So, are you saying that the Church encourages people who are not married to leave themselves open to the possibility of infection with various diseases? Are you also saying that the Church is encouraging young people to leave themselves open to pregnancy by stating that condom-use is an extra sin, in addition to fornication?
Please could you supply a legitimate source for this statement. Thank you.
Direct it where (if you don't mind me asking)?
Sorry, I did not realise that you thought that I was talking about you. The fact of the matter is that, not knowing your situation or how old you are, I was *NOT* talking about you. I was, in fact, talking about my own situation between the ages of 16 and 24.
And those who don't have a problem with the teachings of the Catholic Church are not normal people? I don't know if you realize how arrogant that sounds.Yes, thank you. I have read all these documents but, unfortunately, they do not answer the concerns of normal people.
Contraception is an intrinsic moral evil (See the CCC no. 2370). As such, no set of circumstances can make it not evil.
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158
[SIZE=-1]Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159 [/SIZE]
And those who don't have a problem with the teachings of the Catholic Church are not normal people? I don't know if you realize how arrogant that sounds.
Do you have a source that shows them saying as much?
I find that statement erroneous, if only for the fact that most Catholics have no problem staying in the Church and using artificial birth control, at least in America.
It doesn't really pass the logic test that gay people can or can't use 'contraception'.
If the act cannot result in 'conception' then they can't subvert it with 'contra-ception.
Awesome, thanks.
Auxiliary Bishop Victor Guazzelli of Westminster stated in February that HIV-infected people should use condoms.
"It seems to me that if people are set on intercourse, they at least have the obligation of not passing on the disease and death. Even if the only means possible to them is the use of condoms, this seems to be common sense," Guazzelli told Catholic News Service.
Okay thanks a lot... Sorry D'Ann I was just asking things to be clearer to me , sorry again.Nope
I understand what you say and form that perspective you are right, but it doesn't pass the logic that gays are having sex, therefore it doesn't pass the logic to can or can't use a contraception just because in the first place it shouldn't have existed... anyways hope i am able to pass my thoughtsIt doesn't really pass the logic test that gay people can or can't use 'contraception'.
If the act cannot result in 'conception' then they can't subvert it with 'contra-ception.
OK, here is the full text from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the title: "The fecundity of Marriage":
The above text talks about "spouses", "the conjugal act" and "husband and wife". When talking specifically about an intrinsic evil, the text is referring to "the conjugal act".
I think I will take the advice of my English Bishops on this, thank you. Their interpretation in 1989, was that contraception was evil within marriage NOT an additional evil outside marriage.
I have two questions here. Is it necessary to divide the sin of condom use from fornication, so that they be counted "seperately." And, second, if the use of a condom in a fornication scenario, would, then, constitute an equally grave matter?This is actually incorrect information. Contraception is sinful, whether the couple is married or not. The theory being purported above is essentially consequentialism, which is rejected by the Church (see Veritatis Splendor if you don't believe me)
I have two questions here. Is it necessary to divide the sin of condom use from fornication, so that they be counted "seperately."
And, second, if the use of a condom in a fornication scenario, would, then, constitute an equally grave matter?
There are a hole list of actual sins types, that result from the complexity of actions, especially because some things can be prevented and so forth, you get into this more especially when dealing with government... like "unintentional material consent". I believe that condom uses is a lesser violation than the fornication, but still falls within the mortal category.I'm not sure what you mean by "necessary." The assertion made by Hyacinth was that the use of contraception in a non-marital relationship is not sinful, only the act of fornication is. I corrected her, pointing out that that which is intrinsically evil (which contraception is) is always sinful, and that the circumstances surrounding the act cannot make it good, or even neutral.
Essentially, there are only two categories of actual sin: venial and mortal. Contraception is (objectively) a mortal sin. Whether or not one is subjectively culpable for it is another matter, but objectively, yes it is grave matter. Some sins we may find more repugnant than others, etc. but I don't know that you can talk about it being "more grave" or "less grave" within the larger category of grave sin.
There are a hole list of actual sins types, that result from the complexity of actions, especially because some things can be prevented and so forth, you get into this more especially when dealing with government... like "unintentional material consent". I believe that condom uses is a lesser violation than the fornication, but still falls within the mortal category.
Unlike the pill, a condom doesn't endanger the life of a child, it simply prevents full completion of the act. The condom, however, is inherently evil, because it provides a temptation, to engage in behavior with risks.
I would think the wait of the sins would be similar... or we conclude that it is one sin, decide it is similar to sodomy and conclude that the condom use results in a grave sin.