Vatican Concludes Study on Condoms

[struggle4progress]

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 06 03 PM
(11-21) 18:03 PST VATICAN CITY, (AP) --

... Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who heads the Vatican office for health care, told a news conference on infectious diseases that the document was drafted with the help of scientists, theologians and other experts.

"We have prepared a detailed study on condoms from both the scientific and moral points of view and we have passed our study on to the Congregation for the Faith," Barragan said. "Now the dossier is being studied by that office and then it will go before the pope." ...

The Roman Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against contraception. It advocates sexual abstinence as the best way to combat the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

But several leading churchmen have spoken out on the issue in recent years as the Vatican has come under increasing criticism for its position. Some — such as a one-time papal contender, retired Milan Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini — say that condoms were the "lesser evil" in combatting the spread of AIDS. Other cardinals, however, have rejected their argument — an indication that the issue is still undecided at the Vatican.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/21/international/i051956S45.DTL

Bets on the conclusions? Of course, the Vatican wouldn't go further than allowing condoms for married couples when one partner has AIDS, so the question is whether they'll go that far ...

[neoblues]

1. I'm Surprised...

I figured they'd determined that Condoms cause Cancer... Seems like most Christian Conservatives already think things like that.

[struggle4progress]

2. Catholic moral teachings are often based on a "natural law" analysis:

this leads them to a view that sex has a primarily reproductive biological purpose -- which fact explains most of the official church teachings. Frankly, they're not very likely to change the official position much, but I don't doubt that they'll actually try to look hard at the science before restating their moral theory.

[neoblues]

3. Sure...

No doubt you're right.

I wonder though, do you think their sense of "natural law" might actually include an understanding of disease transmission, or for that matter human nature, or perhaps even an understanding of overpopulation and the carrying capacity of a given area of land (and the consequential poverty, disease, starvation and suffering)? Or is their "natural law" limited to a rarified view of the universe, a kind of "perfect world" as God would define via his rules.

Of course, when God arranged for the Bible to be written, apparently--at least from the infidel's viewpoint--He didn't take into account a population of 6,558,495,733 and how it's growing. I suppose it didn't really discuss the numbers much (some instances, but in those cases it seems to underestimate the likely actual numbers and therefore people just figure they don't really understand what was meant...).

Still, fertilized eggs, otherwise known as "human life" is sacred... and nothing shall interfere with procreation (though practicing for pleasure is sinful; especially if precautions are taken). In some sense, that makes sense for a Religion--for the best place to find new recruits, to both grow the size of the religion as well as to ensure it's continued existence, is the offspring of existing members. Sure enough, young children make ripe converts--almost as though they didn't really have a choice; but we all know they get a "choice", it's a requirement. I suppose, though, that there's nothing unfair about doing everything possible to stack the deck, to ensure they make the right choice... Every parent believer must surely desire to have their children 'saved', naturally. Oops, I've gotten off track. Anyway, nothing must interfere with population growth--no matter how much suffering that will create and ensure. No matter how large the population becomes?

No, nothing must interfere with the "natural" schedule of births (even if they were the consequence of sin). Therefore, any technology or technique for reducing or preventing such pregnancies (unwanted), is tolerable. No matter that a horrible disease can be abated by some significant number, probably in the millions? No matter that millions of premature deaths (infant mortality) could be avoided? No matter that it could reduce a host of overpopulation related problems (starvation, disease, poverty, etc).

Sorry, I kind of get it. It's what they believe, and I suppose that's okay--for them. So long as it doesn't affect the lives of those who don't share their beliefs, I suppose it must be allowed. Still, a rational part of my mind does question whether or not such beliefs deserve respect, just because they're part of a "Religion". No matter, my opinion is of small concern.

[struggle4progress]

4. I think the Catholics are wrong about birth control. I don't disagree with you

at all about population issues, nor do I think the only legitimate social function sexuality serves is reproduction. In short, I think that a "natural law" analysis might lead to a different view than the Vatican propounds.

On the other hand, you suggested (perhaps in jest) the Catholics might think condoms cause cancer; I doubt if their official stance is based on so ignorant a view.

[neoblues]

6. Yes, it was in jest...

I won't bother to go into whether or not, or rather how much in ignorance I think the Vatican/Catholic Church's Official doctrine is based. ;-)

[Zhade]

5. Some bishops already lie about AIDS passing through condoms.

NT!

[rug]

7. I think the ones with reservoir tips will be approved because the seed is saved.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Why do they even bother to fucking meet.

I mean, oooohhhh, the Catholic church meets to reaffirm that they think homosexuality is STILL a sin. I'm shocked. Now they meet to say that condoms STILL can't be used. I'm shocked.

Anybody who expects a major shift in dogma coming from these meetings is either naive, ignorant, or dumb as a fucking post.

[Boojatta]

9. Why are married Catholics having sex in the first place?

If they don't have any children, then they can adopt children. If they don't have enough children, then they can adopt children. Why not take care of existing children before bringing more into the world?

Now, given that sex is only for reproduction, there is absolutely no reason for a married Catholic couple to have sex at all.