Pope: Condoms Can Be Justified in Some Cases

Fish and Bread said:

U.S. conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

Click to expand...

Man that's a poor article. I mean from a journalistic standpoint. When your lede is

Faced with a changing outlook from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms and their role in preventing the spread of HIV, many prominent conservative Roman Catholics in the U.S. are rejecting the Vatican's own explanation of what the pope said. Several orthodox Catholics said they would only accept a more formal papal pronouncement. Others insisted that journalists were purposely misrepresenting Benedict's comments. Some questioned whether the papal spokesman, the Rev. Frederico Lombardi, accurately quoted the pope.

Click to expand...

you really have to start outlining those arguments in depth and immediately. Instead the best we get is someone saying "I'm not ready to say that the pope said what Lombardi said." and the rest of the clarification of these opening statements is buried in the article. This is especially problematic because this statement only shows a possible issue with a clarification from Father Lombardi, a far cry from the headline of "conservatives at odds with Vatican." And speaking of the headline, that makes it sound like we are talking about Republicans, since it is not specified that they are (presumably) theologically conservative Catholics. Traditionalists would be a better word maybe, but the press doesn't know that one. I am glad that it does include statements like

The pope's comments in a book interview do not amount to an official teaching, a point conservative Catholics made repeatedly and vociferously Tuesday.

Click to expand...

Though it's buried so far in the article as to be journalistically meaningless, and I don't know why this is something that has to be attributed as an opinion of conservatives rather than simply a fact. (I mean Catholic teaching is pretty clear that off the cuff remarks like this don't change anything even when said by a Pope, so it seems to be pretty cut and dry.)

The real sad thing is that this article is still leagues above the first wave.

_Shannon_ said:

Why not? If you are fornicating, does using a condom add to your sin?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, it does not. The act is already corrupted and sinful. Thus, whether or not contraception (assuming it is not abortifacent) is used, the act equally sinful.

benedictaoo said:

Because condom use is sinful when two heterosexual use it because you can not have any barriers.

For gay men-- seriously? The act itself is a barrier already... A condom being used is neither here nor there for the gay man.

If the pope says gay men may use condoms to prevent more AIDS from being spread, then, okay... what are they doing by adding to the sin by using a condom? Stifling life? Perverting the act? They are already doing that anyway...

But ppl need to know that the pope isn't condoning gay prostitution or gay sex.

Using a condom is not going to add or take away from the sin they are in fact committing.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, definitely, I think the question was more towards contraception in heterosexual fornication (or adultery) though -- is it a worse sin to have sex with your boyfriend if you are also on the pill or a condom? Assuming no abortions / micro-abortions occur (such as the pill/morning-after pill may cause or IUDs always cause), it would seem that it is equally sinful.


With gay couples, you are right, certainly it doesn't matter. My ex-fiancee and I used to go through a ton of condoms, mostly free ones from PP or other places. Being a lesbian couple, obviously preventing pregnancy wasn't our concern. Rather, it was to keep our toys clean -- especially since we were not monogamous. The condom, therefore, is really adjunct to the act. The same would apply to a gay male couple, even though the condom there would actually make it onto a real phallus it is not a contraceptive device so it is no different from barebacking, though certainly safer with regards to STDs.

The same answer would be true with regards to heterosexual sodomy. It is equally sinful to have heterosexual anal or oral sex with or without a condom (though it may be a greater sin to do it outside of marriage -- as an act of fornication or adultery -- than within a marriage) since the condom is not serving as a contraceptive device.

This is why the pope can say that it is evidence of concern for the other person's safety to use a condom. Indeed, if the risk of infection is great, it might be a greater sin to not use a condom when having sex outside of marriage. Chew on that.

PilgrimToChrist said:

As I understand it, it does not. The act is already corrupted and sinful. Thus, whether or not contraception (assuming it is not abortifacent) is used, the act equally sinful.

Click to expand...

i do not agree, fornecation is bad but contraception is unnatural
so one is a sin agianst purity and the other is a sin agianst Gods natural order and purity

Joshua G. said:

Doesn't this (in the OP) go without saying?

Aren't condoms allowable between two married people if, say, the woman has had a hysterectomy (spelling) but, say, the man or woman has some kind of STD? I guess I just assumed if contraception is not a factor at all then the prohibition on condoms doesn't apply purely for logic's sake... right?

Click to expand...

Even if the the couple is sterile, such as from a hysterectomy, it is still illicit to use contraception.

Sterile intercourse is not the same thing as sodomy. Sodomy is fundamentally sterile, sex with a woman with a hysterectomy is accidentally (as in "adjunctly", not "oops") sterile. With sodomy, it is the act itself -- depositing sperm in a bodily orifice other than the vagina -- which can never result in reproduction. But with normal intercourse, the sperm is deposited in the vagina, which normally leads to reproduction. Now, it may be that either the man or the woman (or both) is sterile. The woman may be post-menopausal, she may be at the wrong time in her cycle, she may have had a hysterectomy, she may already be pregnant, the man might be shooting blanks -- all of these things are entirely adjunct to the actual act.

But what happens with a condom? The sperm is deposited into the garbage can, which is no different than Onan spilling his seed on the ground. I was looking up up old Protestant objections to contraception for the thread in GT on this same topic and I came across a commentary by Martin Luther on the story of Onan where he says that Onan was guilty of a "sodomic sin". If we define sodomy as I did above -- depositing sperm in something other than the vagina -- then certainly this is true.

Now, thinking about this, it may be something to consider that contraception using a condom or "pulling out" is a rather different species of sin than contraception using hormonal birth control. They are both forms of lust in terms of the inordinate will to have sexual pleasure apart from reproduction. But in terms of how this will is acted out there are some differences. Condoms/pulling out may be considered a sort of sodomy. Hormonal contraception or surgical sterilization (that is, apart from legitimate medicine where sterilization is an unfortunate side-effect, such as with a hysterectomy because of cancer) is an assault on the body itself.

It is a sin to chop your hand off intentionally but if your hand gets mangled in a piece of machinery and has to be amputated, that is not a sin. The same is true for all parts of the body. It is a sin to chop your hand off and it is a sin to chop your uterus out of even to sever the male or female reproductive tubes (vas deferens or Fallopian tube). We are not suppose to hack at a perfectly healthy body. Indeed, the purpose to surgical sterilization is to hack at a healthy, functioning body to turn it into an unhealthy, non-functioning body. Hormonal sterilization (contraception) is also the same idea, even though in a temporary fashion -- the idea is to stop the body from functioning properly in order to be able to engage in venereal pleasures without conceiving.

So the issue with an already sterile couple using a condom for sex is that it is actually then a kind of sodomy, albeit one that utilizes the vagina, not sex.

(On the thread on the same topic on GT, people were saying not only that contraception is not sinful but neither is sodomy or even masturbation!)

But what happens with a condom? The sperm is deposited into the garbage can, which is no different than Onan spilling his seed on the ground. ///


No, its not. Even without a condom, not all sperm ends in the vagina, but some may end up on the floor or the bed sheet which ends up in the wash anyway.

The sin of Onan, wasn't the spilling of his seed on the ground, but disobedience to God who told him to have relations with the woman in order for her to conceive a child.

Jim

ONAN...

I took a look at Vatican.va for something on this fellow and this is what I found:

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. ​

Click to expand...

Link: Pius XI, Casti Connubii (31/12/1930)



One thing I found exciting about this was that it reminds me of Humanae Vitae and was written in 1930.

JacktheCatholic said:

ONAN...

I took a look at Vatican.va for something on this fellow and this is what I found:



Link: Pius XI, Casti Connubii (31/12/1930)



One thing I found exciting about this was that it reminds me of Humanae Vitae and was written in 1930.

Click to expand...

Onan deliberately prevented himself from creating new life in his act.

This is a far cry from a married couple using a condom when the wife is sterile.


Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

Onan deliberately prevented himself from creating new life in his act.

This is a far cry from a married couple using a condom when the wife is sterile.


Jim

Click to expand...

I was just looking for more to add. The writings about Onan are not mine.


How is Thanksgiving going? I have guests at noon arriving and if I do not take a shower soon and clean up my papers around my reclyner I think my wife will roast me with the turkey.

JacktheCatholic

I was just looking for more to add. The writings about Onan are not mine.

Click to expand...

I know, but I'm putting Augustine's words into proper perspective.

How is Thanksgiving going? I have guests at noon arriving and if I do not take a shower soon and clean up my papers around my reclyner I think my wife will roast me with the turkey.

Click to expand...

I too have a bunch of people coming over. I do the cooking so my wife merely has to obey and do what I tell her.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

I too have a bunch of people coming over. I do the cooking so my wife merely has to obey and do what I tell her.

Jim

Click to expand...

Uh oh! You used "obey" in regards to your wife.

I will have to say something to her. (J/K - of course)

My wife and I argued one year over who would cook and how we would cook it. We both took a year each (her one year and me the next) to see how it worked and she is the better cook. I submit to my better half in that area.

JacktheCatholic said:

Uh oh! You used "obey" in regards to your wife.

I will have to say something to her. (J/K - of course)

My wife and I argued one year over who would cook and how we would cook it. We both took a year each (her one year and me the next) to see how it worked and she is the better cook. I submit to my better half in that area.

Click to expand...

Cooking is my hobby, so my wife gladly hands the job over to me.

Of course, it was her own craftiness that got me into cooking years ago.

Back when the Frugal Gourmet was on PBS, she gave me his book as a Christmas present. I've been cooking ever since.


Jim

PilgrimToChrist said:

Oh yes, definitely, I think the question was more towards contraception in heterosexual fornication (or adultery) though -- is it a worse sin to have sex with your boyfriend if you are also on the pill or a condom? Assuming no abortions / micro-abortions occur (such as the pill/morning-after pill may cause or IUDs always cause), it would seem that it is equally sinful.


With gay couples, you are right, certainly it doesn't matter. My ex-fiancee and I used to go through a ton of condoms, mostly free ones from PP or other places. Being a lesbian couple, obviously preventing pregnancy wasn't our concern. Rather, it was to keep our toys clean -- especially since we were not monogamous. The condom, therefore, is really adjunct to the act. The same would apply to a gay male couple, even though the condom there would actually make it onto a real phallus it is not a contraceptive device so it is no different from barebacking, though certainly safer with regards to STDs.

The same answer would be true with regards to heterosexual sodomy. It is equally sinful to have heterosexual anal or oral sex with or without a condom (though it may be a greater sin to do it outside of marriage -- as an act of fornication or adultery -- than within a marriage) since the condom is not serving as a contraceptive device.

This is why the pope can say that it is evidence of concern for the other person's safety to use a condom. Indeed, if the risk of infection is great, it might be a greater sin to not use a condom when having sex outside of marriage. Chew on that.

Click to expand...

No, not really. He was just saying that it's a good sign for humanity that a gay or straight for that matter, prostitute, is willing to use a condom as to not infect other ppl.

It shows that the person is considering life outside himself or herself. It is a sign of hope at getting ppl who live perverted self serving lifestyles, to think of other ppl.

It in no way was an advocacy for the use of them or that they have their place.

And for heterosexual marrieds who practice sodomy- I don't know man... the Church says technically, as long a man does not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside of wife, it is permissible but it's not good in any way shape or form and not at all recommended.

Like St Paul said, just because something is permissible, does not make it in any way good for ppl to indulge in.

So I do not buy the condom use argument because, you are on a very slippery slope with it. just cuz an act is permissible, don't make it a good thing we should recommend to anyone.

It's not sex, it's not love, it's not intimacy.

Jim said once, and summed it up pretty good... It is perverted exoticism and in a marriage that can not lead to anything good.

Davidnic said:

Except the Pope is not alone in his thought on that:

“We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

-Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies​

The idea that condoms actually do reduce infection rate is popularly accepted, but far from proven...even to many in the field. People want to believe it and many want it to be so because that want to justify condom use. But even academics and researches as quoted above agree with the Pope.

But the media ridicules him like he is some middle ages crank with no scientific knowledge. And this is because people believe the popular thought and do no look deeper into the research.

Click to expand...

The pope was speaking sociologically (not "Do condoms prevent HIV transmission between a couple?", which obviously they do but rather, "Do condoms stem the tide of the HIV epidemic?") and specifically concerning Africa. We keep dumping so much money in condoms into Africa but it's not really making a dent, Planned Parenthood and others just keep saying we need more money for condoms but it's a problem. If you tell people condoms will keep you safe, people are more likely to engage in dangerous activity. But really people are likely not to use condoms 100% of the time and that's when HIV will be transmitted.

But yes, despite the media mockery, the numbers did bear the pope's comments out -- condom distribution in Africa has done nothing to stem the HIV epidemic.

JimR-OCDS said:

But what happens with a condom? The sperm is deposited into the garbage can, which is no different than Onan spilling his seed on the ground. ///


No, its not. Even without a condom, not all sperm ends in the vagina, but some may end up on the floor or the bed sheet which ends up in the wash anyway.

The sin of Onan, wasn't the spilling of his seed on the ground, but disobedience to God who told him to have relations with the woman in order for her to conceive a child.

Jim

Click to expand...

The sin was, he was not open to life.

carmelsnowcone said:

Tell that to the girl that has to take care of a baby at the age of fifteen.

Click to expand...

If she has a baby in her arms, how is handing her a condom going to help her any?

Abstience doesn't work, really it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I've known plenty of women who have gotten pregnant while on birth control. I've only known one woman who has gotten pregnant being abstinent.

Seems pretty effective to me.

Sure if you abstain you won't get pregnant but really how many abstain, let me tell you not a lot.

Click to expand...

And? Yes, people are dumb.

I went to a school that taught abstience only, it took me years to finally realize how much they didn't tell me.

Click to expand...

Education is a complex thing. I used to be against abstinence-only programs and in favor of throwing condoms at the problem of teen pregnancy. I was also angry at schools who did not take into consideration gay people in the sex ed process, not to mention pervasively (e.g. not to be scared of novels including gay characters in English class) but that was because I was a very angsty gay kid and frustrated at society for being heterosexist.

But now I am totally disillusioned with sex education, not to mention public education in general. It really should not even be something spent a lot of time on. Sexual health can really only be taught within the context of a healthy sexual relationship -- i.e. the family. Otherwise, there is no context.

The argument is that many parents will simply not deal with the subject and we need to fill that role they are shirking. But the more the education system takes on that role, the more the parents will ignore their duty and leave it to the schools, making the problem worse. Minimizing sex education in public education is a bitter pill but it is a step that we need to take to re-humanize sexuality.

Okay either God is all powerful or he can't affect us which is it?

Click to expand...

Huh? How did you jump to that.

Yes, God is all-powerful.

Summa Contra Gentiles said:

Then, again, the more perfect the power of a being, by so much does its causality extend to more, and more remote, things, as was said above. But the causality of the end consists in this, that other things are desired for its sake. The more perfect an end, therefore, and the more willed, by so much does the will of one willing the end extend to more things for the sake of that end. But the divine essence is most perfect as goodness and as end. It will, therefore, supremely diffuse its causality to many, so that many things may be willed for its sake; and especially so by God, Who wills the divine essence perfectly according to its power.

Click to expand...

Virgil the Roman said:

Secondally, I went to a School that "encouraged" abstinence as 100% effective, "BUT if you caaaannnn be abstinent, condoms/contraception are the 'next best thing.'

Click to expand...

There's a scene in "Mean Girls" which makes fun of that.

Mean Girls said:

Coach Carr: At your age, you're gonna be having a lot of urges. You're gonna want to take off your clothes and touch each other. But if you do touch each other, you will get chlamydia. And die.
...
Don't have sex. Because you will get pregnant and die. Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up. Just don't do it, promise?

OK, everybody take some rubbers.

Click to expand...

Rhamiel said:

i do not agree, fornecation is bad but contraception is unnatural
so one is a sin agianst purity and the other is a sin agianst Gods natural order and purity

Click to expand...

If by "unnatural" you mean "contrary to the Natural Law", then fornication is also unnatural.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article2 said:

Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, A. 2

Click to expand...

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#122 said:

Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. III, Ch. 122

Click to expand...

I need to start my cranberry sauce....

JimR-OCDS said:

But what happens with a condom? The sperm is deposited into the garbage can, which is no different than Onan spilling his seed on the ground. ///


No, its not. Even without a condom, not all sperm ends in the vagina, but some may end up on the floor or the bed sheet which ends up in the wash anyway.

The sin of Onan, wasn't the spilling of his seed on the ground, but disobedience to God who told him to have relations with the woman in order for her to conceive a child.

Jim

Click to expand...

Although the Mosaic Law was not written at the time, the later Mosaic Law only subjects someone who refuses to marry his brother's widow to humiliation

Deut 25:5-10 said:

When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:

And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel. But if he will not take his brother's wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband's brother refuseth to raise up his brother's name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother's house: And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.

Click to expand...

Gen 38:7-10 said:

And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

Click to expand...

Onan's sin was not refusing to marry Tamar, but rather he married her and then committed an unnatural sin. He was fine with having sex with her, maybe he had always been jealous of his brother and wanted her, but he didn't want to get her pregnant so he pulled out.

His crime was spilling his seed on the ground, not disobedience.

Think about the high place of blood in the Old Testament, how precious it was as a symbol of life. How much more precious then is that which generates life? It is not to be spilled wantonly.