Oh noes! My cardinal doth apostasize! March 7, 2013
Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism.trackback
When I signed up for a cardinal to pray for, I didn’t know anything about the one I got. He was only made a Cardinal last November. He is from Nigeria, John Oh My God I can’t pronounce his last name! Onaiyekan. Well, there is a story out about him today, wherein he states that condoms can and should be used in some circumstances, particularly in couples where one partner is HIV+. Ho boy (emphasis and comments per usual):
An African cardinal who is considered a possible contender for next pope [there is no chance this man will be Pope, no matter how many progressives might wish otherwise]has said that he believed condom use is not only a right “but in some circumstances even a sort of duty” for couples where one partner is HIV-positive, in order to protect the other. [Ummm, condoms have a high failure rate, over even a few years the risk of HIV transmission between an infected person and an uninfected one would be very high. Over 50% of women who use condoms every time they have sex will get pregnant over a period of a few years. If condoms don't prevent pregnancy, they don't stop the spread of HIV. So, practically speaking, this is terrible advice. Theologically speaking, it's even worse.]
Nigerian Cardinal John Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja, told the US-based National Catholic Reporter that it was important to distinguish between using a condom in the context of HIV/AIDS and condoms as contraceptives, and said moral questions regarding their use depended on what they were used for. [Well, there aren't any "HIV-only" condoms. They are also contraceptives. Which use has been condemned by the Church since the Didache, circa AD 80.]
An estimated 3.5m Nigerians have HIV, according to the UN.
Acknowledging this viewpoint was not the Church’s official view, he added: “I believe this situation is different than the reason for which Humanae Vitae condemned artificial contraception. To cite Humanae Vitae in this case, I think, is inappropriate.”
Once again, we see someone in the Church pretend like nothing existed in the entire Magisterium regarding the sex act prior to Humanae Vitae. Please. And it’s not like STDs did not exist prior to HIV, either. Syphillis has killed far more people, historically, than HIV ever has, and possibly ever will, and has been around for thousands of years. Humanae Vitae did not address contraception use as a method of prevention of the spread of STDs because, frankly, it’s beneath the dignity of that form of document. And the Cardinal’s statement is exactly contrary to the view the Pope Emeritus expressed a couple of years ago. I see this as little more than a camel’s nose in the door of the tent, like the “morning after pill” imbroglio in Germany (and now Switzerland), it’s an attempt to find a justification, any justification, to permit Catholics to use contraception. If this were permitted, very soon, the whole edifice of chastity would fall down.
Frankly, the appropriate action for those infected with HIV is to abstain from sex.
If this guy was a papabile before, he ain’t now. Now, I’ll have to pray for his conversion.
I thought only the Pope was to wear a white cassock?
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
[...] Has anyone in the hierarchy stopped to think, that maybe the Church is growing so rapidly in Africa, because orthodox presentations of the Faith are being transmitted there? A recent article shows that the beliefs of Catholics in Africa are very orthodox, quite a bit more than some of their episcopate: [...]
you’re kidding about the white cassock, right?
Dominicans? priests in Africa? pastors of Mater Dei in the summer?
after all, the Pope only started wearing white after a Dominican was elected to be the Vicar of Christ.
Those are for priests, not bishops. Moreso, if you will recall Sr. Lucia’s description of Our Lady’s Third Secret at Fatima, a “bishop in white” who confused her – she could not tell if it was the Pope or not.
I thought it was customary for bishops to avoid wearing white out of deference to the Papacy. But, I could be wrong, I’ve simply never seen it before, that I recall.