Vatican Re-Examines Ban on Contraception

[tocqueville]

By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion Writer
Wed May 3, 2:37 PM ET

A Vatican study on whether it could permit condoms to battle AIDS has a very narrow scope: married Roman Catholic couples in which one partner has the virus. But its theological underpinnings are centuries old, and could lay the groundwork for an end to the church's blanket ban on contraception.

The principle of "double effect" entered mainstream Catholic debate more than 300 years ago and draws on questions about the "lesser of two evils" raised by theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The concepts broadly ask: Can a questionable act be morally justified when the good effect outweighs a bad consequence?

Answering the question with an empathic "yes" are scholars, health professionals and others who want a change in the Vatican's stance that abstinence is the only acceptable way to prevent the spread of AIDS. They have argued for years that condom use as a defense against HIV infection, under specific circumstances, does not contradict the Catholic ban on artificial birth control.

Some groups, including the Southern Africa Catholic Bishops Conference, have even given a tacit nod to condoms for married couples with one partner infected. The Vatican — however tentatively — now could be moving to formally recognize that position.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_eu/condoms_and_theology_1

[goclark]

1. May the Catholic Church move in the direction of truly

helping others.

This would be a giant step for the World.

[serryjw]

2. Doesn't that mean that one partner was unfaithful

Most blood is now tested in the industrialized world. I assume this would help in Africa. I wish this was done 20 years ago.

[xchrom]

3. my problem is with what they consider a ''questionable'' act.

the vatican knew that planet earth cannot sustain uncontrolled birthrates for a long time.

the vatican -- if through experience only -- also know that people are going to fuck.

the vatican knows that the poor suffer horribly from uncontrolled birthrates, another thing they've known for a long time.


their stand on contraception has been caught up in st thomas's quandry for a long, long time -- and has been on the ''more evil'' side to boot.

[stepnw1f]

4. Will They Be Regressive or Progressive

We'll see.

[CatholicEdHead]

5. Doubt much will change with the current power structure

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. This would be huge

[Goblinmonger]

7. Holy Crap

First the Pope says sex can be fun (between married people) and now you can use prophylactics (between married people). That guy has to lay off the crack pipe. Next thing you now, he'll be saying that women are almost as good as men.

[arwalden]

8. I'm Not Very Optimistic About This.

[hunter]

10. Pessimism is my life.

I'll probably come up ten or fifteen years short.

Say "hi" to my great grandkids for me, okay?

[varkam]

9. I don't care...

how they got to this point. I'm just glad they finally got here. This 'ban' has been going on far too long and has caused far too much suffering. It's not as though, if they reverse the position, that they can un-give someone HIV, but at least they can start adopting a position that will stem the tide.

[catbert836]

12. Read the fine print.

It's only for married couples in which one spouse has HIV/AIDS. It's only a baby step.

[varkam]

13. Ooops

My foot tastes good. Well even still, baby steps are a good sign. I guess it would be too much for the Vatican to wake the hell up and realize what the prohibition is doing to people.

[catbert836]

14. They're the only steps the Church has taken

for a very long time, methinks. Unless the steps have been backwards.

[varkam]

15. I wouldn't put it past them n/t

[catbert836]

11. That's awfully limiting.

A great majority of HIV cases comes from people who are NOT married, often prostitutes. But the Church would rather stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la, I'm not listening!"