Announcement

**Shi Huangdi** · October 10, 2003, 03:15

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Okay, let's take this one step further. Using your logic, wearing a condom to have sex if the person has a known STD is okay.

Wearing a condom to have sex if the person does not have an STD is not.

Now, I doubt the church wants to encourage Catholics to have sex with those who have STDs.

I'm pretty sure the Pope said something about this... I'll go sniffing around to see if I can't find the cyclical.

Good luck finding the encyclical. Of course entering into the sacrament of marriage with someone who has an STD is not a reccomended action. Most Catholics who would be willing to obey the Church's teachings on Contraception would most likely want to marry a virgin, speaking nothing of someone with an STD. But I would to think that in the case of a valid marriage already blessed by the Church, in which case sex between the partners is not something there is any problem with, that condoms for the purpose of preventing the disease from spreading would be illicit.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 10, 2003, 03:21

Shi:
Now I know why I'm so familiar with this material,

From HUMANAE VITAE, written by Pope Paul VI

Not Found | EWTN

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

I regularly work with this when doing Catholic prolife apologetics.

This is the passage you are thinking of,

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.[19]

"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious."

A person with AIDS will not be cured from AIDS through use of a condom.

I'm not trying to be harsh, just trying to point out to an alternative for Catholics to the barrier method of birth control. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to sort this out precisely because of the differences between myself and Denise. I have no problem with barrier methods, while she would prefer to use natural family planning methods.

This ought to be the best option for Catholic couples.

**Shi Huangdi** · October 10, 2003, 03:35

Ouch. I should have looked at Humanae Vitae before opening my big mouth. Well, it looks as though you win this one.

If I can save face by just a little bit, I'll point out that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document(I believe Paul VI explicity said that) and could potentially be revised on that point you mentioned. Still though, I have to congradulate you for taking the time to go through that encyclical, it looks as though it's time for me to take up the virtue of humility.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 10, 2003, 03:39

If I can save face by just a little bit, I'll point out that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document.

True.

As for saving face, I wasn't sure myself... and I've worked with this encyclical before.

And you've taught me lots of things.

**Jon Miller** · October 10, 2003, 03:46

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Just want to say a joke that indicates what I'm thinking:

A physicist, mathematician and engineer are on a train travelling through a beautiful English countryside. On the hill, the see a lone black sheep.

"Look!", says the engineer, "there are black sheep in this country."

"No," says the physicist. "The best you can say is that there is ONE black sheep in this country."

"No," says the mathematician. "The best you can say is that there is ONE sheep that is black on ONE side in this country."

i TYHINK HJITH IS A GOOOD JOKE

jO mILLER

**Verres** · October 10, 2003, 04:43

Originally posted by Asher

The only 100% effective way to prevent being run over by a car is to never leave the house.

Maybe you should also promote abstinence of not leaving the house.

Ah, but what happens if a car happens to crash through the side of your house and kill you? Nowhere is safe!

**Sikander** · October 10, 2003, 05:20

Re: Pope says condoms are no good against HIV

Well if anyone should know it would be him....

Oh, wait. I'm thinking of someone else.

**Sikander** · October 10, 2003, 05:26

Originally posted by Sava
what a dope

Don't you mean,

What a Pope!

**Drake Tungsten** · October 10, 2003, 05:32

Asher's numbers look more realistic too me.

You'd take Asher's word over that of an actual physician? Are you retarded?

**Heresson** · October 10, 2003, 07:17

Pope don't say; have sex but do not use condoms. he urges not to have sex except for married couples as well. If people get AIDS, they do not get it because they listen to him, but because they don't.

**Dr Strangelove** · October 10, 2003, 08:24

Originally posted by Asher
I'm confused by DrStrangelove's numbers, because the studies I've seen are different:

I. De Vincenzi, "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners," The New England Journal of Medicine, 331, no. 6 (Aug. 11, 1994), p. 341-6.
:

**Elok** · October 10, 2003, 08:39

I'm too lazy to quote, but did somebody mention a choir director who had AIDS, knew it, and was planning on having sex anyway? You could have a condom made out of Tolkien's mithril and that would still be negligent and stupid.

And the Catholic church really should stop justifying moral arguments with scientific reasons like this. Whether the statistic is true or false, if they believe contraceptives are intrinsically immoral they should stick to that rather than resorting to scare tactics on the side. It only hurts their own arguments when they don't argue the point they're supposedly making.

Just for the record, the OCC has no official stance on contraceptives, but most of our priests (that I've read, anyway) agree that they are acceptable for married couples wishing to regulate childbirth. I heard some horror stories at St. Vladimir's Seminary last saturday (I had no idea that the majority of Christians-not just wingnuts-actually believe in the blood atonement, for example) that make me a little eager to point out the distinction between our doctrines and others'.

**Saint Marcus** · October 10, 2003, 09:12

i TYHINK HJITH IS A GOOOD JOKE

jO mILLER

what have you been smoking?

**MrFun** · October 10, 2003, 09:12

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Shi:

There are many effects of the pill, one being that it can clear skin, as well as regulation of a menstrual cycle. If one were celebate, yet stayed on the pill for these reasons that would be licit.

Condoms have no intrinsic benefit apart from sexual intercourse, hence they always act as a contraceptive. Just sticking one on won't make you feel better.

Condoms provide a false sense of security, as Dr. Strangelove has stated. They may not when working properly, allow AIDS to pass through, but how often do condoms fail? In the meantime, the people are more likely to have sex if they feel they are safe from the consequences of AIDS.

This is why many Catholics, and Africans blame condoms for aiding the spread of AIDS. The only 100% effective way of curtailing the spread is through abstinence.

Yeah -- we should just make condoms illegal since they're only 90% effective.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 10, 2003, 11:03

Mr. Fun:

I suggest you read one of my posts to Shi if you think I advocate banning condoms. I also challenge you to find a post of mine where I have ever advocated banning condoms.

Announcement

Pope says condoms are no good against HIV

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment