It's big in the news; just search Google.

We've discussed the use of condoms as prophylatics here before. The only conceivable justification for their use would have to take the form of the doctrine of Double Effect. However, we have to examine it thus. The doctrine is as follows:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021). (Source.)

With regard to #1: the objective component of any human act includes not only the physical act but also the intention. Contraception is intrisically evil; however, just as certain things like "the pill" are sometimes prescribed for non-contraceptive medical needs, so also the use of a condom as a prophylactic MAY conform to the first rule if contraception is not considered a part of the intent.

So also with rules 3 and 4.

HOWEVER,

With regard to #2: Condoms will always fail this criteria. The prevention of disease can always be achieved without the "bad effect" of contraception, via abstinence.

The Spanish bishops have failed miserably in teaching and preaching that chastity is not only a law and the only true security against the spread of disease, but the source of authentic joy and the truth of the human person. Now, in their despair of their mission, they have capitulated to the lusts of the mob, and have ceased to be a "light in the darkness."

-- anon (ymous@hotmail.com), January 19, 2005

Answers

What a sad day that we may be wittnessing the formation of yet another protestant national church!

-- Joe (joe @joe.com), January 19, 2005.

Who are you, ''anon''--?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.

What a sad day that we may be wittnessing the formation of yet another protestant national church!

Are you excomunicating the Spanish Bishops? Do they not have authority as the shepherds & teachers in their dioceses?

-- jake (j@k.e), January 19, 2005.

"Do they not have authority as the shepherds & teachers in their dioceses?"

No, they do not have authority to override the Vatican. The bottom line is the Popes word. Just because a priest (or bishop) teaches something does not necessarily make it the truth, and it does not necessarily speak for the Church. The buck stops with the Pope, period.

-- Mike (none@none.none), January 19, 2005.

Yeah, but you have to obey your bishop.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 19, 2005.

It would appear the 'news' was more spin than fact. Faith...

Spanish Catholic Church Denies it Accepts Condoms to Fight AIDS

"The Spanish Roman Catholic Church denied that it had condoned the use of condoms as a legitimate way of fighting HIV/AIDS.

"Contrary to what some have said, it is not true that the Church has changed its position on condoms," the Spanish bishops' conference said in a statement.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 19, 2005.

A bishop's authority is subject to the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Human law--civil or ecclesiastical--must be obeyed, but if said law demands a sinful act, it is not a law at all, since all authority to govern comes from God who cannot contradict himself.

As it is, the Spanish bishops only came very close to denying the binding force of universal Catholic doctrine, and the media minions amplified it. The same thing happened to Cardinal Daneels of Mechelen-Brussels two years ago.

It is a sign that the European episcopacy is getting weaker and making unacceptable concessions.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 19, 2005.

"It is not possible to advise people to use condoms if it goes against their private morality."

This is a quote from the Spanish bishops conference spokesperson from Daniel's clickable link. ...."IF it goes against their private morality." ?????? What's with the qualification of "private morality"?

I nearly fell off my chair reading that. Ok, so I'm Catholic and I can interpret that statement to mean that I'M PERMITTED TO HAVE A CHOICE IN USING A CONDOM..it's OK, if my "private morality" allows it. Whoa. This is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about for years and years. And the Vatican's response is quoted as a "quiet but firm" disagreement. "Quiet" is the key word here. I'm not suggesting that the Pope take off his shoe and pound on the table, but a LOUD response, heard by every Catholic in the world on these issues is important. "...private morality" indeed. The media doesn't need to spin anything..it's THERE to read.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

Yeah, but you have to obey your bishop.

Only to the point that the bishop does not go against the Church or the Pope. If the bishop tells you it's OK to murder someone, it does not make it OK. If a bishop or priest tells you it's ok for you to practice artificial birth control, it does not make it OK.

-- Mike (n@n.n), January 20, 2005.

why should be using condoms evil?

who do you harm with this?

and where is anything like that said in the bible?

why does the RCC teaches that it is wrong?

are you aware of the failures of NFP?

condoms rule!

it can save your life...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 20, 2005.

Lesley, I think "Private Morality" here refers to choice of faith. In short, I do not think they here menaign its OK if your private mroals ae Ok with it, ust that they want the Government not to force them to accept Condomn use, or mae them advice the us to there parishners.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CO.), January 20, 2005.

condoms rule!

it can save your life...

Bull.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 20, 2005.

The word "private" is probably an erroneous distortion by media translators. The Zenit translation of the same document states the following:

"Because of this, the Church collaborates effectively and rationally in the prevention of AIDS by promoting the education of persons in faithful conjugal love open to life, trying to avoid in this way improper and promiscuous relations, which give way to so-called health risk situations. In accordance with these principles, it is not possible to counsel the use of condoms, as it is contrary to the person's morality. The only truly advisable thing is the responsible exercise of sexuality, in accordance with the moral norm."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 20, 2005.

why should be using condoms evil? Because condoms destroy the natural purpose and orientation of sex--not only conceiving a child, but also complete mutual self-giving. It is a "perversion" in the literal sense. Condom use, in or out of marriage, is a mortal sin.

who do you harm with this? Immediately, artificial contraceptives harm the people who use them, the children they accidentally concieve, their families and society; physically, mentally, and spiritually.

and where is anything like that said in the bible? Contraception contradicts the love of God (via hatred for his creation) and love of neighbor (attitude of distrust and reserve). Contraception encourages adultery. It is grab for control that despairs at God's providence. Contracievers get divorced more often--thus it is a sin against marriage.

why does the RCC teaches that it is wrong? Elizabeth Anscombe explains it all for you.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 20, 2005.

I'll write to my Archdiocese, asking them for their interpretation of the interpretation, since apparently the media has mistranslated not only the word "if" but also the word "private".

It is essential that Catholics not be misled.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 20, 2005.

I'll write to my Archdiocese, asking them for their interpretation of the interpretation, since apparently the media has mistranslated not only the word "if" but also the word "private". It is essential that Catholics not be misled.

Lesley; Save some time and 37 cents. Just ask the resident theologian. EC

I am sure that he can clear up the interpretation, of the interpretation, of theinterpretation.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.