excellent ,Thanks for the post

The ignorance here is unbelievable. Yes, the HIV/AIDS virus ITSELF is small enough to pass through a condom, but your highly ignorant if you think that the HIV/AIDS virus has the ability to detach/extract itself from semen/sperm and pass through the condom by itself, because it can't. And semen/sperm containing the virus cannot pass through it, therefore condoms do protect against the virus.

Here's a most interesting piece by the HLI's rep at the Vatican, which reflects what some folks here have to say about the misunderstanding of the "double principle effect" regarding condom use. So glad to see the church stick to its crucifix!

http://www.catholicreport.org/?id=182

Please!
I understand the church's stance on abortion and RU-486 but using condoms IS a choice, especially in poorer nations. The whole dilemna over condom use is a ridiculous asterisk in a world of bigger, and more important, issues.

We can see from results in Africa that the use of condoms spreads AIDS rather than stopping it. Tanzia went from 3 cases to over 2 million with condom use, while Uganda went from a 30% AIDS rate to only 6%, after it stopped condom use. Clearly condoms spread rather than stop AIDS transmission. The Church is right in rejecting them.

This issue is not a case of double effect (which is doing a good act with two forseen consequences, one good and one bad).It is a case of doing an act with a proximate end that is evil with an ulterior end (reason for which the act is done)which is good. In other words it is doing evil to achieve good. This is not double effect.

This was all a storm in a teacup anyway. Anyone who understands or studies Church teaching would know why condoms never will be promoted. If "thinking outside the box" means Martini hasn't a clue about the science behind condoms, goody for him. Yes, Mr. McCaffrey, you do have LIMITED understanding of moral theology.

That Cardinal from Vienna led the effort that produced the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. Perhaps you should immerse yourself in it to gain understanding of Catholic moral teaching.
Thinking outside the box? Yeah, our culture has had great success with that thought. For me, I'm looking for and respect those who can think prudently INSIDE the box. The other has got quite tiring after thirty years. Screwball ideas? If you are doing much reading in the area, your "scientific" ego must feel quite threatened in light of your comment. What's the matter with MA?

I disagree that Cardinal Martini is "thinking outside the box". How is the use of condoms a lessor of two evils when in areas that condom use is championed, AIDS cases have actually increased? And were abstinence is promoted AIDs cases have dropped?

"Catholic moral teaching sometimes permits a person to tolerate a lesser evil that one cannot eradicate without causing a greater one. But, argued Cardinal Ratzinger, promoting condom use as a way of preventing AIDS does not simply tolerate an existing evil, it facilitates evil. That a Christian may not do, even for a good end, ...

Mr. McCaffrey and Cardinal Martini would do well to read "Condom Expose'" which can be found by going to www.hli.org if they care to know just how reliable condoms are. It isn't just that the Church opposes condom use for very good theological reasons; the fact is that the world is being sold a big, fat lie that condom use equals "safe sex". May God continue to guide the Holy Father in proclaiming the Truth!

I'm glad I found this story. A co-worker told me today that there was a commission started by the pope to study this question. There was also a Newsweek article that alluded to the same thing. I told her not to be sure about it since the secular press always mixes things up to suit their purposes.

We are all called to suffering and sacrifice - no matter what the suffering is, God gives us sufficient grace to handle it if we let him. I grow so tired of those who think a person cannot live without sex. That's secular society talking.

The doting cardinal Martini is incorrect as we all knew.

phil

Cardinal Martini is very misinformed if he thinks that condoms will protect one from the Aids virus. In a program at our local Catholic High school, I learned that the Aids virus is actually smaller than the condom rubber spaces and can go through them. Also, they do break and do not protect every area.
I think he had a few too many martinis. thank you.

Mr. McCaffrey is correct that the principle of double effect does have something to say here, but he is incorrect regarding its application. The principle of double effect states that it may be permissible to undertake what is usually a morally-good or morally-neutral action even if, in the special case in question, it will have negative side-effects, but that it would be permisible only if the object (the primary goal) of the act was not in itself sinful, and that the act's evil side-effects were outweighed by its good effects. So, if a woman is suffering from an ectopic pregnancy that will cause her death if it is not terminated, the church would view it as immoral to commit an evil act (abortion) for a good end (saving the mother). However, it _is_ permissible in grave cases to remove the fallopian tube containing the baby as an embrow or fetus. Here, the removal is neutral in itself but necessary to save. The death of the baby is not made the necessary condition of saving the woman, even though with today's medical technology we know that saving the baby would be impossible. In the case of Martini with the condoms, the primary object of the condom is to prevent seminal flow from husband into wife. Since the first centuries of the church, this flow has been considered necessary for the full completion of the marital act. The condom's primary goal is to interrupt the marital act, and by that sinful means to achieve a good end. This is opposed to the princ. of double effect.

This "double effect" nonsense is simply that. Cardinal Martini is wrong and his thinking IS outside Church teaching, which is that the sexual act is ALWAYS open to the transmission of new life. In the case of someone with HIV/AIDS, the couple has to decide if the risks are worth it. By the way, Mike, condoms are permeable, that is, the virus that carries HIV/AIDS is SMALLER than the openings in the condom. With respect to Cardinal Schonborn, his main point with against the neo-Darwinists, who believe that human life began merely by chance. If you read Pope Benedict's homily at his Mass of Inauguration, he said: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." This is the "screwball" idea on intelligent design.

Way to go, Trujillo!

My limited understanding of moral theology in college teaches that via the "principle of double effect" Cardinal Martini's thoughts have a sound theological basis. I suppose he will scolded by others for this thinking outside of the box. It is interesting that the Cardinal of Vienna seems to have gotten away with his srewball ideas on intelligent design.