Magisterial Fidelity
A Roman Catholic Mom from Boston





Send help.
Carol M. McKinley



cmmckinley@aol.com




Wednesday, April 26, 2006 :::
 

The Condom Concundrum

I got a chance to go over to the National Catholic Distorter site and check out John Allen's hype about the supposed new and improved teaching about condoms.


"If an infected husband wants to have sex with his wife who isn't infected, then she must defend herself by whatever means necessary,"

Exactly.

There are lots of low-life maggots out there and if you're married to one, it's not outside the teachings of the Church to "defend yourself".


This position, he said, is consistent with the tenets of traditional Catholic moral theology, which teaches that acts of self-defense can extend to killing in order to not be killed.

While Allen and the motley crew at the NCR are hoping this is their ticket to riding their Trojans all over town, I doubt it.

Let's face it:


"If a wife can defend herself from having sex by whatever means necessary, why not with a condom?" he said.

He's about an inch short of saying if you fear that calling the police on the cad would jeopardize your life, it's not a sin to use a condom to defend yourself.

Look at Allen's teaching parable:


Traditionally, confessors and pastors have long been permitted to counsel a "lesser evil" to prevent greater harm. For example, if a mob boss tells a priest he intends to kill an enemy, and if the mob boss can't be persuaded to change his mind, the priest could advise him to beat up the enemy instead. Under those circumstances, the priest is not approving the beating, merely tolerating it to avoid an even worse outcome.



Ladies, if you have your choice between killing him, beating him up or using a condom - pick the lesser evil.


Here's the spin:


As applied to condoms, the "lesser evil" argument works in a similar fashion. If there's a danger of HIV infection, it runs, a married couple should abstain from sex altogether. If they can't be persuaded to do so, however, it's better that they use the condom rather than endangering life.

Here comes their conclusion:

The same reasoning, in fact, applies to sex outside marriage. The condom is still immoral, it's just better than the alternative.

While stealing, coveting their neighbors wife, adultery, rape, pedophilia are immoral, if you wear a condom, it's better than the alternative. That's the spin.

One would hope that the document makes clear that outside of marriage, there'd be no reason to use a condom as there is no righteous sexuality.



Respected ethicist Luke Gormally, writing in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly in January 2005, put the argument in graphic form.

"A condom is as inappropriate a receptacle for the deposition of semen as the anus," Gormally wrote. "Choosing to ejaculate into either amounts to the choice of a type of act which … plainly detaches sex from its ordering to the good of children. And that, as St. Thomas teaches, is the essence of 'unnatural vice.' "

Others, however, argue that wearing a condom during intercourse cannot have moral value in itself. It's the intent, they say, that matters.

Yeah. Once the Vatican sets is straight, one of the folks above is in error.

I hope Steven Brady's people going through garbage are wearing heavy duty gloves.


::: posted by prolife pundits at 7:31 PM

|

|





_______________
_______________





Powered by Blogger