Catholic Church announces that the use of Condoms can sometimes be the right thing to do.

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church is that the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, is wrong. This is because they believe that the main God given purpose of sex is to reproduce. This is based on a Natural Law view of ethics, heavily influenced by St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle who were both concerned with the purpose or Telos of an action.


This belief has, until now, been seen in an absolutist way so that the use of condoms would be seen as wrong in any circumstance.

There now appears to be a change of stance whereby the Pope has said that, in situations were a condom is being used to prevent the spread of HIV, and thus protect one's partner, that their use is the most repsonsible thing. This could still fit with a Natural Law approach under what is called 'double effect'. This is where, when one's primary intention is good, eg to save a life, a normally immoral action can be allowed.
This does not mark any significant change in the Church's view of sex or indeed contraception. It still holds that sex should only be within marriage and should always have the possibility of reproduction. It also still maintains that the proper way to combat HIV is not condoms but through a change of attitude and lifestyle with regards to sex.

It does seem to show though that there is some recognition of a 'grey area' in some ethical matters however which will be seen by some as very significant.

For more on this story click here.
For more on Natural Law click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.

New Primate - Bad Design or Illogical Evolution?

I was very excited to see a new type of primate has been discovered in Burma. Such discoveries are incredibly rare.

The new primate, a type of snub nosed monkey, is very distinctive, with nostrils that point upwards. This unusual feature apparantly causes the animal some problems, with locals claiming that the monkey sneezes when it rains, due to rain drops falling into its nose. It seems that it puts it head between its legs to avoid this. (I am not making this up!).

So what would a Creationist have to say about this? Why would a perfect God create an animal with such an apparant flaw?

On the other hand a supporter of Darwinian evolution may also be faced with some difficulty here. Why would the upturned nose have survived as a characteristic when, again, it appears to be a negative trait?

A tragic side to this story is that the only known specimen of this monkey was killed by hunters and later eaten. It could be said that this human brutality is more fitting with evolution's 'survival of the fittest' idea than that of a species created and designed in the image of a loving God.

To read more about this incredible discovery click here.