"It's good that the Vatican is now trying to open its door but it's quite ironic for them to allow condom use only for male prostitutes . . . We pity couples with HIV and partners whom they continuously deprive of the right to copulate as husband and wife . . . [I]f condoms are for male prostitutes, is it highly immoral to deprive married couples with this? We believe in the sanctity of marriage and family, the basic unit of our society. They should be prioritized more than prostitution.”
That’s the appeal of Iloilo Representative Janette L. Garin petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to allow couples to use condom.
Using condom to prevent pregnancy or for sexual promiscuity is not a social crime punishable with a jail term. As such, when it is readily available, any one can have it. Using condom to prevent the transmission of life or for sexual promiscuity is a crime before God. One might invoke that conscience can rightfully decide whether artificial contraception is right or not. That is true on the condition that the conscience is well-informed and matured.
What is the point of the solon from Iloilo in asking the Pope to allow couples to use condom when at this age of radical relativism and secularism; when everything believed or reasoned out is deemed objectively correct and thus, any act at our disposal is right?
The Church position on the use of contraceptive has not changed and will not change and thus, Ms. Garin is just singing the Impossible Dream.
Clarifying the position on the Pope’s comment in a new book, “the Vatican said condoms were the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevented a pregnancy.”
To whom is Rep. Garin referring to on the word “they” to deprive the right of husband and wife when one of them has the HIV virus to have sex? If she’s referring to the Church,; if one of the faithful couple is asexually afflicted with the disease, control or restraint is a conjugal virtue for humans don’t live the life of lower forms of animals. This is where the Pope’s words come into light when the use of condom is so-called a lesser evil.
Garin further complains that “If condoms are for male prostitutes, is it highly immoral to deprive married couples with this?”
Rep. Garin for sure knows that prostitution is the oldest profession. There is no indication that the flesh business goes bankrupt soon or in the next five or more centuries. The Church does not condone prostitution but it is a lesser evil for those in the business to use condom to prevent the spread of the disease and the infection of others of the dreaded disease. The representative from Iloilo fantasizes in indicating that the Church or the bishops are prioritizing prostitution instead of the sanctity of marriage and family. The reverse is exactly true. The Church priority is the respect of life through the sanctity of marriage; meaning, the marital act must always be open for the transmission of life and thus artificial contraception is wrong.
Then she asks, “Is it highly immoral to deprive married couples with this [the use of condom]?”
The answer is “yes” if a healthy couple (HIV/AIDS virus free) uses condom to prevent pregnancy.
I don’t know if one gets angry or laughs sarcastically while reading government officials’ statement about condom. They unceasingly look for loopholes or resort to distorted reasoning to make the public believe that what they say is correct. Said in other words, they want to outwit the Church or the bishops who have the authority on moral issues. Since they imply that based from their line of reasoning, the Church is wrong in not allowing the use of condom to regulate birth, the implication tells that our pro-condom representatives in Congress know better than the Magisterium --- morally or ethically speaking.
Believe it or not, the Church Magisterium has never been found to have erred not even once for the last 2,000 years and there is no reason to believe that the Church is now wrong on its stand on condom. -30-
_______________
Photo Credit: www.congress.gov.ph
Ugh. Rep Garin's statement is chock full of errors, misinterpretations, fallacies and non-sequiturs that I don't even know where to start. Conclusion: she did not actually read PB XVI's interview excerpts; she must have leaned of it from the Associated Press release, CNN, the Inquirer or PhilStar and finally -- she can't read. Or maybe she can, but she further misinterpreted the misinterpretations of the secular press.
ReplyDelete