www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids

From the perspective of an "Easterner" I would argue that the natural/artificial construct with respect to contraception is a distinction without a difference. It strikes me that the intent of the parties is the critical element. Are they contracepting to avoid having a family, or are they contracepting so that they can raise a reasonable amount of children consistent with their means?

Keep in mind that in the 'olden'days, both East and West, infant and childhood mortality rates were such that in most families only a minority of the children born to the marriage ever reached adulthood.

Yup, (well, at least broader implications than what Fr Federico Lombardi thought) see the article:

After Condom Remarks, Vatican Confirms Shift [nytimes.com]

Dear Athanasius,

I'm curious, what was the stance Rome took prior to Humanae Vitae ? And, how does it differ from now?

I have only been Catholic for a year and a half, so there is still much I do not know especially about the differences pre and post Vatican II.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Actually, for centuries the Church of Rome opposed any attempt to interfere with conception. Given how little was actually known about female reproductive systems, the best one could do in the "natural" line was the so-called rhythm method, AKA Vatican Roulette. Modern NFP, with its precise measurements of basal temperature that permit precise timing of ovulation (it works in reverse to enhance the probability of conception) requires knowledge and instruments not available before the middle of the 20th century, so the point is moot.

The most common form of non-barrier contraception used before the pill was coitus interruptus, which is actually what Onan did (to avoid fulfillment of his duty under the Levirate). Eugene Podles, in his book "The Church Feminine", reveals an interesting point: by the mid-19th century, the Latin Church had to rule that full culpability for the sin rested on the man alone. Podles says this was a deliberate policy choice on the part of the Church because women (who even at that time made up a majority of active members) would not stand either for bearing unlimited numbers of children or bearing the onus for not having unlimited children.

Other than barrier methods, prior to the advent of the Pill, the distinction between contraception and abortion was pretty much non-existent. Poultices intended to prevent pregnancy usually did not work, but there were plenty of effective abortifactants which could terminate a pregnancy safely, especially in the first trimester. So, in the mind of the Church, abortion and contraception were essentially the same thing, because they were. Again, lack of accurate understanding of human reproduction led to a lot of faulty logic.

The article pretty much sums up everything I've read. Basically condom use can't be regarded as an intrinsic evil with this change, even when used in situations that block conception. In this case in regards to one partner having AIDS.

It seems like a good first step to recognizing the reality that exists in that lots of Catholics responsibly use contraception to control their family size. I think it's a step in the right direction.

Then what is the point of sex? Biologically, that is by nature, it's sole purpose is reproduction..

A lot of people don't pay taxes.. should the government stop taxing?

Since I believe that the pope can be wrong on various topics, I will ignore the current change in papal opinion and continue to believe that condomistic sex is immoral.

I don't see how it can even be considered a teaching. The Church doesn't issue guidelines for homosexual activity, because it considers those actions to be a grievous sin.

It's been a while since I've taken a Biology class, but my memory certainly tells me you're wrong. Animals and humans engage in sexual activities of various sorts for both reproduction and pleasure.


Not related to the discussion in question. But here are the basics to that answer.

- The government should stop borrowing to spend more than it raises in taxation.
- It should limit taxation as a first priority of governance.

People certainly have the right to question and protest what the government uses our taxes for, since like almost any large institution it tends to get things wildly wrong.

the sole purpose of sex is reproduction - you can examine the organs all you want but you find they serve no other function. thanks to evolution it feels good because if it didnt animals wouldn't do it. The act is rather disgusting when you think about it, though your mind says otherwise because it wants to reproduce because your and my biological purpose of existence is to reproduce, salmon don't die after they spawn for nothing.

some monkeys masturbate because obviously it gives pleasure and unlike other species primates generally can mate at any time of the year.

so what the Catholic Church says about condoms actually fits with respecting the scientific natural purpose of the act. and despite the pope saying transvestites might use them to stop spreading aids to their clients, since they are already in mortal sin committing sodomy might as well use a condom to stop infection, Catholic teaching on sex (the teaching being in a nutshell its an act of mutual love to reproduce) will not change since because it deals with faith and morals (morals for the most part) it falls under the infallibility of the church and therefore the teaching will never change.

Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA seems to lean more towards the Catholic position

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/04/jonah-on-contraception.html

Ah. So our sexual organs started fully formed and the chemical reactions that happen in our brain came later. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.


What a base view of human sexuality.

I find it ironic that it is so close to the view that whores have about sex. Neither see it as an act of love.

On contrary, like you suggest the reproductive system is 3.5 billion years old and still in the making (assuming one believes in evolution) - understand in animals with nervous systems the nervous system controls all functions of the body including your reproductive ones, so special chemicals and pheromones are needed for the reproductive organ system to function, which is why one gets "turned on" or has orgasms. Because, strictly biologically speaking, we exist to reproduce and the biological success of our species is based on our ability to reproduce, it takes up a lot of our brain power and the chemical reactions and build ups that involve it last for very long periods of time to very short ones.

In Catholic Christianity there is a theology behind it, but many other religions lack an equivalent.

science is a cold field of study in general and human sexuality is practically the same as the sexuality of a cow or a muskrat, and I am done with this unless I ruin peoples views "of human sexuality" - that or bore them to death - by getting into more specific details. But of course as a Christian I believe we, and all life in general, are more spiritual beings as opposed to the giant bag of watery chemical reactions our bodies are.

It is old news that forms of birth control are allowed in the Orthodox Church. When i converted back in 1975 to the EOC, that was one of the first things my spiritual father told me.