Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"This is not a justification," he said. Rather, "The intention of protecting the other from disease, of using a condom, may be a sign of an awakening moral responsibility."
No, Your Holy Idiocy, it isn't. Gay men woke up 30 years ago. This is a sign of YOUR awakening moral responsibility.
I believe Humane Vitae indicated things that may have a sterilizing effect can be licit if the purpose is medicinal and not for contraception.
In the case of homosexuality, or I'd say any sodomy, it is already an inherently non-procreative act so condoms don't change that. However the intent being to prevent disease is positive. My parents aren't happy, and I have some concerns, but for awhile I've been leaning toward thinking that the "ABC" idea is kind of a good one. That you should be abstinent or faithful, but if you're not you might as well at least keep your sexual sins from harming others. Still I hope the Church's focus is on encouraging testing, abstinence, and fidelity and that they don't start preaching the simplistic "condoms are a 100% effective and solve everything" message.
I think that's part of the point. The action is already sinful and non-procreative, you aren't obligated to make it worse by refusing to reduce its danger. There was an Austrian cardinal who said something similar.
I am a bit shocked, but it is acceptable so long as it remains so restrained. (Although I would say it should apply to heterosexual sodomy as well)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.