Are we really thinking everything through?

[Fireinfolding]

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?

You could double up and use another method on top of that I admitted stated it wasnt full proof, but if both agreed to take the risk thats between them, it was neither of their faults in the example of the circumstances I used, so it would be their choice.

Would birth control for a married woman who would die in childbirth be wrong in that situation? Theres variables in every situation.

 

[narnia59]

You could double up and use another method on top of that I admitted stated it wasnt full proof, but if both agreed to take the risk thats between them, it was neither of their faults in the example of the circumstances I used, so it would be their choice.

Would birth control for a married woman who would die in childbirth be wrong in that situation? Theres variables in every situation.

You'll have to educate me on what other method would be beneficial to preventing the spread of AIDS.

"Who would die in childbirth" is based upon medical speculation as to "what might happen". The same argument is often used for abortion -- the woman might die if she carries the child to term, so we should abort the already conceived child. In neither case is it "fact" -- as in "the woman is dying" and needs medical treatment to prevent her death.

But I find it interest that in the interest of sex, one might choose such a life-threatening risk (like contracting AIDS), but in the interest of procreating a new life with the Almighty, that risk is seen as ample reason to hold back and divert the intended natural consequences of the act.

 

[Fireinfolding]

You'll have to educate me on what other method would be beneficial to preventing the spread of AIDS.

"Who would die in childbirth" is based upon medical speculation as to "what might happen". The same argument is often used for abortion -- the woman might die if she carries the child to term, so we should abort the already conceived child. In neither case is it "fact" -- as in "the woman is dying" and needs medical treatment to prevent her death.

But I find it interest that in the interest of sex, one might choose such a life-threatening risk (like contracting AIDS), but in the interest of procreating a new life with the Almighty, that risk is seen as ample reason to hold back and divert the intended natural consequences of the act.

But thats what I mean, they are different circumstances they arent the same circumstances and they are different people. ( I cant possibly think of them all). However one couple could be perfectly fine abstaining from sex, like I could, because I could care less whether I had sexual relations (personally). Another might not, Im taking them into consideration, not my own feelings (and imposing them onto all). One might have a medical condition that would take their life (who knows? I dont) Im not medical expert I am asking myself. But another couple could be like, "well if your going I dont mind going with you" if you die I die, I dont care (sorta deal). Another might not want to die and want to avoid their partner like the plague because they love life and want to live to hundred and procreate (so its been nice knowing you but stay away from me)... So I have no clue to the mentalities out there.

And no you wont get an education from me because I am asking myself how the CC regards it, I never heard of a the "thou shalt not wear a rubber condom commandment" afterall my parents are the best catholics they are good at doing the motions in mass (stand sit, kneel, cross yourself etc) but they got their annulments and taking us (their kids) for birth control pills at 16 years old, so that didnt quite stick in their practice either. But all my catholic girlfreinds were on birthcontrol, though one got pregnant at 15 and had two children by 17 so who knows?

 

[sunlover1]

And no you wont get an education from me because I am asking myself how the CC regards it, I never heard of a the "thou shalt not wear a rubber condom commandment" afterall my parents are the best catholics they are good at doing the motions in mass (stand sit, kneel, cross yourself etc) but they got their annulments and taking us (their kids) for birth control pills at 16 years old, so that didnt quite stick in their practice either. But all my catholic girlfreinds were on birthcontrol, though one got pregnant at 15 and had two children by 17 so who knows?

LOL
"Thou shalt not wear a rubber..."
ALL of my relatives are RC.
Babies born to them:
Mom had 3
Uncle had 2
Uncle had 3
Uncle had 4
Uncle had 5
Aunt had 1
Uncle had 1
Stepmom had 2
My sis 2
could go down the list with cousins
(Cousin had 2, Cousin had 2
Cousin had 3, Cousin had 0 .. by
choice, Cousin had 2) but
I think you get the idea

I have given birth to 8 meself
(Having been 'raised' RC, I didn't believe in BC. LOL)

Funny though, that even though I wasnt RC..
apparantly i was the only one who actually practiced it

Nah, just kidding.. well sort of. I didn't practice rhythm or
anything else similar. I asked God to be Lord over my
life (and included that part too)

So dont be letting those RC's make you feel guilty
they seem to be doing 'something' to prevent babes.
Either that or they're doing a LOT of fasting

 

[Fireinfolding]

LOL
"Thou shalt not wear a rubber..."
ALL of my relatives are RC.
Babies born to them:
Mom had 3
Uncle had 2
Uncle had 3
Uncle had 4
Uncle had 5
Aunt had 1
Uncle had 1
Stepmom had 2
My sis 2
could go down the list with cousins
(Cousin had 2, Cousin had 2
Cousin had 3, Cousin had 0 .. by
choice, Cousin had 2) but
I think you get the idea

I have given birth to 8 meself
(Having been 'raised' RC, I didn't believe in BC. LOL)

Funny though, that even though I wasnt RC..
apparantly i was the only one who actually practiced it

Nah, just kidding.. well sort of. I didn't practice rhythm or
anything else similar. I asked God to be Lord over my
life (and included that part too)

So dont be letting those RC's make you feel guilty
they seem to be doing 'something' to prevent babes.
Either that or they're doing a LOT of fasting

Eight? You've been keeping busy

Wow girl, I didnt know you you had that many! LOL.

Nah sis, I never took birth control after my mom took me to get it at around 16, when I started to gain weight (being vain as I was) I was like, "forget this" (as if that made any sense either! lol)

Im 44 and have not taken it since that time. But I would never feel guilty for such a thing now. I mean if I hurt someones feelings or stole something (etc) I'd feel guilt for doing my wrong, but I wouldnt have a second thought or feeling of guilt attached to something like that.

The reality of the matter is,
Im just plain less active in the evenings then you are sis

But your right, alot of folks blow that stuff off, I have no doubts about it

 

[MrPolo]

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?

Again, the soul is more important to preserve than the body as God taught. Adding more sin to an already tragic situation is never a proper response.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Again, the soul is more important to preserve than the body as God taught. Adding more sin to an already tragic situation is never a proper response.

You mean in respects to wearing a rubber condom being a sin?

 

[YinandYang]

I recently read through all of the previous posts on this thread and would like to add my two cents to the discussion at hand. I must admit that the vast majority of my posts here at Christian Forums are on theological, faith-based issues. However, as I read through everyone's comments here, I must admit that a sense of great sadness and dissapointment came over me. That is why I felt obligated to share my views on this matter.

Let me start out by saying that I am a Catholic and I believe that what the Pope had to say regarding condom use in Africa is correct. I would like to add, though, that I have thought about this issue extensively on my own.

Perhaps a brief backround of my Christian walk would help explain the important points that I believe need to be made in this discussion. I did not grow up Catholic, actually I grew up an atheist. My coming to accept the Catholic Church as God's true Church (and even coming to the conclusion that there is a God and that Christianity is correct) was a very long, thought out, logical, process in which I only accepted each individual teaching of the Church after extensive study and research done on my own. I know many people reading this might think that I sound more like a Protestant than a Catholic, but I would ask that you hear me out completely before making any rash judgements.

That being said, I was able to find answers to all of my questions from within the Church, Herself. It was a very wonderful and deeply spiritual time in my life, and I am very thankful to God for allowing me the opportunity to study the Fullness of Truth that comes to us from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

Looking back, though, I would have to say that I was both wrong and right in my approach. On the one hand, I don't believe that God wants us to check our brains at the door when it comes to our Christian faith, especially with regards to moral issues. However, I also don't believe that we, as individuals, have the right to come to our own conclusions on such important issues as abortion and contraception. We need to be careful how we approach such matters. If we are starting out with the preconcieved notion that this is what I believe to be right, and then we try to make God's will conform to our own, we are putting ouselves on a very dangerous path. If, however, we start out by saying that we want to first find out what God's will is on this issue, and then we conform ourselves to His will, we put ourselves on the right path to understanding and accepting God's truth. We must always be willing to humbly submit our own will to His truth.

Now, with that, come the questions, "What is truth?" or, "What is God's truth?" These questions have been asked by great men throughout history, from great philosophers, to great theologians, to even Pontius Pilate himself who asked Jesus this very question.

We, as Christians, know that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Unfortunately, much of the world today does not ascribe to this basic teaching that comes to us from our Creator. Thus they have no basis or foundation on which to build their lives or their beliefs. That is why we see such things as homosexual marriage and abortion on demand being promoted in our society today. In the words of Saint Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:32 If at Ephesus I fought with beasts, so to speak, what benefit was it to me? If the dead are not raised: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

I think that we can all see the point being made here. If the Gospel of our Lord is not true, then we have no hope of an afterlife so we might as well enjoy life as much as possible because this is all that we have. It is quite logical, if one is an atheist or does not give too much thought about Christianity or the afterlife. However, it is also a very sad and, ultimately, evil thought process to hold onto. For the individuals themselves, it will lead to eternal punishment in hell. With regards to society, it is also extremely dangerous as there does not exist a moral conscience like that of the Christian mindset. There is no final judgement of one's life. There is no accountability. There is no heavenly reward for living a holy and just life, nor is there punishment for living a sinful, evil life. Thus people are left to their own devices with regards to coming up with their own man-made traditions as far as what is right and wrong and how one impliments those ideas in one's own life, if such a person even cares about right and wrong in the first place and is not just trying to get as much out of life for themselves as they can.

Thankfully, we as Christians have the light of our Lord's truth and teachings to guide us down the narrow path which leads to righteousness, and away from the broad path which leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14)

However, I must be honest in saying that one of the main reasons I became a Catholic is because of discussions such as this one about contraception (and other discussions about issues regarding purely faith based topics as well). This is not meant to be offensive to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, but I see Protestantism as the, unfortunate, first step leading down the dangerous spiral staircase from the Fullness of Truth of the Catholic Church to the ideology of our individualistic, liberal, atheistic and anti-Christian culture we see today. The Reformation led people to question why they should listen to the Church and not just come up with their own Christian beliefs based on the Bible. Then people began questioning why they should even believe in the Bible and Christianity and not just come up with their own beliefs on God. This lead to people questioning why they should even believe in God, and now here we are today. Our society has become, for all intensive purposes, Pagan Rome. Only now many people don't even believe in a God (or a group of gods) or the afterlife. It is a very dismal and sad state of affairs. If it were not for Christ and His promise to never let the gates of hell prevail against His Church, it would be hard to maintain a sense of hope for our world today.

(Continued in next thread)

 

[YinandYang]

(Continued from previous thread)

That being said, without the Church to guide us as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) I see no way in knowing for sure whether or not we are correct on such issues as contraception or abortion or homosexual marriage. Sure we can guess to the best of our abilities (as it seems some of the previous posters have done, by their own words) but we don't really know for certain without God teaching us through the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

In other words, there are Christians (and even non-Christians) who believe differently on just about every issue with regards to faith and morals. Whether it's this topic, or the others I have previously mentioned in this thread, there are Christians who have the Holy Spirit within them who have very different viewpoints on these very important issues. So how can we really say that the Holy Spirit is guiding us individual Christians into all truth (John 16:13)? If we could be wrong with regards to one of our beliefs we could be wrong on all of our beliefs. So ultimately, how do we answer, in greater detail, that eternal question posed throughout the ages, "What is truth?"

For me, the only way to do so is to humbly submit to the authority of God and His Church with regards to these issues, and all issues pertaining to faith and morals. I also believe that we have an obligation to study these topics as much as possible and come to an understanding as to why the Church teaches what She does on these matters.

We have to be careful not to jump to conclusions and simply ignore ideas and teachings that, at first, we don't agree with. There is a good analogy here that I feel needs to be brought up in order to drive my previous point home. When we were born, we were all enemies of God due to our state of being born into original sin. Thus even the notion of Christ being God and Him having to die on the cross for our sins and redemption so that we could be saved from the fires of hell was contrary to our beliefs. That is, until God, out of His infinite love and kindness, taught each and every one of us Christians the truth about Himself and how we could become one of His followers. We must try to always keep this analogy in mind when studying and contemplating the teachings of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church that do not initially line up with our own beliefs and ideas.

I realize that many here do not hold to the notion that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but I believe It is and I will proudly stand up for, and live by, Her teachings throughout my time here on earth.

I cannot see any other way to know for certain that anything I personally believe, with regards to interpreting the Word of God on issues of faith and morals, is correct without the divine guidance that comes to me, and my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, through the teachings of the Magesterium.

That being said, I must add that the Church does command us to follow our own consciences. However, the Magesterium also teaches us that we must formulate our consciences with God's truth and not use feigned ignorance as an excuse for commiting and condoning sin.

Truth is truth whether we accept it or not. We can either humbly submit ourselves to the truth, who is Jesus Christ Himself, and submit to His teachings which come to us from the Catholic Church, or we can be as the world is and come up with our own individual ideas on these matters.

I have decided to humbly submit my will to God's will. I hope and pray that everyone who reads this will do the same.

May God bless you and Mary keep you in her prayers always.

YinandYang

 

[MrPolo]

You mean in respects to wearing a rubber condom being a sin?

Yes, the Church considers such contraception sinful and thus could be quite detrimental to the soul.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

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 condition of how one contracts HIV has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of using a condom afterwards. That sounds like the punishment based morality where people say you can have an abortion if the woman is raped. As though pregnancy was a punishment for those who willing had sex- or that the child could be deprived of its life for being the product of rape.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

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

You don't seem to even know what infallible dogma is.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, the Church considers such contraception sinful and thus could be quite detrimental to the soul.

Ok, so they teach wearing a rubber condom is a sin, are there other forms of contraception (that does basically the same thing) that is not considered a sin to them, or no? Like a man getting a vesectomy or a woman getting a hysterectomy, or a rhythym counting thing going on thats allowable, and if so why is one accepted over another?

I mean I know it says its better to marry then to burn, over its better to marry in order to procreate

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

touchy, touchy. Did you overlook this part?

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.



I want someone to tell me how it's possible that ignoring the situation, is beneficial. That regardless of circumstance, God thinks the same thing repeatedly.

it turns God in to an automaton for a rule, as opposed to a compassionate God who looks at EVERY instance of EVERY life in the light of full knowledge.

This is the problem with most protestant morality- it is based on rules and commands.

Protestant morality is based on the idea that God gives laws and we should obey them. The morality of the action depends on whether or not it violates what God commands. Protestants turn to scripture and look for what is commanded of them, and then finding rules and exceptions in order to create gray areas.

Protestants can usually answer what God forbids and allows, but they can't answer why. This is because the protestant reformers believed that trying to understand the will of God is an attack on His sovereignty. Catholics believed that God created things in a natural order. That by understand this order, we can understand the morality of an action. The Reformers said that this would bond God to His own created order.

For example, we all know that adultery is wrong. But could God make adultery right tomorrow? Is adultery wrong because God says so, or does God say so because adultery is wrong?

For Catholics, adultery will always be wrong because it goes against the natural order. It is a violation of the way humanity was designed- Genesis shows that man was created to marry a woman and become one flesh. Thus, adultery has nothing to do with rules. It isn't wrong because the Church or God merely says so. It is a violation of our humanity, people are not created for that. By violating our nature, we only cause more problems.

The same exists for condoms. Condoms aren't wrong because the Church made a rule. The Church condemns using condemns because it violates our human nature and puts a barrier between a couple. Couples were meant to give themselves entirely in marriage and in the sexual act. To use a condom would be keeping part of oneself from their spouse- their fertility. Marriage is about total self giving, it is practice that prepares us for Heaven where we totally give ourselves to God fully. How can we prepare to give ourselves to our spouse, Christ in Heaven when we don't give ourselves fully to our spouse on Earth?

 

[Fireinfolding]

The condition of how one contracts HIV has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of using a condom afterwards. That sounds like the punishment based morality where people say you can have an abortion if the woman is raped. As though pregnancy was a punishment for those who willing had sex- or that the child could be deprived of its life for being the product of rape.

You lost me, if a woman was raped (who was married) and who contracted a disease from her rapist wouldnt some added protection make sense if they wanted to continue in normal married sexual relations? Both knowing (ofcourse) the risks involeved but taking more careful measures?

Sorta like wearing a selt belt when you go to the store, theres always a risk getting into a car, and the seatbelt is just an added measure to reduce risk in ones carefulness. However, its no gaurentee that you will get out of the car alive, but you have lessened your chances of being harm (still knowing the risks ofcourse).

Unless putting babies in cars without seatbelts doesnt seem reasonable either?

 

[MrPolo]

Ok, so they teach wearing a rubber condom is a sin, are there other forms of contraception (that does basically the same thing) that is not considered a sin to them, or no? Like a man getting a vesectomy or a woman getting a hysterectomy, or a rhythym counting thing going on thats allowable, and if so why is one accepted over another?

Only the rhythm counting in your list would be moral because it does not involve a compromise of the sexual act. There isn't a sexual act at times. The consistency of the teaching is that all voluntary acts of sex must not bring in outside forms of contraception or it's sinful.

You see, in Catholic theology, the ability to procreate and give sexual expression is quite a privilege. Not even the angels have this privilege, which makes us in a way more like God. The sexual act is understood as the total giving of one's self to the other. You see why the analogy of Christ and the Church as bride and bridegroom works? Because one member is given entirely to the other. The union of husband and wife is in itself an eschatological figure.

When we introduce factors into the sexual act that inhibit procreation, we do two things: 1) we disgrace the gift because we refuse to give ourselves entirely in the act---we say: "I give all of myself to you...except my fertility."; and 2) we lie to the other person (and maybe ourselves and God) by thus engaging in an act that says "I give all of me to you" when you really are not.

 

[Fireinfolding]

How is keeping ones penis uncovered during sexual relations have to do with giving oneself to another? My sister was told she was allegergic to her mates "stuff" so to speak, called "seminal plasma hypersensitivity"

She doesnt have that inborn appreciation we might have to our mates giving "all of themselves" to her (so to speak).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You lost me, if a woman was raped (who was married) and who contracted a disease from her rapist wouldnt some added protection make sense if they wanted to continue in normal married sexual relations? Both knowing (ofcourse) the risks involeved but taking more careful measures?

Sorta like wearing a selt belt when you go to the store, theres always a risk getting into a car, and the seatbelt is just an added measure to reduce risk in ones carefulness. However, its no gaurentee that you will get out of the car alive, but you have lessened your chances of being harm (still knowing the risks ofcourse).

Unless putting babies in cars without seatbelts doesnt seem reasonable either?

They should abstain from sex. The problem is that the couple would not be having sex. It would something a little less than sex since there is a barrier between them. It would be pleasurable and only partly unitive. It would be a twisted form of sex, like oral sex, etc. It would be an imitation, not the full reality of sex.

It would be like God making a cheetah that ate vegetables. It really isn't a cheetah. It looks like one, but wouldn't be one.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

How is keeping ones penis uncovered during sexual relations have to do with giving oneself to another? My sister was told she was allegergic to her mates "stuff" so to speak, called "seminal plasma hypersensitivity"

She doesnt have that inborn appreciation we might have to our mates giving "all of themselves" to her (so to speak).

That would involve being open to fertility. If you aren't giving all of yourself to your spouse, then it isn't fully unitive. You can't have an honest relationship with secrets.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Only the rhythm counting in your list would be moral because it does not involve a compromise of the sexual act.

I cant see a differnce with a barriered act and a less barriered act except the woman might have to endure more time during the act, and as often is the case, it works "for them not against them" in that respect.

That was selfish yes, but no less true (because men can sometimes be a little more selfish)

There isn't a sexual act at times. The consistency of the teaching is that all voluntary acts of sex must not bring in outside forms of contraception or it's sinful.

You lost me on your first sentence MrPolo

You see, in Catholic theology, the ability to procreate and give sexual expression is quite a privilege. Not even the angels have this privilege, which makes us in a way more like God. The sexual act is understood as the total giving of one's self to the other. You see why the analogy of Christ and the Church as bride and bridegroom works? Because one member is given entirely to the other. The union of husband and wife is in itself an eschatological figure.

No, I guess because Paul says its simply better to marry then to burn when it comes to it.

When we introduce factors into the sexual act that inhibit procreation, we do two things: 1) we disgrace the gift because we refuse to give ourselves entirely in the act---we say: "I give all of myself to you...except my fertility."; and 2) we lie to the other person (and maybe ourselves and God) by thus engaging in an act that says "I give all of me to you" when you really are not.

I dont see how it disgraces the gift of sexual relations, and like I said my sister has that "thang" where shes allergic to all his bad self and could use the barrier for her welbeing actually.

Besides if I married a man with no legs or arms it doesnt make him no less able to give me all of his self, how would sperm not touching me be as he is unable to give me all of himself? Some men are sterile, that doesnt make them less able to give a woman all of himself.