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

Double effect CAN be considered in cases like in certain countries women have no right to say no. If a woman's husband has a disease and her husband proceeds to rape her (this is not out of the ordinary in some places), if she can convince him to use a condom, this would not be sinful under 'Double Effect'.

I just spotted this on CNA regarding the BBC report.

CNA Story [catholicnewsagency.com]

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+

I can see that could be the case. But what about the many countries in which women certainly do have the right to say no?

I agree that this is the kind of thing the slippery slope is made of. Any concession will simply open the flood gates for more and more exceptions until you no longer have anyone believing in the Church teaching.

Given that condoms are not 100% effective in stemming the spread of this disease I think it is irresponsible (at the very least) for anyone to promote their use for the "prevention" of HIV. It would seem that if the Roman Catholic Church were ever to issue a "relaxed" rule on this that they would be encouraging people to play Russian Roulette.

In addition to the moral life issues I just cannot see the Catholic Church changing anything on this issue. I stongly suspcted, and it seems to be born out by the link that Fr. Anthony provided, that this was more wishful thinking on the part of the mainstream media. A group who seems to believe that if they print it often enough it will become truth as though the Catholic Church cannot stand against their constant onslaught of misinformation.

Here I go courting controversy...

When you talk about the Church's position, which Church...I am of the understanding that in the different understanding of the sacrament of mariage in the Eastern tradition (divorce, administered by priest not couple, etc), the primary goal of marriage is to make the union of the couple Holier, "theosis" of a kind, and that procreation is not implicit in this understanding. A number of Eastern Catholic Clergy are of the view that the Byz Cath church should in an ideal world practice their own tradition in regard to this sacrament than the Western one and carry this understanding to its logical conclusion on divorce etc.

My question, particularly for our Orthodox Brethren is this. COnsidering statements forbidding artificial birth control by some Orthodox clergy, in what ways does the Eastern understanding of marriage bear on this issue and differ from the Roman one?

Or if I have misunderstood the Eastern Orthodox position on marriage, please elucidate.

N

Dear Ned,

Here is an excerpt from the OCA website. Link is:
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3

Hope this helps. OCA has a great website, with lots of relevant information.

Michael

The OCA sounds like they're saying "I'm opposed to this, but...."

I just wish the Orthodox Church become more firm in their beliefs, not sway in "relativism." Even my Orthodox friend says that she wishes the Church are more unifying everywhere...not having various rules or views from priest to priest....bishop to bishop...eparchy to eparchy...etc.. Like "make up your mind" kind of thing. I'm only quoting what she was saying.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
Double effect CAN be considered in cases like in certain countries women have no right to say no. If a woman's husband has a disease and her husband proceeds to rape her (this is not out of the ordinary in some places), if she can convince him to use a condom, this would not be sinful under 'Double Effect'.
--------------------------------------------------

There can be no doubt that this is a tragedy that happens all to often. But does it warrant changing Church doctrine?
I would trust a spiritual director or local priest to be able to make such distinctions and counsel the woman in question (I take it that a man who forces himself upon his wife wouldn't pay much attention to a priests' advice anyway...) and rely on God's compassion, mercy and understanding.

When I was still single I had this discussion many, many times with friends. I would often say that, should I find myself in a situation where I simply gave in to temptation and could not resist my urgest to jump into bed with a girl I had just met... yes, I would probably wear a condom. If I was going to sin that far, I might as well try and lessen the potential dangers...
However I wouldn't expect the church to come out and make rules for my specific situation!

One thing people fail to understand so often is that the Church is not only concerned with our "well being", for Her it is not enough that we be "moderately good". (As a friend of mine once asked hopefully... "to be saved, isn't it enough that we just not be bad?"...)
The church wants us to be holy and perfect, and there is not a single person God placed upon this Earth who does not have the capacity to be perfect and Holy (with his help of course, which he refuses no one). For the Church to expect any less of me, would in my mind, be insulting. I may not get there, but I would appreciate some confidence in my potential!
And so the stakes are set high. Uncomfortably high in some situations, but as high as they must be! That means that the Church is not going to "relax" its "rules" regarding sex. University students are not going to be told that "Sex is for marriage only... well, ok... at least make sure it's a steady relationship... fine... just make sure you've known the girl for a while... at least know her name!"
The same applies for condoms. Extreme cases like those in which one member of the couple has aids, and the woman cannot say no etc. are, fortunately, the exception. To change the rules would cause much confusion and invite abuse.
Sure, you might have to be a Saint to be able to keep all the rules, but that's what we want, a church made up of Saints! Those who fail do not need the rules relaxed to suit them, they need God's love and understanding.

Sorry about the lengthy post.
God Bless!
Filipe

What are you talking about? Doctrine doesn't change.

Logos Teen

One of the divinizing aspects of marriage is its radical self-giving in every aspect of life - including conjugal union. When a couple engages in the sexual act, but withholds their fertility - even to protect the life of the spouse - the act itself becomes devoid of its spiritual, moral, divinizing and kenotic power. Ultimately it is a weakened even aberrant form of union that can damage the couple personally and morally. Couples who find themselves in this very difficult circumstance (whether HIV or any other condition or situation) are fully capable of discovering new and wonderfully chaste ways to express this kenosis. There are many examples of saints (beginning with Mary and Joseph) who lived marital chastity to an heroic, even "angelic" degree. There are many contemporary couples who have faced such a choice and found beauty in the cross which may last for a few months, years or even the duration of their marital union.

To Karen's point, HIV is very often the sad harvest of marital infidelity. It is also immoral to risk the life of one's spouse for the sake of pleasure. Making the assumption that an easily torn piece of ultra-thin latex can protect someone from a deadly disease that is transmitted through the sexual act is just plain stupid and irresponsible. They are gambling with the life of the uninfected spouse.

Gordo

Personally, I'm torn about the issue of artificial birth control. The Catholics are right in sticking to the high moral ground. But the Orthodox are right for making allowances when allowances are needed. I think the solution is to have a basic rule --no artifical birth control-- but to allow people to use their judgement too when cases warrant it. The case of a woman married to an HIV positive man, especially in a culture where a woman can't say no to sex with her husband, is a good example. There are other good examples too. Unfortunately, when people are given the leeway of using their judgement, they often take it as permission for rationalizing anything goes.

-- John

Which is why the West defines things down to the smallest minutiae so as to make sure that those who only do the least that they're supposed to do don't commit any Mortal Sins.

The real way to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sex.

Let the UN teach those in countries where women can be raped by her husband that no one has a right to have intercourse, INSTEAD of giving out condoms before they'll give out soap and medicines.

You are right Teen.

I am surprised this thread got going at all. The Holy See made if quiet clear from the very start what was going to happen here, while the saecula media went on and on that the Catholic Church was going to do a reversal.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel,

They did the same thing in anticipation of the release of Humane Vitae - why should we be surprised?

I think the press helped artificialy (pardon the pun) to generate the outcry against the encyclical from various sectors. Expectations to the contrary had been elevated, so some were naturally disappointed when the opposite occurred.

Harmon,

The hard cases are called such because they are HARD! Having been in such a difficult circumstance myself (my wife and I had to live a Josephite marriage for two years because the medication she was taking to control her seizures would have caused fatal deformations in any child we would have conceived) I know personally that it is indeed a cross. But a cross can be a great source of life, if you let it be. Our marriage is richer now because of that brief (although at the time it did not appear so) period of time.

As far as the situations which involve the depersonalizing subjugation of women to their husbands, I agree with Teen's excellent post.

Gordo

Pavel, Christ is Risen!

I believe you are right. Both of us have posted that the matter is a closed issue regarding the Vatican. Both of us have posted the news releases, but some are just droning on regarding this matter. I wish they would read the stories that have been posted.

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+
Adminstrator/Moderator

�Filipe asked: But does it warrant changing Church doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you talking about? Doctrine doesn't change.

Logos Teen �

Unfortunate choice of words. Sorry. Doctrine is not what I meant, as you can imagine.

Regarding the fact that this is a closed issue, it most probably is, but that does not hide the fact that the it is being discussed at high levels. Recently a portuguese bishop echoed the lesser evil idea.
Since Cardinal Martini's words were debated during this post, I believe I should transcribe exactly what they were, according to The Tablet. Not quite what the rest of the press made them out to be:

�On Aids and condoms, he wrote : �There is the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by Aids. It is the obligation of this spouse to protect the other partner and they must be able to protect themselves. But the question is whether it is up to the religious authorities to promote such a means of defence, with the result, in a sense, that the other morally sustainable means, including abstinence, could be put on a second level, while one risks to promote irresponsible behaviour. The principle of the lesser evil is one thing, and it may be applied in cases that are foreseen by ethical doctrine, but it involves another topic to express such things publicly.��