www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican 'may relax condom rules'

Vatican \'may relax condom rules\' [news.bbc.co.uk]

I don't know what to think.

We all know this is the media talking and not the Vatican. No Church Teaching will change, have some faith.

It is only thanks to Divine Providence that Cardinal Martini wasn't elected Pope.

Logos Teen

Teen what are you telling me...no condoms and no abortion. Yes the news headline I saw had gone one step further. Looks like my 'freind' will have to go back to the supermarket for refund.

Bishops should never allow themslelves to give door stop interviews. They just stuff it up to often.

XB! BB!

So, according to this archbishop, a married couple in which one spouse is infected with HIV or AIDS should be able to use condoms? Because heaven forbid they ABSTAIN! Sexual pleasure is SO important that it's worth risking your life for, apparently.

Abstinence and marital monogamy is the ONLY way to "tackle AIDS." The biggest lie our society ever bought was that condomns prevent the spread of STDs. In reality, government health research has shown that there is NO EVIDENCE that condoms prevent the spread of the majority of STDs. With regard to AIDS, condoms are partially effective, but only for men.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

God bless,

Karen

Note that Cardinal Martini has been saying this for some time - certainly long before the death of Pope John Paul II. Also note that Martini (or someone of like mind) was NOT chosen by the last conclave.

No source for the "may relax condom rules" in the headline is given, unless it's an implicit quote from the BBC analyst they name.

On the other hand, even if theologians DID decide there was some form of "double effect" here, I doubt the Pope would go as far as the OCA, whose youth ministry page says that

"...if you have sex and you do not know the sexual history or medical status of your partner, you must wear a condom to ensure your mutual protection."

Must?

http://yya.oca.org/TheHub/StudyGuides/ContemporaryIssues/Aids/AIDS.htm

The media has to come up with a new catchy headline, so they write whatever they think will grab the potential readers attention.

They know nothing (nor do they wish to know) about the teachings of the Catholic Church or the objective, unchanging and immutable moral truths that the teachings reflect.

Thus when the mainstream press talks about such things they are bound to get it wrong.

As for Cardinal Martini ... the press loves people like him because he says what they want to hear. Not what is true. Not what is likely to happen. Not what reflects the Catholic Church teachings. But what the media wants to hear. So they'll keep quoting him as long as the windbag is allowed to speak without reprimand from the Vatican.

Personally I think a nice loud public excommunication of someone who publically and loudly pronounces views so contrary to the teachings of the Church, using their Church office to promote the ideas would be a good first step.

Carole

Well, I don't know if condom use in itself is intrinsically evil. It becomes immoral when it is used to prevent birth. Does that mean that it can not be used when the primary intention is to prevent the spread of disease?
Im not advocating it but just asking the question.
Stephanos I

It is not intrinsically evil as would be a method of contraception that works as an abortificant.

However, every instance of marital union between a husband and wife is supposed to be open to life. We are to accept all of our spouse with loving joy (that includes their potential fertility).

Since using a condom is not an act that is open to life then it is morally impermissible in a marriage to use a condom. Even if the primary purpose is not the avoidance of pregnancy.

I don't believe that double effect is an issue here, as it would be in the case of a woman having both ovaries or her uterus removed as a treatment for a disease process. Yes the operation will render her incapable of bearing children but the purpose is not sterility but to cure one of a disease process. There is no other option. Thus the secondary effect of sterility is not a matter of sin. Not like it would be if she were to render herself sterile through a tubal ligation.

The main difference is that there is another option to condom use. Abstinence.

This is a tough decision.

Personally,
in my own opinion, just for clarification,

if a person becomes infected with AIDS due to any reason other than a medical situation such as a blood transfusion, or being pricked by an AIDS infected needle (excluding drug abuse), then I feel that person should abstain completely from an future sexual activity, period, to prevent the future transmission of this deadly virus. Anything else, once again, my opinion only, would be considered attempted murder, in my opinion only.

If the person acquired the disease through an accidental situation, such as a blood transfusion or being pricked by an infected needle or instrument, then, I believe, "Economy" might be granted for this person to utilize a condom to prevent infection of the person's spouse. Even then, there are alternative methods to continue to provide "closeness" to your spouse that does not necessarily need to involve the use of a condom, so I could, in my opinion only, argue even against that concession.

Regardless, let us pray that The Holy Spirit provide Divine Guidance to our shepherds in the making of a formal decision, if that event should occur.

As stated, this is my, and only my opinion.

It is not my position to judge others, but to try to follow His path, regardless of how often I stumble (and if you know me, you know I stumble and fall alot!).

In Christ,

Michael

On a personal note - Condoms are not 100% effective in the prevention of the transmission of HIV. So even if you do use a condom you are still playing Russian Roulette with the life of your spouse.

Having been the unfortunate victim of an accidental needle stick while working in the emergency room of a hospital I have to have HIV and Hepatitis tests every 6 months for two years following that needle stick. I was single and celibate during that time.

Were it to happen now I would not use a condom but refrain from all sexual contact with my husband to ensure that there was no possibility of transmission.

Condoms just aren't 100% effective. Abstinence is.

There's more chances of getting HIV/AIDS from condoms than a needle prick accident.

Condoms prevent HIV/AIDS 80% (or even LESS) of the time. That means 20% chance. That's a chance I don't want to take.

Viruses are extremely small, smaller than the pores in condoms. It still can be transmitted.

So, isn't Cardinal Martini so dumb to even say it should be okay? I think that means (in my POV) Martini says "You've got 20% chance of getting HIV from condoms, but go ahead and use it."

That isn't good at all.

Besides, permitting condoms (even in economy) can cause a huge rippling effect...it always start out so small...and before we know it...it'll lead into something totally different from what the Church originally teach.

So, where do we draw the line? What are the limits???

Baby steps is all it takes to get people with agenda to go somewhere. However small the steps are, at least someone is going somewhere rather than standing still.

So, permitting condoms is very very dangerous route to take...it'll lead to icy slippery slope.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Father Stephanos,

I did read one blogger's supposition that perhaps the Church will simply say that condom use within marriage not having as its purpose the prevention of life but rather blocking the transmission of AIDS or other HIV viruses is morally okay.

I don't see anything wrong with that, necessarily, as long as the above stipulations are in force.

Logos Teen

I do - think of the moral quandary. "I MIGHT have a transmissible disease. So I may use a condom. Of course, it's kind of nice not worrying about pregnancy, but I don't THINK that's my reason..." Under present circumstances, this would be a VERY slippery slope...

I agree that, sadly, abstinence might be morally obligatory - given that the alternative might constitute reckless endangerment of another's life.

If the double effect applies in a case of eptoptic pregnancy or uterine cancer removal, and and the secondary effect is the loss of the child within the womb (and this is morally permissable) then why wouldnt that principle apply also in the case of condom use?
Stephanos I

Hopefully the Church will not change its position on the use of condoms.

No one has to have sex; and they will not die from not having it. Thus, there can be no real comparison between the use of condoms for sex and an ectopic pregnancy, which is life threatening if left untreated.

Abstinence is the answer to stopping the spread of life threatening infectious diseases.