Pope Benedict XVI had requested a report on whether it might be acceptable for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance
“Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil,”.
Condom use within a marriage for any reason will never be approved. My understanding of sex and marriage in the Catholic church is so sacred an act, that it goes far beyond what many of us can fully understand. It is a beautiful gift that is truly out of this world. The Father and the Son are truly one, no separation or conditional giving is possible.
.jpg)
All the talk about choosing the lesser evil shows what options that Man considers important. There is an option that is not evil, one that actually comes with many graces proportional to the sacrifice involved, but modern Man cannot countenance it. Let’s not discuss, as a comittee, the methods of shrugging off one’s cross that may be least offensive to our Lord, but rather discuss ways to encourage those who suffer and minister to them in their trials.
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — May 6, 2006 @ 7:50 AM
Nicely put SJA! Thanks
Comment by shelray — May 6, 2006 @ 8:26 AM
Ditto above. In general, I think this whole thing is a great opportunity to “catechize” about what is meant by “unitive” in the marital act, something surely misunderstood by the secular media, if not a good many catholics (even high-ranking).
Comment by monica — May 6, 2006 @ 8:32 AM
If there can be a Spiritual Communion for those who may not be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist, I imagine that a Spiritual Union can suffice in a marriage where one partner is physically impaired or hazardous for physical union.
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — May 6, 2006 @ 10:31 AM
I was just wondering why there was this push for permission to use condoms for catholics when I don’t think it’s a secret that most catholics don’t think it’s a sin to use them? Do people think that if there are people having sex out side of marriage or having multiple sex partners, that they would hesitate to use a condom because it is a sin? Why do they feel they need permission, when most catholics use all kinds of contraception, Doesn’t make sense to me, please explain.
Comment by anonymouse — May 7, 2006 @ 8:53 AM
Why do they feel they need permission, when most catholics use all kinds of contraception, Doesn’t make sense to me, please explain.
When people engage in illicit activities they recognize deep down their transgressions. Many cannot ignore this interior conflict and so experience the need to be continually reaffirmed by everyone that what they are doing is o.k. Even if all their friends reaffirm them they still tend to obsess about the one person who continues to tell them the truth because they recognize the truth when they hear it.
This same phenomenon, in part, helps to explain the incongruities of the so-called “gay” rights movement which pushes for recognitions such as the “right” to marriage even when evidence from MA shows that most have no intention of marrying.
Comment by David — May 7, 2006 @ 10:24 AM
And naturally of course you apparently view only the Catholic Church as the purveyors of that “Truth”. And while I think it true that the majority of Catholics would wish that the Church would demonstrate an ounce of common sense on the issue of contraception, that doesn’t mean that their conscience bothers them one whit about violating Church edicts.
And as usual, you pass up no opportunity to slam gay and lesbian people in some underhand way, even if it has little to do with the topic at hand. With the obsession so often displayed here about gay and lesbian people, I must wonder exactly what “interior conflicts” are generating such a fascination with the subject.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — May 9, 2006 @ 5:01 PM
And naturally of course you apparently view only the Catholic Church as the purveyors of that “Truthâ€.
Naturally; the Church Christ established would be the Mediator of the fullness of truth. However, not the Church is not the “only” mediator. Other Christian traditions, to the extent they are in union with this truth, also mediate it. Those who do not rely on Revelation also possess (and thereby mediate it) some of this truth. They have access to it because it is available to human reason.
And while I think it true that the majority of Catholics would wish that the Church would demonstrate an ounce of common sense on the issue of contraception, that doesn’t mean that their conscience bothers them one whit about violating Church edicts.
Whether your assumption is true or not, a majority’s wishing for something does not qualify it as “common sense.” Common sense is that which is available to all men in all time and cultures. It is not something a local majority might deem desireable at a particular point in time. Rather it is common sense that dictates against this violation of natural law that you call contraception. The term itself gives a hint there. “Contra” shows one is against something; that something being the natural order of things. Contraception tries to break the natural order to take out and expoit some aspect of it rather than accepting it as a whole. This is a disorder; it does not accord with the natural order (which can be identified through its form and telos). When one tries to employ things in ways for which they were not intended, problems arise (see below).
Whether consciences are bothered or not does not mean that there is no experience of interior conflict. The interior conflict since widespread “reliable” contraception has been available (the legalization of the “pill” in the U.S. in the early 60s) can be seen in the corresponding increase in the divorce rate (since the late 60s early 70s).
And as usual, you pass up no opportunity to slam gay and lesbian people in some underhand way, even if it has little to do with the topic at hand.
It is an appropriate example to show why some people are demanding the recognition of their actions through acceptance into social forms in which they really have no interest. Far from being unrelated, the example is quite germane.
With the obsession so often displayed here about gay and lesbian people, I must wonder exactly what “interior conflicts†are generating such a fascination with the subject.
The interesting thing about paranoid projection is that one sees the boogie man every place he looks. Rest assured I am motivated by concern for people and their understanding of the truth and their wellbeing. If I bore the cross of SSA then I would be compelled witness to it in such a way as to help others who also suffer from it as do many of those heroic souls in blogdom such as the Sheepcat, Sed Contra, and Axegrinder.
Comment by David — May 9, 2006 @ 7:00 PM
Are you implying that I think you are homosexual? Where would you get that idea? It’s in nothing I have stated. Interesting. And obsessive.
Have you actually spoken to the gay and lesbian people who have gotten married and asked them if they “really have no interest”?
Keep in mind when evaluating that report that for the current and past generations of gay and lesbian people, the idea that we could be married was an impossible dream. When the Hawaiian Supreme Court brought the subject in the 90′s we were as shocked as anyone else at the time.
However, the current and following generations of gay and lesbian men and women are going to grow up with the inherent expectation of being able to get married. In fact their parents may even hold that same expectation as well. It will be interesting when a young gay man comes out to his parents and they ask him “So when are you going to settle down with a nice young man and start family?”.
No doubt yet another sign of the impending Apocalypse.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 10, 2006 @ 10:22 AM
And obsessive.
Again Patrick, you continue to make my point about projection.
Have you actually spoken to the gay and lesbian people who have gotten married and asked them if they “really have no interest�
Sure, there may be anecdotal exceptions. I’m sure there is in fact a small number who would like to hope that a long lasting relationship is possible. However, the these are just that, exceptions to the norm. The experience in Europe in which marriage like rights goes back almost two decades in some countries, shows about the same thing as we are seeing in the U.S.
This is to be expected however. A lasting, stable relationship just cannot be built upon sterile sexual intercourse. It violates the grammar of the body which God has written into human nature. The lack of the ability to be fruitful in procreation is the physical manifestation that the form of such a union cannot be fruitful in unifying the two engaged in it. No physical complementarity reflects the lack of an ontological complementarity.
And uh no, medical pathologies are just that. People are more than their biologies but their biologies reveal the invisible relational structure of their souls. In other words, in a sterile marriage the active potency for biological fruitfulness is present but not actualized due to a physical disorder. In a same-sex relationship there is no active potency for fruitfulness in any unitive domain.
No doubt yet another sign of the impending Apocalypse.
I’m not sure if this is metaphorical language to refer to the demise of a culture due to moral collapse. If that is what you mean then yes, our trajectory certainly seems to be in that direction and what we are discussing is a signs of such.
However, if it reflects a deficient theology then no. There is nothing we can do to force the Second Coming. It will happen at a preordained time.
Cultures have imploded throughout history and will continue to do so…usually due to moral collapse. There have been thousands of local catastrophes that I am sure have appeared to those suffering them, to be the end of the world. Thus, one ought not look to try to predict the end of times by local phenomena. It is best to be ready at all times. That is why a nightly examination of conscience has always been recommended by the spiritual masters.
Comment by David — May 11, 2006 @ 9:18 PM