Vatican reconsiders condom ban

[Guest Warwick Green]

The Roman Catholic Church might ease its longstanding opposition to the use of condoms to prevent AIDS, a senior church official says.

In comments published Sunday by la Repubblica, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said Pope Benedict had asked him to study the issue. Barragan heads up the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care.

"This is a very difficult and delicate subject that requires prudence," said Barragan, according to a Reuters report.

The church has long opposed the use of condoms for contraception, and teaches that the fidelity in heterosexual marriage – or abstinence – is the best way to avoid infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Several high-ranking church officials have questioned that policy recently, including Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who was considered a liberal alternative in last year's papal conclave.

....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...an-condoms.html

[uOttawaMan]

It's about time.

I believe the Catholic Church is fairly progressive minded. Problem being that it takes a very long time for any of these progressive policies to make their way into the dogma.

[Biblio Bibuli]

It's about time.

I believe the Catholic Church is fairly progressive minded. Problem being that it takes a very long time for any of these progressive policies to make their way into the dogma.

Ever since Joe Ratzinger got the top post I KNEW there were going to be changes, big, HUGE changes. I was getting a little worried, but reading this article in the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

where it says:

"So how to assess Benedict's first year in charge? One hears ubiquitously that the tradition in Germany is for a new pastor of a church to do nothing in his first year other than walk the same path as his predecessor ... observe, analyze, but make no changes.

It is said that this is what Joseph Ratzinger did in his first year as archbishop of Munich, and what he did in his first year as prefect of the CDE."

I worry no more.

Now that we know WHY Joe Ratzinger was holding back ... my faith in him is fully restored. He is our best hope to stop all the fighting between peoples, and, although it may not be pretty, he's gonna do it ... by hook or by crook.

[geoffrey]

Progression in the Church has to be slow and measured.

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days. Liberalisation of these institutions will destroy much of the temperment that social engineering has been met with so far.

I can't imagine a world where the Church doesn't speak out against the disaster abortion has been and the dismantling of the family. Who will stand for those that have no voice?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I will believe it when I actually see the announcement. Ben15 is very conservative and I can't believe he will make an exception to the no-birth control rule. What would be next - agreeing Jesus married Mary Magdalene?

[uOttawaMan]

Progression in the Church has to be slow and measured.

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days. Liberalisation of these institutions will destroy much of the temperment that social engineering has been met with so far.

I can't imagine a world where the Church doesn't speak out against the disaster abortion has been and the dismantling of the family. Who will stand for those that have no voice?

You're comparing condom usage to the unraveling of the family unit and abortion?

Please.

Agreeing that condoms are an relatively ineffective way to help combat the massive problem of AIDS would be a very impressive move by the Church. This in no way affects the abortion issue, nor will it lead to the decline of society and the collapse of the family unit.

The churches goal is also to help those in need is it not? Well , there are a great many people in Africa who need this kind of help.

[Black Dog]

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days. Liberalisation of these institutions will destroy much of the temperment that social engineering has been met with so far.

Pfft. The church is an instiution more concerned with maintaining its ever-weakening sway in the termporal world. Always has been, always will be.

I can't imagine a world where the Church doesn't speak out against the disaster abortion has been and the dismantling of the family. Who will stand for those that have no voice?

How has abortion been a disaster? As for the dismantling of the family, has it occured to anyone that any institution so easily undone was probably held together by spit and bailing wire in the first place?

Anyway, any move towards liberalization on things like condom usage (which, by the way, is an extremely effective way to prevent the spread of HIV) is a Good Thing. But I'd rather the old men in Rome just threw in the towel altogether.

[Riverwind]

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days.

The church does not express 'moral' concerns. It only seeks to impose its dogma on people that do not follow its religion. If the church actually cared about morals then the opposition to condoms would have be dropped decades ago.

[Michael Hardner]

The church does not express 'moral' concerns. It only seeks to impose its dogma on people that do not follow its religion. If the church actually cared about morals then the opposition to condoms would have be dropped decades ago.

Riverwind:

You have a real inability to see things from another perspective. Of course they care about morals. Their concerns are with peoples' souls more than their bodies. Just because someone doesn't share your values, it doesn't make them immoral.

Calling any religion immoral is highly intolerant, and shows a lack of respect for others' viewpoints.

[geoffrey]

You're comparing condom usage to the unraveling of the family unit and abortion?

Please.

Agreeing that condoms are an relatively ineffective way to help combat the massive problem of AIDS would be a very impressive move by the Church. This in no way affects the abortion issue, nor will it lead to the decline of society and the collapse of the family unit.

The churches goal is also to help those in need is it not? Well , there are a great many people in Africa who need this kind of help.

The problem is with Africans, not the Church. Church policy is to not have sex with multiple partners, that is a very effective deterent to AIDS. More than condoms. But they don't listen. What gives you the belief that Africans will listen when the Church tells them to put on condoms?

I have no problem with it personally, and I'm a Catholic. But I really stuggle how to see how 'legalising' condom use will prevent the spread of AIDS. The people don't listen anyways.

The church does not express 'moral' concerns. It only seeks to impose its dogma on people that do not follow its religion. If the church actually cared about morals then the opposition to condoms would have be dropped decades ago.

Right exactly. Sell out your morals to fit modern situations. Sounds just like the Liberals. I mean, who needs principles when policies of convenience work right?

Who other than the Church expresses moral concerns then?

[Riverwind]

Calling any religion immoral is highly intolerant, and shows a lack of respect for others' viewpoints.

Why didn't you castigate this poster:

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days. Liberalisation of these institutions will destroy much of the temperment that social engineering has been met with so far.

He implies that the voices that advocate moral positions that do not agree with the church's postion are some how 'immoral' - this statement is extremely intolerent and disrepectful of people who do not use religion to define their moral compass.

[geoffrey]

Calling any religion immoral is highly intolerant, and shows a lack of respect for others' viewpoints.

Why didn't you castigate this poster:

Religion is one of the few voices that express moral concerns these days. Liberalisation of these institutions will destroy much of the temperment that social engineering has been met with so far.

He implies that the voices that advocate moral positions that do not agree with the church's postion are some how 'immoral' - this statement is extremely intolerent and disrepectful of people who do not use religion to define their moral compass.

No, I don't believe that people that disagree with the Church are immoral. Your making the cause and effect of my statement. I believe those that want to ride the pony of social liberalisation and toss our society on its head are acting immorally. It just happens that the Church is one of many groups that oppose such activity.

Like eliminating the family (already nearly completed on that one, the Liberal childcare program would have put the nail in the coffin), unregulated uncontrolled abortion as an easy solution to birth control. Stuff like that. Who else opposes such things?

Whether they are right or wrong, there always needs to be opposition to change in order to have it tempered with a level of reasonability.

[Michael Hardner]

He implies that the voices that advocate moral positions that do not agree with the church's postion are some how 'immoral' - this statement is extremely intolerent and disrepectful of people who do not use religion to define their moral compass.

I didn't really understand his post, to be honest.

But I agree with him that the church does voice concerns of morality that aren't heard elsewhere, as there are precious few institutions that care about spiritual matters anymore. The liberal institutions that are left are concerned with inequity, poverty, disease and so forth. These are indeed moral concerns but more material than spiritual.

[Riverwind]

Who other than the Church expresses moral concerns then?

Everyone. Morals are one type of political discourse - whether we are discussing tax policy or child care alternatives it all comes to down to agreeing on what values that society feels are most important.

Right exactly. Sell out your morals to fit modern situations. Sounds just like the Liberals. I mean, who needs principles when policies of convenience work right?

Dogmatic adherence to moral codes written thousands of years ago is hardly superior. The church's contribution to the spread of AIDS in Africa is perhaps the best example of how adhering to dogma for the sake of dogma can cause immeasurable harm to millions of people.

[Michael Hardner]

Dogmatic adherence to moral codes written thousands of years ago is hardly superior. The church's contribution to the spread of AIDS in Africa is perhaps the best example of how adhering to dogma for the sake of dogma can cause immeasurable harm to millions of people.

Blaming the church for the spread of AIDS in Africa is hateful scapegoating, Riverwind.

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

[Riverwind]

Like eliminating the family (already nearly completed on that one, the Liberal childcare program would have put the nail in the coffin), unregulated uncontrolled abortion as an easy solution to birth control. Stuff like that. Who else opposes such things?

Once you again you are making the incorrect assumption that opposing these things is some how 'moral' and people who believe in these things are 'immoral'. Even your choice of words (i.e. 'eliminating the family') is designed to imply some sort of more superiority that does not exist.

The 'social liberal' viewpoint (which I don't completely agree with) is a system of morality that is at least as valid and internally consistent as any system of morality based on religion.

[Riverwind]

Blaming the church for the spread of AIDS in Africa is hateful scapegoating, Riverwind.

I said the church 'contributed' - not 'caused' the spread of AIDS. AIDS would have spread even if the church had actively supported the use of condomns. However, the church used its influence to prevent other groups from educating people about condoms and, as a result, AIDS has spread further than it would have otherwise. This is a pretty obvious conclusion based on the available facts. I don't see how you can deny it.

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

The church is a social institution that seeks to influence other political institutions. Therefore it should be judged by the effects it has on the real world. If looking after people's 'souls' causes unnecessary deaths and other harms to living people then it is perfectly reasonable to question the church's 'morality'.

[Michael Hardner]

I said the church 'contributed' - not 'caused' the spread of AIDS. AIDS would have spread even if the church had actively supported the use of condomns. However, the church used its influence to prevent other groups from educating people about condoms and, as a result, AIDS has spread further than it would have otherwise. This is a pretty obvious conclusion based on the available facts. I don't see how you can deny it.

The church is a social institution that seeks to influence other political institutions. Therefore it should be judged by the effects it has on the real world. If looking after people's 'souls' causes unnecessary deaths and other harms to living people then it is perfectly reasonable to question the church's 'morality'.

You're not questioning their morality, that is, asking questions about what their morality is, you're questioning whether they have any morality at all.

"If the church actually cared about morals ... "

[Riverwind]

"If the church actually cared about morals ... "

It was an exageration in response to someone making the statement that social liberalism is a immoral philosophy. I was trying to make a point by showing the poster how their opinion sounds to someone that does not believe in the 'christian religious' moral view.

Your responses seem to argue that 'religious' morals are special because they have a spritual dimension. I don't agree - all morals have a spiritual dimension because they require some sort of metaphysical belief in what is good and what is evil.

[Biblio Bibuli]

The church sees extramarital sex and birth control as sinful, but you would have them go against their principles so that they can act as a health agency in Africa. It's the job of the church to care for peoples' souls not their bodies.

Being a movie buff you of course remember the scene in "Crocodile Dundee" where some toughs approach Hogan, brandishing a knife. Hogan, in response, says "Is that a knife?" He then shows them his huge blade, remarking, "Now that's a knife." The hoods flee.

Well ... I'm still waiting for Benedict XVI to do the same thing. Muslims are continuously pushing the Koran in peoples' faces to gain sympathy .... and ONE day, one day soon I expect Benny to respond to them in a similar way, like saying "Is that the book?" He then shows them his huge Bible, remarking, "Now that's the Book!"

What a nice ending to today's terrorism that will be. I LIKE good endings.

[Black Dog]

MH:

Riverwind:

You have a real inability to see things from another perspective. Of course they care about morals. Their concerns are with peoples' souls more than their bodies. Just because someone doesn't share your values, it doesn't make them immoral.

If that "moral" position contributes to the spread of an epidemic that costs thousands of lives each day, well, I question how moral a strance it is. And if the church is, as you say, concerned with people's souls and not their bodies, then why do they feel compelled to tell believers what they can and cannnot do with their bodies?

geoffery

The problem is with Africans, not the Church. Church policy is to not have sex with multiple partners, that is a very effective deterent to AIDS. More than condoms. But they don't listen. What gives you the belief that Africans will listen when the Church tells them to put on condoms?

The Church, by telling people they'll burn in hell for wearing condoms and even spreading misinformation about condoms themselves (link) sure isn't helping, ar ethey?

Like eliminating the family (already nearly completed on that one, the Liberal childcare program would have put the nail in the coffin), unregulated uncontrolled abortion as an easy solution to birth control. Stuff like that. Who else opposes such things?

Again, I can't help but chuckling at the idea that the family is such a fragile institutions that it can only be maintained through artificial constraints on individual behaviour.

BB

Well ... I'm still waiting for Benedict XVI to do the same thing. Muslims are continuously pushing the Koran in peoples' faces to gain sympathy .... and ONE day, one day soon I expect Benny to respond to them in a similar way, like saying "Is that the book?" He then shows them his huge Bible, remarking, "Now that's the Book!"

That or his dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

I don't agree - all morals have a spiritual dimension because they require some sort of metaphysical belief in what is good and what is evil.

No, actually they don't. They simply guide you to an end of your choosing.

If looking after people's 'souls' causes unnecessary deaths and other harms to living people then it is perfectly reasonable to question the church's 'morality'.

The Church is not causing any deaths, the deaths are the result of people's choices. In many places in Africa, people are still very primitive, and ignorant of the consequences of their actions.

[Michael Hardner]

River:

Your responses seem to argue that 'religious' morals are special because they have a spritual dimension. I don't agree - all morals have a spiritual dimension because they require some sort of metaphysical belief in what is good and what is evil.

Special is such a loaded word. They're definitely unique because they have a spiritual dimension. Not all morals have a spiritual dimension either.

While I do believe in fairness in wages and so forth, it's a moral issue that concerns materialism.

BD:

If that "moral" position contributes to the spread of an epidemic that costs thousands of lives each day, well, I question how moral a strance it is. And if the church is, as you say, concerned with people's souls and not their bodies, then why do they feel compelled to tell believers what they can and cannnot do with their bodies?

It's very moral because it saves souls.

And I stand corrected: they are concerned with peoples' bodies as far as putting some part of your body inside another part of another body can land you both in the lake of fire.

[Black Dog]

The Church is not causing any deaths, the deaths are the result of people's choices. In many places in Africa, people are still very primitive, and ignorant of the consequences of their actions.

What they really need, then, is to be shown the path to a moral life by an organization that is based on the belief in an invisible, all-powerful being and his son, a guy who, more than 2,000 years ago, was nailed to a couple of planks, came back to life and now appears primarily as shapes on grilled cheese sandwiches. Oh, did I mention this organization currently believes that placing a latex sheath on your wang imperils your immortal soul?

Countering ignorance with a different kind of ignorance doesn't help anybody.

It's very moral because it saves souls.

So they tell us. Until I see some definitive proof of this, I think its best to err on the side of "things that will potentially curb the epidemic of AIDS and save a helluva lot of human lives".

And I stand corrected: they are concerned with peoples' bodies as far as putting some part of your body inside another part of another body can land you both in the lake of fire.

And that right there is the catasrophically ridiculous bullsh*t that caused me to spurn the Catholic Church in the first place. Any religion that posits that what we do in our scant time on this mortal coil seals our fate for the remainder of eternity is clearly positing a supreme being with absolutely no sense of justice or proportion.

[Michael Hardner]

And that right there is the catasrophically ridiculous bullsh*t that caused me to spurn the Catholic Church in the first place. Any religion that posits that what we do in our scant time on this mortal coil seals our fate for the remainder of eternity is clearly positing a supreme being with absolutely no sense of justice or proportion.

Clearly, self-denial isn't for you... or for anybody anymore.