The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

[Governor Scott]

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.

He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.

While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

The Telegraph

Holy...

EDIT: Sorry for posting an old article.  I just got this on my Facebook feed.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

It was a pathetic attempt to save face in the light of what is probably the worst part of the RCC's opposition to condom use. They were basically saying "ok, so maybe it's acceptable if you don't want to get AIDS but kind of not really".

[Frodo]

For a moment there I read the thread title as being 'The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms and contraceptives in historic shift'.

Now that I read it correctly, this really isn't as newsworthy as you make it out to be.  No wonder I don't remember it. 

[shua]

"The Catholic Church's position on condoms is giving people AIDS!"

Catholic Church allows for use of condoms against AIDS.

"Eh, who cares about AIDS. They're still against contraceptives!"

[Harry]

The slow pace is irritating, but at least progress is being made...

[TP]

But, doesn't giving the go ahead to use condoms while practicing fornication cause a moral contradiction?  Might was well say it is ok to wear a mask while robbing a bank.

[TJ in Wisco]

But, doesn't giving the go ahead to use condoms while practicing fornication cause a moral contradiction?  Might was well say it is ok to wear a mask while robbing a bank.

That's basically what he said, which is also why the entire story was pretty much a bunch of nothing. He just said, if you have AIDs and are going to have sex anyway it would be better to wear a condom. It boils down to saying fornication and contraception is less wrong than fornication and murder. The pope never said contraception wasn't wrong, as many in the media have protrayed the statement.

This is in part a clarification of St. Thomas Aquinas's teaching (which is neither held as definitively true or definitively false) that contraception is a worse sin than fornication itself.

[Dr. Cynic]

The slow pace is irritating, but at least progress is being made...

It's religion, man. What do you expect?

[shua]

But, doesn't giving the go ahead to use condoms while practicing fornication cause a moral contradiction?  Might was well say it is ok to wear a mask while robbing a bank.

That's basically what he said, which is also why the entire story was pretty much a bunch of nothing. He just said, if you have AIDs and are going to have sex anyway it would be better to wear a condom. It boils down to saying fornication and contraception is less wrong than fornication and murder. The pope never said contraception wasn't wrong, as many in the media have protrayed the statement.

This is in part a clarification of St. Thomas Aquinas's teaching (which is neither held as definitively true or definitively false) that contraception is a worse sin than fornication itself.

What about condoms for use of married couples where one is HIV+?

This is about the principle of double effect, isn't it?  - That you can't have the good of protection of disease without the (lesser) bad of the contraception.   

[realisticidealist]

This is about the principle of double effect, isn't it?  - That you can't have the good of protection of disease without the (lesser) bad of the contraception.   

Uh...I don't think that's what that means.

[shua]

This is about the principle of double effect, isn't it?  - That you can't have the good of protection of disease without the (lesser) bad of the contraception.   

Uh...I don't think that's what that means.

My understanding is that one precondition for double effect is that both effects proceed necessarily from the same action.

[TJ in Wisco]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

[shua]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

[TJ in Wisco]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

[Harry]

The contraception ban is incredibly asinine and may go down down history as the one thing that destroyed the Church.  Hopefully the next pope will reverse it before it's too late.

[realisticidealist]

This is about the principle of double effect, isn't it?  - That you can't have the good of protection of disease without the (lesser) bad of the contraception.  

Uh...I don't think that's what that means.

My understanding is that one precondition for double effect is that both effects proceed necessarily from the same action.

Yes, double effect stems from one action having multiple consequences. I guess the only time I've really heard it mentioned was in regards to an ectopic pregnancy. That is, a woman can have her felopian tube containing an embryo (or more) removed to save her life, even though that means that the child dies. This is because saving the mother's life was the only direct and intended effect, the death was an unfortunate secondary effect. Similarly, a Catholic woman can use birth control for necessary medical/hormonal reasons, which may cause a contraceptive effect if she were to have sex, but because this was a secondary effect of the action and not the main purpose of her usage, it would be ok.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes, it is, but God already provides a mechanism for that in that women are only fertile for a very short window every month (~72 hours a month, but the fertile window is longer because sperm can survive about five days in the vagina). The Church teaches that if you want to have sex with your spouse but don't want children at the moment to use that window of infertility (between two to three weeks a month, at the safest), which can be very accurately determined if you're willing to take temperature measurements, etc.

[shua]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

But does not sex and marriage have a multifaceted telos?  Otherwise, sex (and even marriage) between an infertile couple would be sinful since it could not result in a child, as would sex timed so as to avoid conception as realisticidealist mentioned. 

It seems to me there is an obvious argument here to allow condoms for disease prevention without embracing contraception for contraception's sake, and I'm surprised the Catholic Church isn't taking it.

[TJ in Wisco]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

But does not marriage have a multifaceted telos?  Otherwise, sex between an infertile couple would be sinful since it could not result in a child, as would sex timed so as to avoid conception as realisticidealist mentioned.

There is, but it still has to be open to the conception. In the infertility case, openness to conception doesn't take much since they aren't able to have children (though I know several people who have been born to "infertile" parents).

As for NFP, basically the Church says it's okay because it does not involve undertaking some artificial action to prevent pregnancy; since pregnancy is naturally impossible for some period of time. St. Thomas Aquinas taught contraception was a sin against nature. Since the method realisticidealist discussed is natural it is permitted. However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

[realisticidealist]

However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

TJ, I've never been entirely clear on what the "same act" means. From what I've read, the same act basically means that once sexual activities commence, the husband should make sure to finish during vaginal intercourse to preserve openness to life, but otherwise other forms of stimulation are acceptable prior to this and after this, but I've never asked anyone in person as it's a bit awkward to talk about. It's not something I've personally had to deal with yet of course, though that time may be coming sooner rather than later, so I was wondering if you knew any more about this.

[TJ in Wisco]

However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

TJ, I've never been entirely clear on what the "same act" means. From what I've read, the same act basically means that once sexual activities commence, the husband should make sure to finish during vaginal intercourse to preserve openness to life, but otherwise other forms of stimulation are acceptable prior to this and after this, but I've never asked anyone in person as it's a bit awkward to talk about. It's not something I've personally had to deal with yet of course, though that time may be coming sooner rather than later, so I was wondering if you knew any more about this.

I'm not sure about that one and don't seem to be close to needing to know the answer. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that awkward question...

[realisticidealist]

However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

TJ, I've never been entirely clear on what the "same act" means. From what I've read, the same act basically means that once sexual activities commence, the husband should make sure to finish during vaginal intercourse to preserve openness to life, but otherwise other forms of stimulation are acceptable prior to this and after this, but I've never asked anyone in person as it's a bit awkward to talk about. It's not something I've personally had to deal with yet of course, though that time may be coming sooner rather than later, so I was wondering if you knew any more about this.

I'm not sure about that one and don't seem to be close to needing to know the answer. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that awkward question...

That's fine. I'm planning on proposing to my girlfriend of almost four years after I find out my grad school situation in the spring (we've talked a lot about it). We'll be taking marriage classes and stuff (engaged encounter, etc.), so hopefully it'll be covered, but I have a weird need to get my mind around everything (in general) and figure out logistics as soon as possible.

[Beet]

Wow, this is great news. I am genuinely surprised. Is this the first socially progressive change the Pontiff has done since John Paul II came into office?

[shua]

No, condom use is not "permitted" persay under any circumstances. The pope just said it was less wrong than infecting the other person with AIDs. For married couples where one partner has AIDs the Church teaches they should practice celibacy. Now, obviously by extension it would be less wrong to use a condom than to infect the other partner, but the Church condones neither.

That position absolutizes the procreative aspect of sex at the expense of everything else.
Isn't sex within marriage also a positive good in terms of its role in cementing the relationship of husband and wife?

Yes but not while using artificial contraceptives, which are a sin against nature by destroying the telos of the sex act itself. It comes down to the same argument as to whether or not condoms are permitted normally between married men and women. Also, notice the name given to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church: Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is motherhood; ie. the two cannot be separated from one another.

But does not marriage have a multifaceted telos?  Otherwise, sex between an infertile couple would be sinful since it could not result in a child, as would sex timed so as to avoid conception as realisticidealist mentioned.

There is, but it still has to be open to the conception. In the infertility case, openness to conception doesn't take much since they aren't able to have children (though I know several people who have been born to "infertile" parents).

As for NFP, basically the Church says it's okay because it does not involve undertaking some artificial action to prevent pregnancy; since pregnancy is naturally impossible for some period of time. St. Thomas Aquinas taught contraception was a sin against nature. Since the method realisticidealist discussed is natural it is permitted. However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

If the primary criteria is openness to conception rather than what is natural in the usual sense, then timing sex with the purpose of avoiding conception should be worse than the contraception that is incidental to condom use.  (I'm tempted to agree here with an argument by Erasmus that celibacy and contraception are morally equivalent. )

Maybe Thomas Aquinas didn't envision certain scenarios when developing his moral system.  Haven't the Jesuits developed an approach that allows for moral principles to be weighed  differently depending on the circumstances?

[TJ in Wisco]

If the primary criteria is openness to conception rather than what is natural in the usual sense, then timing sex with the purpose of avoiding conception should be worse than the contraception that is incidental to condom use.  (I'm tempted to agree here with an argument by Erasmus that celibacy and contraception are morally equivalent. )

Maybe Thomas Aquinas didn't envision certain scenarios when developing his moral system.  Haven't the Jesuits developed an approach that allows for moral principles to be weighed  differently depending on the circumstances?

Aquinas did not understand NFP as practiced today since ovulation wasn't understood until the 20th Century, so when he called contraception a sin against nature, he was clearly referring to an unnatural method, which today would be similar to taking a pill or wearing a ring or condom. Think about what each means doing in a sex act: for an artificial method you have to wear something over the genitalia or take some sort of medicine. You're clearly doing something in a positive sense to have sex and not procreate. For NFP, you aren't doing something, you're not doing something. You're practicing abstinence during the fruitful periods. Otherwise, it would be a sin to have sex outside of that 72 hour period, which would also be problematic conclusion. The difference isn't something you can determine by looking at studies of the effectiveness of each in the same manner as one considers a subsidy in the political world, but rather the intrinsic nature of the act in question.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the Jesuits, but there may be some system either I am not familiar with or am used to hearing it identified differently.

[Harry]

As for NFP, basically the Church says it's okay because it does not involve undertaking some artificial action to prevent pregnancy; since pregnancy is naturally impossible for some period of time. St. Thomas Aquinas taught contraception was a sin against nature. Since the method realisticidealist discussed is natural it is permitted. However, this does not mean any sex act is licit if it doesn't require artificial contraceptives; it still needs to be the same act (vaginal intercourse between a married man and woman).

And anyone with a brain can see that that's complete BS, and thankfully virtually no married Catholic couple believes that.