- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
March 23, 2004 at 4:57 am #796
Apparently the Church is looking at its stance on the use of condoms for people with AIDS as a way of preventing the spread of the disease. Unfortunately I cannot find the source of this report or else I would post it here. Perhaps someone else knows what I am talking about.
What do you think of this idea – the Church promoting the use of condoms in some small cases in Africa or other locations?
I do remember the report saying that it is not something the Church would ever advocate on a global level such as for teen sex education classes, but in the cases of married people where one partner has AIDS or in Africa where AIDS is rampant.
Opinions, comments… ” title=”Smile” />April 27, 2005 at 5:26 pm #4360AnonymousInactive
I think it’s a great idea. Many people like to put blame on the church for the spread of diseases such as AIDS and other STDs. I think the church should take a long look at this and hopefully come to a conclusion that the use of condoms for people who have these diseases is ok.April 27, 2005 at 11:29 pm #4367AnonymousInactive
I’ve been in an on-going debate (semi) with my boss. She’s Episcopalian, and still is shaken about my wife and I leaving her church because the lady rector didn’t believe in the virgin birth… another story.
I bring this up because this is one of her arguments against Catholicism — the prohibition against condom use in the case of AIDS. I remember thinking that it would be unnecessary if the REST of the Church’s teachings regarding healthy sexuality were followed. But I’d love to hear what is being said about people who through no fault of their own (married and got AIDS via tainted blood infusion, etc.) could use this in good conscience.April 29, 2005 at 6:45 pm #4371
[quote:p7uqhrlw]I remember thinking that it would be unnecessary if the REST of the Church’s teachings regarding healthy sexuality were followed.[/quote:p7uqhrlw]
If I read you correctly I agree. If the rest of Catholic teachings on healthy/proper sexuality were followed there wouldn’t be many STD problems.April 29, 2005 at 7:06 pm #4373AnonymousInactive
If the Church did decide to allow it would that not open the door for different situations?
Would any kind of deadly disease that can be passed on to a child be justifiable means to use contraceptives?
~VictorMay 3, 2005 at 5:06 am #4382
Personally, I think people who have AIDS or any other venereal disease are obligated not to have sex.
This whole debate about condoms is ridiculous. Why should the Church give a license for people to be promiscuous in order to stop the transmission of a disease.
If one willingly passes HIV onto another person could that be considered murder? I think so. Murder is not immediate, but will be slow and painful. Since there is no cure for AIDS then eventually the immune system will break down and the person will die.May 9, 2005 at 8:53 pm #4448AnonymousInactive
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the church’s stand on “safe sex”, within a married couple of course?May 9, 2005 at 9:28 pm #4449
Sex is supposed to be all natural.May 10, 2005 at 12:34 am #4455AnonymousInactive
No. Just, NO. Unless I am entirely incorrect, the Church has stated unequivocally that condoms are intrinsically evil.
Did God’s opinion change or something? If not, the church can’t change this. Also, for those saying it would stop the spread of AIDS: contraceptives, even those meant to protect from AIDS, are NOT %100 effective. The ONLY sure way to avoid passing it on is abstinence. And even if it WASN’T, why should people get a license to fool around with each other just because they… want to?May 10, 2005 at 3:33 pm #4484AnonymousInactive
Uncertaindrummer, completely agreed.
~VictorMay 10, 2005 at 8:29 pm #4500AnonymousInactive
And, frankly, this would communicate to the world not that the Church had taken a step forward in understanding (if indeed it was that, but I’m speaking for the sake of argument), but rather that it had bowed to pressure.
Either way, it would be yet another reason for the secular world to disregard the greatest proponent of culture built on morality rather than power.May 11, 2005 at 4:47 am #4509
Ok, let me throw this at you (because someone threw it at me once).
What if a wife had a disease (and there are some that exist) where if she got pregnant she would basically die during some point in the pregnancy. Now, I’m not talking about death during labor, but sometime during the course of the pregnancy.
How is the married couple to renew their covenant if the wife is bound to die?May 11, 2005 at 6:07 am #4510AnonymousInactive
Sadly, she would not be able to be intimate with her husband if this was the case. This is the same as the people who have AIDS; they too should not be intimate.
~VictorMay 11, 2005 at 12:43 pm #4514AnonymousInactive
Yeah, exactly. It is sad, but it is also sad for those people who unfortunately do not have the capability in the first place.May 11, 2005 at 6:05 pm #4528
[quote:3sto1vwu]Sadly, she would not be able to be intimate with her husband if this was the case.[/quote:3sto1vwu]
But why? Why should she be denied this fundamental right of marriage? Intercourse is the sign of marriage.
[quote:3sto1vwu]It is sad, but it is also sad for those people who unfortunately do not have the capability in the first place.[/quote:3sto1vwu]
But this is different. The capability to have children or the capability to have sex?May 11, 2005 at 7:24 pm #4530AnonymousInactive
[quote:11i8ke02]But why? Why should she be denied this fundamental right of marriage? Intercourse is the sign of marriage.[/quote:11i8ke02]
Because the fundamental right to life (open to procreate) outweighs the fundamental right to intimacy in a marriage.
~VictorMay 11, 2005 at 8:17 pm #4532AnonymousInactive
Wait, I misread the theoretical situation. You say the WIFE is bound to die? I don’t know… That’s a tough one.
Actually, even if it was the child that was bound to die, I think it would still probably be moral. After all, if it is in Go’d hands, would it not be in His hands to perform a miracle and let the baby live?
Same thign with the wife, I think, so I would say that you could have intercourse. But I am not sure.May 11, 2005 at 8:28 pm #4533
See, I don’t know either. I think it’s a tough one.May 11, 2005 at 8:43 pm #4534AnonymousInactive
What happen? My answer didn’t make sense?
~VictorMay 11, 2005 at 8:51 pm #4535AnonymousInactive
Actually, I think I do know. The act of sexual intercourse is not an evil act. In fact, it is a pure, good, God-given ability which, if used properly (which we will assume it is) is what God intended. As long as you make that act with the intention of pro-creation, and do whatever is in your power to make sure the baby lives, you have done everything right, and you have not only [i:1o6wvqyy]not[/i:1o6wvqyy] sinned, I think you have done something very good.
In the case of the wife is going to die, it is more or less the same: As lnog as your intentions are pure and you do whatever you can to keep them that way, it is God’s decision whether the baby/wife dies.
Right? Where is the flaw in my logic?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.