris,
I have actually studied Theology of the Body for quite some years now, and nowhere does it suggest that people who are having sex outside marriage should be using contraception.
Can you not actually see what is wrong with the silliness of your argument?
What you are suggesting is that if someone is acting outside the moral law (engaging in fornication) then they are also free to act outside the natural law (using contraception).
Think about what you are saying Chris, for just two seconds, in fact, let’s apply that idea to another completely different situation:
Someone is going to murder someone else – which is an act outside the moral law – and they have decided that they are going to sodomize that person to death (which is an act outside the natural law).
Now I know it’s a totally ridiculous and extreme example, but bear with me because it clearly illustrates the lunacy of what you are proposing.
The Church teaches that murder is wrong, and that sodomy is wrong, but it doesn’t have any teaching on how you should or shouldn’t murder someone, so therefore it’s okay to sodomise someone to death, even though the act of sodomy is an act that is against the natural law.
You are saying that the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and she also teaches that fornication is wrong, but the Church doesn’t have any teaching on how you should or should not have unmarried sex, so therefore it’s okay to use contraception if you are unmarried – contraception is an act that is against the natural law, but you think it’s okay to engage in contraception if you are operating outside the bounds of the moral law when you use it.
“One can see this by asking is it good that children be conceived in rape ? Or fornication ? No it isn’t good. It’s very morally and socially damaging.”
Chris, once again you keep lumping rape into the mix.
Rape is not the same thing as fornication or adultery.
Now if I follow your insane argument to its natural conclusion then surely it must be okay to abort children conceived as a result of rape, fornication or adultery, right?
Cause you said that “It’s very morally and socially damaging” to have kids born into those situations.
So you obviously think that abortion is okay in those situations too.
You are saying that the Church teaches that contraception is wrong
No.
I’m saying what the Church says. That contraception is wrong in conjugal acts, acts of marriage. Thats what the encyclicals say.
Answer me this: Is it licit for a raped women to douche as a contraceptive ?
If contraception is against the natural law then such an act would be illicit.
I keep asking you this but you keep evading the question.
Abortion is always wrong because killing is always wrong. The commandment is simple “do not kill”.
The Pope did not say “do not contracept”. He said something rather more specific and nuanced. It took a whole encylical to say it. Not just three words.
God Bless
Chris,
Can you show me anywhere in Humanae Vitae that states that contraception is only immoral in marriage, and that it is okay outside of marriage?
No you can’t – because it doesn’teach that.
What Humanae Vitae does teach is that contraception is against the natural law – this means it is ALWAYS an unnatural act.
You have constructed a false doctrine based on what it NOT actually written in Humanae Viate.
Talk about silliness.
Ox,
Answer me this: Is it licit for a raped women to douche as a contraceptive ?
I keep asking you this but you keep evading the question.
God Bless
Ox,
Here are the relevant quotes from Humanae Vitae concerning the natural law. In every case they are related to marriage and family. Not once are they related to acts outside marriage.
HV does not teach that contraception is against the natural law.
It teaches that contraception in the marriage act is against the natural law.
God Bless
Chris,
That question is irrelevant to this discussion.
Douching is not recognised as a contraceptive method because it is almost totally useless at preventing pregnancy or sexual disease.
It is done as an act of hygienic cleansing.
What’s important here is that you have constructed your own personal teaching on contraception based on what the Catholic Church documents don’t actually say.
It’s just plain nuts – in fact it is exactly how a Pharisee would approach Church teaching.
Chris, your position is just theological smoke and mirrors and it lacks any credibility.
Ox,
You are still beating about the bush, refusing to give a direct answer.
How about the careful, non-abortifacient, mechanical procedure actually used by Catholic hospitals, with the approval of the Church, to remove the rapists sperm from the vagina.
This is a contraceptive procedure.
Is it against the natural law ?
God Bless
Chris,
I think if you read Humanae Vitae you will find an answer:
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
But once again I have to verbally smack you about the head, as I remind you that rape is not the same thing as fornication or adultery.
Chris,
You need to ask yourself these two questions:
1. Why is contraception wrong in marriage (in other words, what exactly makes it an immoral act during marriage)?
2. What has changed during the act of fornication and adultery (apart from the obvious) that suddenly makes contraception moral?
Now before you go and say something silly like “children shouldn’t be born into adultery or fornication because it is socially damaging” – remember that married couples can’t use contraception if they are poor (and we all know that children born into poverty is not a good situation either, so according to your wonky thinking it should be okay for poor married couples to use contraception too).
Ox,
Let me get this quite clear.
You claim the Popes teach that the non-abortifacient removal of a rapist’s sperm from the victims vagina is against the natural law ?
God Bless
Ox,
Courtesy of our good friends MrTipsNZ and EWTN I suggest we study what JPII actually taught on this matter in his series of talks on the Theology of the Body.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
Scroll down and start here:-
114. Morality of Marriage Act Determined by Nature of the Act and of the Subjects
You’ll see that the contraception teaching is all framed in terms of acts of marriage.
God Bless
Chris,
Wake up man!
That’s not the same thing as saying that contraception is only immoral within marriage.
I give up.
You just don’t listen, you’re so blinded by your own nutty ideas.
Is it possible that the Vatican only speaks of sex within a marital context because… well, because sex is intrinsically a marital act?
I don’t know why we’re being so concerned about allowing condoms when it’s evident that it saves neither temporal nor eternal lives.
Dearest Ox,
With all due respect, you still haven’t answered my question :
Is the non-abortifacient removal of a rapist’s sperm from the victims vagina is against the natural law ?
Instead of wasting my time in circular agruments with a man who is as stubborn as an Ox in refusing to read and follow what the Popes actually teach on this matter I’m going to use my limited time studying the portion of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body dealing with contraception.
I know you mean well Ox, and I know your errors are not your fault but have been passed on to you by poor teachers, but we really do need to study carefully what the Popes actually teach. Not what others say they teach. But what Peter actually teaches.
God Bless
I thought I’d just add the following, in response to Chris:
This is why I have little time for what you say on some issues, Chris.
I prefer to study what the popes actually teach, too.
Not my interpretation of what they teach.
Not (what would inevitably become) my skewed version or interpretation of what they teach.
Because I don’t necessarily trust my own wisdom (such as it is) on matters of faith or morals.
I study what the popes teach, what Tradition indicates, discuss the matters with learned and able theologians.
I certainly don’t study what the popes say myself, and alone.
I’m not Luther, nor do I wish to be anything akin to him.
Because I don’t necessarily trust my own wisdom (such as it is) on matters of faith or morals.
Yeah, me too.
I certainly don’t study what the popes say myself, and alone.
Neither do I.
But this does raise the question of which teacher in the Church today one would trust to correctly interpret papal teaching. I’m pretty much seen them all and I wouldn’t trust any of them 100% on every issue. They are pretty much all in error on something.
God Bless
Hey Chris
I wasn’t implying that you don’t follow the same regimen as I when it comes to these issues…yet we don’t always agree now, do we? (except maybe on after dinner mints?)
A difficult one. I suppose your last line is true…as an aside, it begs the question what am I in error on, or you, or anyone else on the blog…I feel it is vital to bear in mind Christ’s promise that the Church would teach the fullness of the Truth (without getting into a discussion on truth etc)…at least, despite our weaknesses, the Church is not.
I think that means, for us, that the Truth is out there, and that we can find it.
Chris,
Where are you getting your information from on this issue?
Because I can tell you right now that it doesn’t come from any of the following sources:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Tradition
3. The Saints
4. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Whether you like it or not Chris this makes your ideas nothing more than private opinions.
They carry no ecclesial authority or weight whatsoever.
You are free to hold your own wrong opinions on these issues.
But your opinions are NOT Catholic teachings.
So what does the Church actually teach about contraception?
The Church teaches that contraception is wrong because:
a) It destroys the unitive nature of human sexuality
b) It destroys the procreative nature of human sexuality
These are the two reasons why deliberately contraceptive acts are gravely immoral – according to Catholic teaching.
Neither of these two points are dependent upon the marital status of the couple engaging in the contraceptive act.
When a married couple have contraceptive sex, and when a non-married couple have contraceptive sex, the same thing happens in both cases:
a) The unitive nature of human sexuality is destroyed
b) The procreative nature of human sexuality is destroyed
Therefore, whether one is married or unmarried, contraception still works against God’s natural law.
OX,
In fornication, adultery, rape and prostitution unity is neither intended nor fully present. Contraecpting such acts isn’t going to make them any less unitive.
Of course your 2 points are dependent on marital status. Sexual union and openness to conception belong in marriage. Not outside marriage.
Can you answer my question :
Is the non-abortifacient removal of a rapist’s sperm from the victims vagina against the natural law ?
God Bless
Chris,
Where are you getting your information from on this issue?
Because I can tell you right now that it doesn’t come from any of the following sources:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Tradition
3. The Saints
4. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Whether you like it or not Chris this makes your ideas nothing more than private opinions.
They carry no ecclesial authority or weight whatsoever.
You are free to hold your own wrong opinions on these issues.
But your opinions are NOT Catholic teachings.
Ox,
I get my information on this straight from the Popes.
Straight from their teaching encyclicals.
Where do you get your information on this from ?
And can you answer my question :
Is the non-abortifacient removal of a rapist’s sperm from the victims vagina against the natural law ?
God Bless
Chris,
But none of those acts, by definition, are licit anyway. They don’t even get to enter into the teaching on contraception or anything else because they are already classified as sinful. The Church’s teachings have a hierarchy in and of themself. These acts don’t pass “Go”, so they don’t collect $200.
I see it as being like talking about what kind of ammunition is legit to use in hunting vs. murder. You can say that uranium depleted, hollow-point shells are bad for hunting, but all ammunition is bad for murder. Same deal here, surely? All sex in an adultery or rape situation is bad. Period. There is no minimising guilt there with contraception.
?!?!
James,
The issue is perhaps most tragically apparant inthe case of rape.
Catholic hospitals, with the permission of the Church, are allowed to, and do, perform a careful and non-abortifacient mechanical removal of the rapists semen from the vagina.
This is a contraceptive act.
Those who argue that contraception is intrinsically evil (evil always regardless of intent or circumstance) argue that such a medical procedure after rape is against Church teaching and is against the natural law.
If you are woman raped, or know a woman raped, then the morality of this act of contraception is actually rather important, don’t you think ?
It’s comes down to authority.
Who’se right ?
The bishops who allow this act of contraception after rape ?
Or those who teach contraception is intrinsically evil (which is not what the Poeps teach) ?
God Bless
Chris,
I would classify that as a therapeutic act that has contraceptive results. It is something that is done to help the woman deal with what she’s just been through. I see it is a part of a series of acts that I would expect to be carried out to console the woman – including treating any wounds, providing counselling and prayer/financial support. It is not an act primarily of contraception – that is simply the effect of the act. I would argue that it’s actually probably carried out more often to limit disease, and the primary focus would be on the mental wellbeing.
I think Double Effect comes into play here, similar to women who take the Pill for medical reasons other than contraception. I think also that you can’t equate this with fornication, adultery or prostitution as all of those are acts that require a level of consent from both parties – consent which would have impact on the intent to contracept.
There is no consent in rape.
Chris,
Just take your logic a bit further – would the Church counsel a rapist to use a condom? Should she? At any point?
Good points James.
Chris, you are placing too much weight on a minority exception to rule (the rape issue) and as I have stated many times before: rape is not the same thing as fornication or marital sex.
Here are the facts once again:
None of the following sources teach that it is okay for non-married couples to use contraception:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Tradition
3. The Magisterium
4. The Saints and Doctors
5. Papal teaching
Therefore; this is nothing more than an opinion that you are espousing here.
I think Double Effect comes into play here
But double effect can only be applied if the act proposed is not intrinsically evil.
Therefore, we see that contraception is not intsrinsically evil.
Which is the point I said at the top of this thread.
God Bless
Chris,
You have just applied circular reasoning to support your own argument.
You claim that this must be a case of Double Effect, and therefore contraception can’t be intrinsically evil.
Have you ever stopped to ponder the fact that if contraception is intrinsically evil that Double Effect can’t be applied?!
But more importantly, you have missed the point of Double Effect.
The primary effect, which must be the intended effect, cannot be an evil act, but the reason we have Double Effect is because the secondary effect, which must be unintended, would be a gravely immoral act if we intended it, or carried it out deliberately in another setting.
So therefore, if the contraceptive effect is the unintended secondary effect, then Double Effect can still be applied, and contraception can still be intrinsically evil.
That’s what Double Effect is all about.
It is a moral principal that allows for evil but totally UNINTENDED secondary effects, as long as the primary act and effect is always good.