Too little too late
The Vatican has come out and said (under pressure, I suspect) that condom use would be the lesser of two evils, and could be used between a married couple where one partner has HIV/AIDS and wishes not to infect the other.
Ok here's the thing, I'm no ethicist or anything, but maybe if Catholics were allowed to use condoms in the first place, then this theoretical married person wouldn't have HIV anyway, and wouldn't have to worry about passing it on to his/her partner. Do you think preventing all HIV infections rather than just the ones involving married couples, might be the lesser of all evils? Frankly, I think its just another way for the church to punish people for having pre/extra-marital sex.
posted by Sarah @ 2:54 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
As well they should be punished!
That was sarcasm by the way. Just... you know... for people who might wonder.
Unless you're reading different newpapers, the Vatican has said no such thing. Cardinal Carlo Martini of Milan said that. A cardinal saying something is quite different that the Vatican saying it.
True, he's a Cardinal, not some junior priest, but it would be quite different if it was a Papal statement. Catholic doctrine still forbids the use of articifical contraception.
I wouldn't hold your breath for a change in doctrine, but the Vatican is preparing a document on condom use by people with HIV.
For the record, the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception has nothing to do with punishing people. (If they were looking to punish adulterers, don't you think they'd do something that didn't affect married Catholics?)
The Roman Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception because they believe that sexual intercourse should always include the possibility of children. Agree or disagree, but that's what the Roman Church believes.
I knew it wouldn't be long before Issacher arrived! Hi!
I take your point about the difference between Vatican and Roman Catholic Church - I think some newspapers may be using the terms interchangeably, although the BBC news article that I linked to was (in retrospect) clear on the difference.
Now when I use the word 'punish', I'm not suggesting that it is the policy of any person or organisation. However, I do believe it to be at the heart of the matter, and no amount of arguing is going to change my mind on that.
My point was that I find the logic in the whole statement of lesser evils rather circular, and totally missing the point - the point being HIV - which is far more of a threat to the world's population size than the artificial prevention of procreation.
Wouldn't be long? phhttbb... I read all your posts. :)
I did find the Cardinal's statement rather odd though. Since when have priests been in the business of telling people to commit "the lesser evil"?
And just because I'm in a nit-picking mood...
"no amount of arguing is going to change my mind on that"
That's a touch dogmatic don't you think? ;P
perhaps
Seee, this is exactly why I'm not Catholic.
Backslider!
"Backslider!"
Carolyn are you insinuating that I backed down to Issachar's argument? Absolutely not, I merely admitted that I may have been a touch dogmatic with my "no amount of arguing is going to change my mind on that" comment. It is absolutely true, written in stone, that nothing is going to change my mind on that - which I suppose you could call dogmatic, although I wasn't preaching it, so dogmatic maybe isn't the right word.
Post a Comment
<< Home