>From Pope Benedict's point of view, his criticism of "artificial" contraception in any form - including condoms - is simply a renewal of consistent Catholic teaching and is not open to debate. This is, of course, a view which many (most?) Catholics and a lot of Catholic theologians do not share. The explanation is, as in most things Catholic, complex and nuanced, which makes simple clarification difficult. This, as would be argued by those who adhere to the official Catholic position, is one of the problems in the acceptance of the teaching by the majority of Catholics.
To understand it at all, one has to go back to the basic Christian world view - in particular, as represented in its Catholic interpretation. God created the world, and humanity, as basically good. However, Adam and Eve, tempted by Satan, abused their God-given freedom by choosing to disobey a direct injunction of God. The result was expulsion from Paradise and the fundamental marring of human nature. The sin of Adam and Eva is automatically passed on to their descendants (therefore called "original" sin) and the existence of this sin makes the post-mortal eternal unity of the human soul with God (heaven) impossible. Fundamentally, humanity, in its unredeemed state, cannot enter into an eternal state of union with God and is thus damned to hell (in basic Christian terms, the state of eternal unhappiness resulting from the absence of the relationship with God, which is the ultimate destiny of the human soul according to the original will of God). God, however, in his all-encompassing love, did not will to leave humanity in this situation, and so sent his son, Jesus, who is true God and true man, to reconcile humanity with himself. The sign (in Catholic language, the sacrament; a sacrament being a sign which contains the full reality of that which it signifies) of his unconditional love for humanity is the fact that Jesus/God was prepared to die to show this love, this dying (in fact, being crucified) a sacrifice offered by God to himself to wipe out original sin - his resurrection from the dead being the confirmation that the sacrifice was accepted. Nothing less than the death of Jesus/God was sufficient to eradicate original sin and reconcile humanity, despite its imperfection, with God. This redemption is, however, in a certain sense, conditional - one must accept the Christian message and believe in Jesus to profit from it. The sacrament of this belief is baptism as a Christian, this to be carried out by the community of believers in Jesus, founded by himself, known as the Church. The Church is the repository of true Christian teaching, guaranteed by Jesus. Catholics (as distinct to Protestants, with the exception of Anglicans/Episcopelians - who take a [typically English :-)] complex have your cake and eat it view) believe that the structure of the Church (and its guarantee as the repository of doctrinal truth) was established by Jesus himself, through the instrument of apostolic succession; Jesus entrusted his church to the apostles and their successors, the bishops. The truth of Christian teaching is fully present in the Catholic Church, unchanging and unchangeable, guaranteed by the unbroken line of succession of bishops, each consecrated by another bishop, going all the way back to the apostles, all in communion with the successor of the chief of the apostles, Peter, the bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the pope). Sorry for all this complexity, it's necessary to underline the first point I want to make. A believing Catholic doesn't just have the option of leaving the Church if he/she doesn't like one of its teachings - logically seen, he/she thereby turns his/her back on the redemption offered by Jesus and places his/her soul at high risk of eternal damnation. The teaching of the Church is infallible (although exactly what is infallible and in which circumstances is a subject of heated debate). The second point has to do with the basic Catholic teaching on sexuality. It is important to remember that Catholic teaching cannot err, so that it is also impossible to retrospectively claim that Church teaching was false in the past. A major part of Christian/ Catholic tradition (going back to Clement of Alexandria (150-216 C.E) and Augustine (354-430)) sees sex as being inherently sinful, acceptable only because it is the means of human reproduction (or, as Catholics often call it, procreation). Augustine, in particular, identified the pleasure of the sexual act (concupiscence) as the the instrument by which original sin was passed on from one generation to another. And this view was accepted by the Catholic Church generally for 1500 years. Half a century ago, change was in the air, and there seemed to be a general consensus that sex could be seen as being good in itself as an expression of the love between husband and wife. This was the majority recommendation of a theological commission set up by Pope Paul VI in the sixties to investigate the issue, in his subsequent Encyclical [teaching document] Humanae Vitae (1967); however, he rejected this recommendation and reiterated that sexual intercourse (although it can be seen as an expression of marital love), in order to be be not tainted by sin, must always be open to the possibility of initiating new life. Therefore, artificial contraception (whether condom, pill or coil) can never be acceptable. That extra-marital sexual intercourse is always sinful is completely clear. And that homosexual intercourse is always sinful as well, since it has no procreative component. The same goes for masturbation. And, following this argument, anal and oral sex, within the marital context, are also questionable, although many Catholic moral theologians who occupy themselves with such questions would allow them as a sort of foreplay - as long as ejaculation takes place within the vagina. Catholic teaching does allow for the use of (so-called) natural family planning (temperature/ rhythm methods), which involve abstinence during the woman's fertile period, because this procedure does not, in itself, negate the reproductive aspect of sexual intercourse. This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church, as consistently reiterated by its head, Benedict XVI. It's hard to see that it will substantially change, given the fact that any successor who did this, would be implicating that his predecessors were wrong (remember that the Church cannot - even retrospectively - err in its teaching). It is, of course, also a fact that this teaching has been worked out and propogated, over many hundreds of years by celibate men who have no (at least theoretically) sexual experience. But that's another area for discussion. Francis On 23 Mrz., 08:07, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > On the face of it, Pope's command barring use of condoms for Aids > prevention is unacceptable. There are multiple reasons why, the > primary of which is the well - known effect : condoms are an > effective means to prevents Aids. > > But, I recently discovered Pope's reasons for his commandment : that, > the practice of condoms absolves individuals of their responsibility > towards their spouse, of Fidelity towards them. It's a moral most of > us live by, barring exceptional circumstances when we fail to uphold > the fidelity value. > > The Abstinence part, as I understand, is fundamental to Roman Catholic > precepts. It, perhaps, calls upon individuals not to indulge in sex > for the pleasure of it, but only if one desires to procreate. That is, > if procreation is not purpose, then one should abstain. > > I understand abstinence as a matter of practice laid down for > practitioners of Roman Catholic faith, for realisation of whatever it > is for which the Church was set up. People who disagree are free to > quit the faith. There is therefore little to be critical of the > practice, it being a part of the Roman Catholic path, unless one is > not free to quit the faith, in which case the forceful adherence would > be in contravention of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in all modern - > day democracies I know of. > > It is the Fidelity vs Condoms stance that we might find interesting > enough to discuss. The Pope would have us see cheaply available > Condoms as both an inducing cause for licentious ( read, > irresponsible ) behaviour and as a an easy crutch on which we can rest > and carry on with our infidelities ! > > I see merit both ways : that of the Church and of Condoms. Clearly, I > stand confused. Rescuuuue meee ... ! ! ! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
