The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
This seemed interesting.

Link [telegraph.co.uk]

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Here's a worthwhile post about the issue by Jimmy Akin: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/

Alexis

P.S. Practically speaking, I would imagine the Pope will rue the day he ever uttered these words to this reporter. Media all over the world will interpret this statement to their own nefarious ends, e.g. "Pope allows use of condoms for fighting AIDS." The fine theological distinctions, I believe are frankly (1) over most people's heads/beyond their scope of interest, and (2) not of interest to - and in fact go against the interests of - most of the secular worldwide media.

Humbly, in my opinion, a poor exercise in judgment. But, for the sake of people's souls, I hope I'm wrong.

Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 11/21/10 12:26 AM. Reason: more reflection!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
No, the Pope did not approve, and has not approved, the use of condoms in the fight against aids.

The Telegraph article utterly missed the meaning and intent of the Pope's comment, which was in answer to an interviewer's question regarding his previous comment made in 2009 about the rampant aids problem in Africa.

Amado

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
It is very important to know that Pope Paul VI stated that future circumstances could permit changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae.

Very few people are aware of this.

It is time that the wise words of Pope Paul VI were heard again in the Catholic world.



Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.

Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).


I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Probably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present situation.


So, I am optimistic on this matter.
------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...p-vi_spe_19640623_sacro-collegio_it.html

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente

Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 11/21/10 02:42 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
It would seem to me to be an application of the law of double effect, if condom use were limited to married couples in which one partner was infected and the other was not. In such a case, the principal function of the condom is the prevention of disease; the prevention of pregnancy is entirely secondary, and may not even be desired by the couple. If the use of a condom helps preserve the sanctity of marriage by not cutting off the sexual bond (or forcing the couple to play Russian roulette with a debilitating and life-threatening disease), then this is an area where oikonomia ought to be exercised.

It always seemed to me that Humanae vitae put the cart before the horse by not stressing as paramount the sacramental nature of marriage and the sanctity of sex within marriage. It also seems to impose the Latin understanding of procreation as a primary purpose of marriage, as opposed to being the seal and fruits of the marital union. The Christian East never saw procreation as the purpose of marriage, which, as Meyendorff said, has no worldly purpose at all.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
The article linked above does an excellent job of knocking over straw men and setting them on fire. It's merely the flip side of the mainstream press' misrepresentations, and just as misleading in its own way. The Pope is an eloquent man, and can speak for himself, though in this case, I would advise him to quote Scripture: "I have written what I have written".

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Right, Stuart, and look at the words the Pope said. Nothing of the sort that condom usage is moral, that contraception is OK, and not even that condom use to prevent the spread of HIV is morally OK.

Alexis

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
But it does come closer than most Papal statements to recognizing the importance of what we would call oikonomia.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
No it doesn't. But it will be interpreted as such, so it might as well.

Alexis

Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 11/21/10 06:04 PM.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by StuartK
It also seems to impose the Latin understanding of procreation as a primary purpose of marriage, as opposed to being the seal and fruits of the marital union. The Christian East never saw procreation as the purpose of marriage, which, as Meyendorff said, has no worldly purpose at all.
The only Father that I recall having ever said anything about the unitive aspect of the conjugal act was St. John Chrysostom. It seems to me that the marital union was seen primarly as procreative in both East and West in the first millenium.

Can you provide some sources for your claim, please? The reason I ask is that you're the first person i've ever heard make this claim, and would like to know more from Eastern sources.

Thank you

Last edited by danman916; 11/22/10 05:07 PM.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
The pope has given an extreme example of male prostitution. Can that extreme example really be applied to the marital union?


From my reading of the comments in the two press releases on zenit this weekend, it looks like what the Pope is stating is that in giving the example of the male prostitute using a condom, he is pointing out that the man has a certain awareness that he can no longer do as he would please, but instead he recognizes a responsibility in using his sexuality. He cannot act simply on the pleasure of the act, but recognizes that his free use of this act must be tempered by a greater awareness of something that limits that freedom. That limit is the threat of passing or contracting a serious disease which necessitates a condom to reduce that risk.

The awareness that responsibilies exist that limit the free use of his sexuality can then become the first step toward understanding our sexuality as gift. I think his point was more about what an awareness of responsibility points to in a larger picture of human sexuality and what our sexuality is ordered toward.


Last edited by danman916; 11/22/10 05:04 PM.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Additionally, Hieromonk Ambrose's gloss on Paul VI's comment in 1964 seems to be misleading, if he is trying to assert that the Catholic Church's stance on contraception will ever be liberalized in favor of its use:

Quote
What, then, was meant by the Council's decision (expressed in this same footnote 14) to reserve "certain questions" for further and more intensive study by the Commission which Pope John had established, after which his successor in the Chair of Peter would "pass judgment" (iudicium ferat) personally? What else was left to decide, if it was already decided that, come what may, Pius XI would not be contradicted? Indeed, the mass media, and many Catholics who were hoping for a change, often highlighted an address given by Paul VI to the College of Cardinals (in June 1964, a year and a half before Gaudium et Spes was promulgated) in which he seemed to hint at the possibility, at least, that he might eventually feel obliged to change "the norms given by Pius XII."

Fr. Lio replies by pointing out, first, that in this 1964 address Pius XI was not even mentioned: it was taken for granted that there would be no reversal of his teaching handed down in Casti Connubii. Fr. Lio maintains that what Paul VI had in mind in referring to "the norms given by Pius XII" was the late Pontiff's final allocution on the subject of contraception, given just a month before his death in 1958. On that occasion Pius XII had expressed disapproval of a particular form of birth regulation which had not existed in the time of Pius XI: the newly-discovered "chemical" means of extending the period of infertility in a woman's cycle - i.e., the contraceptive "Pill." Some theologians who accepted Pius XI's strictures against unnatural methods of birth control were wondering whether perhaps this new intervention might not in fact fall under the ban of Pius XI, insofar as it did not entail - unlike condoms, "withdrawal" or diaphragms - any interference with the physical structure of the conjugal act.

Thus, according to Fr. Lio, this was the only question which might for a time have been seen by Paul VI as legitimately debatable: not the question of doctrine as to whether unnatural methods of birth control are ever acceptable, but the question of fact as to whether this new chemical invention should be classified as "unnatural" or not. In any case, the Pope was aware that some were drawing unwarranted conclusions from his 1964 address, and in a subsequent allocution in October 1966 - still nearly two years before the publication of Humanae Vitae - stated that his intention had been to affirm that the mind and norms of the Church had not been changed, were still in force, and that the Council did not open the way for any "substantial change" in the "Catholic doctrine" on birth control.

http://www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/humanae_vitae_and_infallibity.htm

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

Moreover, the dearth of resources on the Internet concerning this comment by Paul VI, apart from a Google search revealing Hieromonk Ambrose's own comment and a screed over at a "Women Can Be Priests" site (if that tells you anything), support the fact, in conjunction with the above, that this is not a serious argument.

Alexis

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
The pope has given an extreme example of male prostitution. Can that extreme example really be applied to the marital union?

Here is my hypothetical:

In Africa, AIDS is a heterosexual phenomenon, usually passed from prostitutes to men who pass it to their husbands. Given that a man is infected with HIV, and his wife is not, would not the use of condoms to prevent (or at least reduce the risk of) infection in the wife be an example of the same sort of moral responsibility posed in Pope Benedict's hypothetical male prostitute? Or would you have the man and woman live in continence for the remainder of their lives? Or would you have the woman divorce the man? If the man cannot live in continence, would you have him continue to have sex with prostitutes, and thus infect them?

Consider: here the purpose of the condom is not to prevent conception, but to prevent the spread of an incurable (and in third world contexts) fatal disease. This is a classic double effect, and it does not take a Jesuit to see how this in no way circumvents or violates Latin doctrine on contraception.

Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Is it not also better to use a bit of latex than to burn? This is the point where Latin legalism runs aground, and the need for oikonomia to negotiate the rocks and shoals of a complex moral landscape becomes quite obvious.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Quote
In Africa, AIDS is a heterosexual phenomenon, usually passed from prostitutes to men who pass it to their husbands. Given that a man is infected with HIV, and his wife is not, would not the use of condoms to prevent (or at least reduce the risk of) infection in the wife be an example of the same sort of moral responsibility posed in Pope Benedict's hypothetical male prostitute?
It is possible. Some theologians have reflected on this and come to a similar conclusion.
Quote
Or would you have the man and woman live in continence for the remainder of their lives?
That is still a valid option, and one that is the position of the Church in Rome right now. Now, given that, I acknowledge that this is something that may be very difficult to achieve in reality.

Quote
If the man cannot live in continence, would you have him continue to have sex with prostitutes, and thus infect them?
The problem here is the “amount” of risk. Condoms do not offer 100% protection. Should the Church be in the position of sanctioning something that can have a significant failure rate (I’ve seen over 10% numbers for failure rates.) If the Church is going to tell the truth, then it needs to be honest that condoms are no panacea.

Quote
This is a classic double effect, and it does not take a Jesuit to see how this in no way circumvents or violates Latin doctrine on contraception.
You are correct that this is a case of double –effect. However, the Church in its formulations based on natural law of order, still considers it as intrinsically evil because it frustrates the natural end of the biological purpose. Now, there are others who take a more personalistic approach to natural law. Charles Curran was one, but his works were pretty much condemned on this subject.
Quote
Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Is it not also better to use a bit of latex than to burn?
I hear what you’re saying, but that saying can also be used to then justify against those who takes vows of celibacy for clergy and religious. Paul’s admonition certainly is a matter of pastoral economy rather than doctrine.
However, the use of economy can never be used to justify sin. The question becomes as to whether an allowance would constitute sin. One has to get around the natural law problem in order to do that. That’s no easy task as natural law pre-dates Christianity, is well founded in Roman law, and was adopted into the Church.

That's the reason I asked about sources regarding the unitive aspect of conjugal love. Natural law of order sees procreation as the fundamental purpose intercourse.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5