Roman Catholic position on condoms

[srigdon]

www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html

My favorite part is

<i>But Cardinal Barragán is known to favour reform and Vatican sources said it was highly likely that he had come out in support of using condoms in marriages where one of the partners was HIV-positive.</i>

Well. What a remarkable concession that would be.

I think this article perhaps illustrates that there is something in the blood that makes Anglicans so much different from Roman Catholics. Anglicans just seem to care about principle to the point of busting up their church. Ironically, it seems like Catholics are a lot more willing to live with a church in error - because you all know as well as I do that there are tons of Catholics who think their church is wrong on condoms and would be sick to think some people actually have to debate the above question.

[Canadian Phil]

Well, yes and no. The Catholics are much more reluctant to break up the church, but there is also no debate because the hierarchy is fairly united on this, at least in public. Cardinal Barragan's concession is very limited when you think about it and is granted for health reasons. Good on him for suggesting it, but it isn't as if this is the foot in the door on the issue.

I'm not sure whether it is good that an openly promoted position in a Christian church, with a theological grounding in tradition at least (even if don't agre with it) and the support of a hierarchical church is necessaily a good thing. There is a case to be made for hypocrisy on the part of those Catholics who ignore the Catholic church's teaching, but still remain in it. I'm not saying Catholics should make this an issue to break-up over, but ignoring the teaching strikes me to be every bit as divisive, if rather more passive-aggressively, as an open break.

Remember what Jesus said about the people who said they'd do something and didn't. Is this that different in that case? Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Peace
Phil

[alan1803]

Dare I point out that it is considerably less than a century since a Lambeth Conference condemned artificial birth control? Dr Kirk, Bishop of Oxford, strongly opposed the practice well after the second world war.

The lesser of two evils argument doesn't surprise me, except that it has taken Rome so long to consider it. After all, Rome has long accepted the rather more far-reaching idea that pain-relieving medication can be administered to a dying person even when its side-effects include hastening death.

[Sojourner]

Phil, I'm not sure that open defiance of a teaching is hypocritical or passive-aggressive. To secretly ignore teachings, I submit, is both hypocritical and passive-aggressive. To me, a bold statement that the Church is wrong on an issue, and open disregard or disobedience of that teaching is a challenge, and schismatic, but not hypocritical. The greater hypocrisy is when an institution, claims both truth and its responsibility to act for God in the defese of that truth, fails to take appropriate disciplinary action.

[Canadian Phil]

Sojourner;

I re-read the sentence I think you are referring to and realized that it didn't make any sense (I'd mark my students down for that! ;D). Yes ,you are right. An open challenge is more honest which was the point I was trying to make, but I'm not sure that is what a majority of RCs are doing.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Fair enough. What was Luther's quote about sinning boldly? To give semi-practicing Catholics their due, it may be that there is no reason to sin defiantly and boldly because, in North America, the Church, by its action or inaction has rendered its moral persuasion on this issue either moot or mute.