Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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."
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?
Compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. The same as Jesus.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.
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 typesYarddog, 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
Very real and deadly too.I think it's critical not to treat any of this process lightly, either. Sin is real;
Actually, God bound Himself to forgive us.forgiveness is not "God's job". He doesn't have to do any of it.
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.
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 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.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 Pope, unlike the secular world, does not assume that there are people who "will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship".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:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
(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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?