Are we really thinking everything through?

[Fireinfolding]

What would the CC rule for condom use for say a woman who was raped while she was married and contracted AIDS through the incident, but still wanted to be with ones husband without killing him?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What would the CC rule for condom use for say a woman who was raped while she was married and contracted AIDS through the incident, but still wanted to be with ones husband without killing him?

good question!

bet the answer is something along the lines of "abstienence would be the only holy way."

 

[Fireinfolding]

good question!

bet the answer is something along the lines of "abstienence would be the only holy way."

Theres a few different ways, I suppose another could be if a husband got into a car accident, had a botched blood tranfusion (as used to be the case). And contracted something that could be passed through sexual union. I was just wondering for exceptions which would seem logical in some cases. Things through no fault of their own in such cases.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Theres a few different ways, I suppose another could be if a husband got into a car accident, had a botched blood tranfusion (as used to be the case). And contracted something that could be passed through sexual union. I was just wondering for exceptions which would seem logical in some cases. Things through no fault of their own in such cases.

it would have to still be deemed sinful, because you can't back out on infallible dogma, can you?

 

[Fireinfolding]

it would have to still be deemed sinful, because you can't back out on infallible dogma, can you?

There were certain things as Jesus pointed out concerning what was lawful concerning the bread of priests too, He held David blameless in respects to what he himself said was unlawful to do. Now I dont know all the in's and outs of this infallible stuff, I try to get the gist of it through you guys talking about it, but Im no expert on it here.

 

[Uphill Battle]

that was actually an example I was thinking of earlier, but failed to use.


sin to eat the bread
david ate the bread
he did not sin
so therefore it couldn't be sinful to eat the bread all the time.

the logic applies.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Uphill, could the incident between Jonathan David and Saul be used in this incident, a measure of deception was utilized by them to know Sauls true intent to harm David. In every case, whether it Rahab or Abraham and even themselves when it come to lying (specifically) appears to indicate a protection from harm is present toward all. One with Rahab protecting the spies, Abraham, thatt his life be spared and in respects to David that no harm come to him either, afterall, faith works by love and love does no harm to another. Do unto others so to speak.

 

[Yarddog]

What would the CC rule for condom use for say a woman who was raped while she was married and contracted AIDS through the incident, but still wanted to be with ones husband without killing him?

Compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. The same as Jesus.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. The same as Jesus.

Yarddog, Is this while fobidding condom use between husband and wife under these circumstances though or no?

Like "I love you" and fogive you (for no fault of your own) I feel compassionate to your situation but theres a "no condom" policy?

See what Im asking?

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog, Is this while fobidding condom use between husband and wife under these circumstances though or no?

Like "I love you" and fogive you (for no fault of your own) I feel compassionate to your situation but theres a "no condom" policy?

See what Im asking?

The Church says that it is sinful to use contraceptives but they don't stand at the drug store counter with whips and chains to ensure that Catholics do not use those items. They do not have big burly men with tight t-shirts on and Security written across the back, stand at the Church doors and allow only those on the preferred guest list to enter. (Studio 54 types)

The Church, just like Jesus, says that sin is sin, but there is always forgiveness where sin is present. The Catholic Church does not whip their sheep into submission, it guides them to the truth through love and compassion for the sinner, which also includes their priests and hierarchy.
We are all both shepherds and sheep.

Each and every person that walks through those doors have sinned in some fashion and needs the blood of Jesus to cleanse them.

We need to know what sin is and ask God to forgive us. When we do approach Jesus in such a humble fashion, we may find that our sin was forgiven long before we sinned.

When we don't look at the Catholic Church through eyes that have been prejudiced by hearing false claims, we see a very Spiritual Church that God has blessed with his loving Spirit.

You are one of my favorite sisters, so don't think that I refer to you, in this. Just hoping to show the Spirit which I have experienced in the Church.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Fireinfolding]

The Church says that it is sinful to use contraceptives but they don't stand at the drug store counter with whips and chains to ensure that Catholics do not use those items. They do not have big burly men with tight t-shirts on and Security written across the back, stand at the Church doors and allow only those on the preferred guest list to enter. (Studio 54 types)

The Church, just like Jesus, says that sin is sin, but there is always forgiveness where sin is present. The Catholic Church does not whip their sheep into submission, it guides them to the truth through love and compassion for the sinner, which also includes their priests and hierarchy.
We are all both shepherds and sheep.

Each and every person that walks through those doors have sinned in some fashion and needs the blood of Jesus to cleanse them.

We need to know what sin is and ask God to forgive us. When we do approach Jesus in such a humble fashion, we may find that our sin was forgiven long before we sinned.

When we don't look at the Catholic Church through eyes that have been prejudiced by hearing false claims, we see a very Spiritual Church that God has blessed with his loving Spirit.

You are one of my favorite sisters, so don't think that I refer to you, in this. Just hoping to show the Spirit which I have experienced in the Church.

God Bless,
Yarddog

I feel likewise bro, and even though I know you dont make the rules this is not toward you either. I cant see how it would be a sin to wear a condom with ones wife if one has contracted a disease through no fault of their own. It is a way of seeking not to bring harm to ones wife in wearing one (with one anothers full knowledge). If they both have knowledge he could bring harm to her and did so without one that wouldnt be taking measures to prevent harm coming to her. Now this is under the assumption that this is a fail safe measure, which in my eyes it is not so there is a measure of risk either way (as there is with some women giving birth) but at least the conceinces of both could rest in that measures were taken to protect the other they love, not to intentionally bring harm.

I do realize that the churches "thou shalt not wear rubber" security team is not at the drugstores sifting through the peoples so called sinful purchases

Good thing for others in such a situation actually

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure the senses of this issue are exhausted. Yes, Rome can't nuance its interpretation enough to accommodate every form of moral application. There's so many other directions to take this in, I'm actually at a loss for knowing where to turn. I'm sorry if that results way too much in abstractions and philosophy, in what follows.

Jesus has an immensely high ethical principle. The Sermon on the Mount demonstrates the moral application of this utterly pure ethos in an unexpectedly direct way, in a way that few if any could handle then or now, even as Christians -- yet it's straight from Jesus' mouth. Anger gets treatment as murder. Eyeing someone as adultery.

In general we can philosophize-away the issue, pointing out that the sins of earlier people often lead to arbitrating among different evils in our later choices. But that's not really Jesus' point, either. Something applies, to Jesus. We're looking to redeem the times -- and the redemptive method itself calls for very clear, very tough -- and to the world, very foolish -- choices.

But the words describing how this works is just still so humbled and shallowed by the conditions we live under -- the very deeply damaged sinful conditions of our lives -- that we struggle under even its weight, hoping for a simple answer, "It's okay, God won't mind, just relax the whole thing." But in fact, God does mind, He minds immensely about right and wrong, and our sensitivity to His leading and not our self-worry I think is really what we should be searching and struggling for (from various Psalms, but ... yeah).

The sin in our options some sense inescapable, and that consideration should factor into every moral application that compares sins for the lesser of evils. There will be offenses in this kind of moral application, they will not be covered over by rationalization. When one sin is the better of options, there will still be regrets and rethinks, and there will be wrongs that we will morally feel in our souls. When we pick the worse of options, all the more our hearts will not wish to be exposed and will seek out the darkness of deniability.

It's a condition common to us all. It requires a process of forgiveness. It's a great grace from God our Father that He has given us, both the Assurance of forgiveness in Christ Jesus, His dying for us, and we can work out our own heartfelt pleas to Him and receive His forgiveness.

I think it's critical not to treat any of this process lightly, either. Sin is real; forgiveness is not "God's job". He doesn't have to do any of it. His offense over sin is real. Reconciliation is also possible and real, for there is a real Christ and a real Cross, and there is real faith and repentance. If some part is not real -- the process would not be real. Yet it is all real.

 

[sunlover1]

I think it's critical not to treat any of this process lightly, either. Sin is real;

Very real and deadly too.

forgiveness is not "God's job". He doesn't have to do any of it.

Actually, God bound Himself to forgive us.
That's why He says that He is faithful and "JUST" to forgive us if we
confess our sin ...
If He did not forgive us, after Christ paid, He would be "unjust".

 

[Christos Anesti]

If a person were to have multiple sex partners and sex before marriage I highly doubt they would be like "oh wait I can't use a condom because the RC Church said so". Why? Because the same Church also said not to have multiple sex partners and sex outside marriage so if they ignore that why would they listen to the condom rule? On the other hand people who are devoutly Catholic and only have sex with their wife or husband are much less likely to get AIDs anyway so if they listened to the Church it probably wouldn't be putting them at that much a risk especially if their husband or wife was tested for AIDs. I don't see what the big deal is then?

 

[Thaeoles]

I'm just glad I'm Protestant, I don't have to worry much about popish decrees on what I can and cannot do in my own bedroom.

However, I do believe that when certain rules are put in place, there are, at times, exceptions to those rules; albeit, those exceptions are usually rare.

 

[razeontherock]

I just wanted to point out that this post, which was p[resented as supporting the Pope's position, actually supports the OP's position instead. Look for the bolded part at the end:

Edward C. Green - Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right - washingtonpost.com



The Pope May Be Right



By Edward C. Green
Sunday, March 29, 2009




When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."



Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.



We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.



In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."






Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such
as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.



Why not?



One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.



Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.


These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.



So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.



In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.



Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.



Surely it's time to start providing more evidence-based AIDS prevention in Africa.



The writer is a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

it won't happen. When critical thinking and infallible dogma collide, common sense must give way.

I don't see a willingness at all to address it on the part of those who adhere to infallible dogmas.

The Church believes in reason and faith for all things. They go hand and hand.

 

[narnia59]

What would the CC rule for condom use for say a woman who was raped while she was married and contracted AIDS through the incident, but still wanted to be with ones husband without killing him?

The CC position aside, would a loving wife entrust her husband's life to a condom? They break, they leak, they slip. They are considered one of the least effective means of birth control, and for pregnancy to occur not only must there be a failure with the condom, but the woman also has to be ovulating (which only happens a few days a month). Not so with AIDS -- one broken condom and the spouse is exposed to a death sentence.

Is sex, even holy marital sex, worth that risk?

 

[narnia59]

I just wanted to point out that this post, which was p[resented as supporting the Pope's position, actually supports the OP's position instead. Look for the bolded part at the end:

The Pope, unlike the secular world, does not assume that there are people who "will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship".

I would have assumed that would be a consistent position among all Christians.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

(Catholic Doctrines should not affect you as you are not Catholic)

This is the crux of my complaint. The Catholic Church feels it has the right to say anything, and if anyone outside their organization complains, this is the standard response.

I am not aware of anything by the Church that makes this claim. Faith is not independent of reality.

take for instance the recent hoopla regarding Benedict forwarding the churches' position on condoms, in aids stricken nations. It was an remarkably foolish statement, given what the pretext of anti-condom thinking is.

it's supposed to prevent lives being stopped through condom use, in the name of the sanctity of life, and instead, it condemns some to die, because of the rule that must not be broken.

Like most arguments against Catholicism, it argues against their own misunderstanding of Catholicism, not what the Church actually teaches.
Condoms are not a problem because they prevent a life. Abstaining from sex prevents life, but that is not a sin. You really ought to understanding the Church's position before criticizing it.

on a more individual level, a couple who it was deadly to the wife to conceive, but when he sterilized himself so they could enjoy at least a mostly normal marriage, excommunication was the result.

rules come before common sense and critical thinking, and what was sought to be prevented, is actually acheived!

it is not sufficient to say "oh, it's just for us." If that's true, then don't say it. Send it only to your own, stop affecting everyone else with it.

this is on TOP of the fact that the position is flawed to begin with, in regards to contraception.

Again, you don't understand the Catholic position and yet you attack it. The Church does not believe that there is a moral codes that pertains only to Catholics. Whatever the Church teaches should be believed and practiced by all mankind. However, all people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that using a condom is wrong, regardless of whether one is Catholic or not.

I agree with the RC's position on abortion, but I do not think that includes situations where death is the logical conclusion of the pregancy, either to the child, the mother, or both.

This is a common misconception- that there are times when abortion is the only answer.
In every pregnancy, there is a risk of death. Some are more risky than others. There are a few case where there is absolute certainty of death, but those cases the Church allow procedures to save the mother's life.

(Nobody has been tossed out of the Catholic Church for getting an abortion.)

you sure about that? never?

Abortion and Excommunication - Catholic Christian Article

"Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication. "


​

so either this is wrong, or you are. Kindly identify which.


(nobody on this thread knew anything about Catholic doctrine other than me.)​

Anyone that has an abortion is automatically excommunicated.

using the example regarding condoms in Africa, that is as far from compassion as you can stray. It puts no thought in to the matter at all. And unfortunately for the Catholic Church, it can't step back from a flawed perspective because it's claimed the rule as immutable.

Condoms objectify human beings, which was the cause of the HIV epidemic in the first place.

​

(Scripture states that the Catholic Church is to guide Christianity)

indeed. Shepherds are to guide.

NOT rule.

guide. And when the shepherd is trying to make the sheep act like ducks, they aren't doing a good job of guiding.

I do not believe, nor accept, that scripture at all anywhere gives the Roman Catholic Church the authority it claims. I'd accept that they have the right to guide, any who believe that the Catholic Church is their chosen sect, and if they are convinced that the Catholic Magisterium should be their leaders.

but that is a far cry from a lineage of supposed overlords who's word is law.

Take the adulterous women for example. the rule? adultery=stoning. Did Christ not have the "right" to enforce that law, and see her stoned? far more so than the Magesterium claims they have in canon law enforcement.

however, he does not. And for no more reason than his own mercy! And those who claim to speak for him cannot be as merciful, even when there is good reason to do so?

I'm sorry, but I find that ludicrous.​

Do you see the bible as a guide? That you half-hearted look to, except when it contradicts your morality?

The Church is not a guide, it a means of preserving the truth for all generations until Christ returns.

now, I know I have likely offended you with this post, but understand, I do not have a bone to pick with Catholics. nor, with most of Catholic practice. THIS particular teaching, however, and a few others, are vinegar in my lemonade, so to speak, so forgive the offense, I merely speak my mind regarding the RULE and not you, or any other, as the individual.

The only thing offensive about your post were the outrageous misconceptions about Catholicism you made and then argued against.