Conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms

[Abyssinia]

This conservative/orthodox Catholic is not running wild. I’m just sitting back waiting for the Pope to clarify his own statements and the Church teaching against the use of artificial birth control…including condoms.

I am not sure if the Pope is going to clarify this.

 

[Abyssinia]

Much ado about nothing.

He said use of condoms in the instance of male prostitutes can be a first step in the direction of a moralization

E.g. If a mugger beats people up with aluminum baseball bats, and one day decides it’d be nicer to beat people up with plastic bats instead, it’s still clearly evil, but it might be a step in the direction of a moralization.

Here is the quote that has drawn so much attention:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

This paragraph doesn’t strike me as at all ambiguous. Benedict is merely pointing out that when people like prostitutes use a condom, it can be seen as a faint glimmer of responsibility, a tiny baby step on the road to moral recovery. And he goes on to explicitly rule out condoms as a solution to HIV/AIDS, pointing out that the epidemic will only end when human sexuality is understood in its proper context of faithful and responsible human love.

Of course, for those who delight in mischaracterizing the Church’s position, this was all the opening they needed. The internet was instantly ablaze with headlines like “Pope says condoms acceptable ‘in certain cases’,” and “Pope Endorses Condoms for Male Prostitutes For AIDS Prevention”. Our personal favorite is this story from Britain’s The Telegraph, which claims, impossibly, that “after decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.” What?

lifenews.com/2010/11/24/opi-1019/

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am not sure if the Pope is going to clarify this.

He doesn’t have to. It is abundantly clear, when reading the relevant passages in the book, that he said absolutely nothing ‘new’ or ‘contradictory’ to current doctrine.

He did not say that condom use was moral for male prostitutes, or indeed for anyone. He was very clear that the Church itself did not consider condom use morally valid, not even in the situation of ‘for protection against disease’ only.

 

[Abyssinia]

No matter how you put it, the Pope’s comments (if accurate) are a departure from traditional Catholic moral theology, as it has been understood since the beginning of the Church. The “good” intention you speak of is not a good at all.

Traditional Catholic Philosophy/Theology sees an action (as in this case) as good (or evil/bad) only if the three determinates of morality are good. 1/The end which the agent has in view, 2/ the means he takes so secure his end, 3/ the circumstances in which he acts. If ANY of these determinates are bad/evil, then the act will be bad/evil since in Catholic moral philosophy “evil is predicted of any defect”.

You say that: "wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention" - This is not as clear cut as you make out. Perhaps you are trying to simplfy your argument, however it would be false to assert that this intention is good - period. The first and most important determinant of morality is the end of the agent. The end is the final cause and is more willed than any other elements of the act, thus if the end is evil - the whole act is evil.

“wanting to reduce the risk of infection” may be one of the reasons for the act - there are many others, which are not moral at all. Also, even if this were the primary reason for the act mentioned, it does not follow that it is the only intention. The act of “wanting to reduce the risk of infection” by this means presupposes the intention of a unquestionably intrinsically evil and immoral act - i.e. contraception or worse sodomy. Thus, the end cannot in any way (without repudiating traditional Catholic moral philosophy/theology) be considered “good”.

As for the Means taken: I do not need to explain this. the Church’s teachings is well know. This method, or any other method of contraception can never be morally “good”.

The Cirsumstances I likewise have no need to explain. It goes without saying that these circumstances do not permit the act to be morally “good” no matter even if the end and the*** means*** both be good.

Thus on all of the three determinates of morallity, the act fails. Thus, even the intention cannot be considered “good”.

I am very disapointed with the Pope’s words, if indeed you and others (including the Vatican) are reporting them accurately. They have only succeeded in causing scandal, no matter how good his intention was. I cannot judge the Pope, nor do I claim to, but when a teaching or viewpoint (this wasnt an official teaching) contradicts the view of tradtional Catholic teaching on the matter, which has not changed, then it cannot and should not be accepted by Catholics.

I have briefly stated why the Pope is not inline with Church teaching in this regard and I know that Catholics are not bound to accept his view, however there are Catholics who do not know their faith and many more non-catholics who will and have misinterpreted this statement and it has been the cause of scandal. With that said, I think there is also scandal caused amoung those who DO understand what the Pope aparantly said, and know it is not inline with Church teaching. Those who say “well the Pope says it so it is infallable, or it cannot be against Church teaching” are simply uneducated in their own faith.

The Pope has not advocated condom use. He has said that condoms are not the solution. The subject in the interview was actually on morality, not on condoms.

 

[Abyssinia]

He doesn’t have to. It is abundantly clear, when reading the relevant passages in the book, that he said absolutely nothing ‘new’ or ‘contradictory’ to current doctrine.

He did not say that condom use was moral for male prostitutes, or indeed for anyone. He was very clear that the Church itself did not consider condom use morally valid, not even in the situation of ‘for protection against disease’ only.

If there was no mainstream media I think it would be clear to use what the Pope meant, but with all this manipulation we are questioning and are unsure.

 

[Los_Angeles]

in denial of what? whatever the pope said, it is not a teaching of the Church, period.

This is my view of the remarks that the Pope made about HIV, condoms, and morality.

If the Pope was correct or incorrect, it does not matter because it is not an official teaching of the Catholic Church e.g. that we can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As regards to the Associated Press artice, the news media interprets the Catholic Church as having “Conservatives” or “Liberals”. That is false. One is either Catholic or not Catholic. One either accepts all the official teachings of the Catholic Church or one does not.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[onenow1]

If there was no mainstream media I think it would be clear to use what the Pope meant, but with all this manipulation we are questioning and are unsure.

It should be fairly obvious to all ! the CC has been under attack by Satan from the beginning and throughout salvation history ! Well being Catholic is not easy ! just as Jesus said ! How many times did they try to trip up Jesus ? Well here we go again ! Trying to trip up His appointed Ambassador.Methinks some of the media has a private line to the sly one.

God Bless

 

[clinoforms]

The problem for me isn’t so much what he said but what it implies. If condom use in general is a step in a moralization of a problem then shouldn’t we encourage condom use? It’s like the first step in leading people to the truth. Or, as I’ve always understood it, condom use can only lead to more disordered sex.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The problem for me isn’t so much what he said but what it implies. If condom use in general is a step in a moralization of a problem then shouldn’t we encourage condom use? It’s like the first step in leading people to the truth. Or, as I’ve always understood it, condom use can only lead to more disordered sex.

The Pope never said that condom use itself was moral.

He said that the idea of the use as a protection (while still itself being a moral evil) is a STEP in the DIRECTION toward thinking morally.

Just as a mugger, who attacked his victims with a big old aluminum bat and beat them badly before stealing their money, would be taking a STEP in the DIRECTION toward thinking morally if he said, “oh gee. Hitting people with an aluminum bat can hurt them. I’ll start hitting people with a padded bat from now on so I’ll only STUN them before I steal their money.”

Using the padded bat isn’t moral. Stealing is still wrong. But thinking about people getting hurt and wanting them ‘less hurt’ (even if they are still doing something wrong while 'doing less hurt) is a STEP in the DIRECTION toward thinking morally.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Los Angeles:

the news media interprets the Catholic Church as having “Conservatives” or “Liberals”. That is false. One is either Catholic or not Catholic. One either accepts all the official teachings of the Catholic Church or one does not.

Right. Conservative and liberal are political terms - hence liberal or conservative media or parties, but we are either orthodox or heterodox as Catholics.

Nonsense. The words “conservative” and “liberal” have broader meanings than simply describing secular political orientation.

Some Catholics (conservatives) will favor the Church doing things as traditionally as possible, others (liberals) will favor newer or different approaches. This doesn’t have to touch on Church teaching, although in some cases it might.

As an example, the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger gave the nod to the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which lacks the words of institution. This is certainly a more liberal interpretation to Church teaching on the words of institution than had ever been officially issued in the past. That does not mean that it was a heterodox action.

 

[Annie39]

From my perspective, it is the conservatives who are running wild, trying to interpret the Pope’s comments to align with their view that the Church teaches a black-and-white, absolute prohibition on the use of condoms – or doing damage control by inferring that the Pope is mistaken and should not be seen as offering authoritative guidance. Such conservatives come off as literally “more Catholic than the Pope.” Welcome to the murky swamp that is real-life moral theology: few if any bright lines or absolutes, where intelligent people balance considerations, argue corner cases, and attempt to use good judgment. Not at all a safe and well-lit place.

Alan55,
May I have the definition of a conservative Catholic?

Thanks,
Annie

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Political liberalism implies theological heterodoxy at the very least; practically it implies heresy.

Political Liberals are almost universally against the death penalty, The Pope is also against the death penalty. He sides with the liberals on this. Would you therefore call him theologically heterodox? I would not.

I am politically liberal and I am not a heretic. Don’t make ridiculous blanket statements, please.

 

[clinoforms]

The Pope is also against the death penalty.

only in its application, not in princple–which would be ‘liberal’ or pacifist. i’m sure the pope would agree that there are circumstances where the application of the death penalty is just.

But thinking about people getting hurt and wanting them ‘less hurt’ (even if they are still doing something wrong while 'doing less hurt) is a STEP in the DIRECTION toward thinking morally.

i understand your point but it still leads to the idea that we are like a bunch of animals that can’t control themselves. it’s like telling your children that while you believe fornication is wrong, when you do it use a condom. i don’t think that’s a good way to handle the problem.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

only in its application, not in princple–which would be ‘liberal’ or pacifist. i’m sure the pope would agree that there are circumstances where the application of the death penalty is just.

You miss my point entirely.

 

[Annie39]

Political Liberals are almost universally against the death penalty, The Pope is also against the death penalty. He sides with the liberals on this. Would you therefore call him theologically heterodox? I would not.

I am politically liberal and I am not a heretic. Don’t make ridiculous blanket statements, please.

Rich,
Are you one of them thar “pro-choice” Catholics?

Annie

 

[Havard]

A) Rich is cool, and B) let’s stay on topic please.

 

[RobbyS]

"NEW YORK – Faced with a changing outlook from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms and their role in preventing the spread of HIV, many prominent conservative Roman Catholics in the U.S. are rejecting the Vatican’s own explanation of what the pope said.

“Several orthodox Catholics said they would only accept a more formal papal pronouncement. Others insisted that journalists were purposely misrepresenting Benedict’s comments. Some questioned whether the papal spokesman, the Rev. Frederico Lombardi, accurately quoted the pope.”

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101124/ap_on_re/us_rel_pope_condoms_conservatives

It is not the condom per se that is the problem. As I child I noted the presence of condoms in the washroom of theatres, and noted that they read “for health purposes only.” Ironically, if their use were limited to this, they would be a tolerable evil, limited to keeping men from catching diseases from whores and loose women. The greater evil, it seems to me, is the lie that diseases like AIDS can be stopped by the dispersal of millions upon millions of condoms. In a way it is like the difference between toleration of the age old practice of prostitution and the insane reduction of sex to a kind of drug and one totally unrelated to reproduction. Worse than the condom, of course, is the pill Might as well give a cynanide pill to every one, with instructions to take it if you get tired of life. The birth dearth is going to kill the human race

 

[RobbyS]

only in its application, not in princple–which would be ‘liberal’ or pacifist. i’m sure the pope would agree that there are circumstances where the application of the death penalty is just.i understand your point but it still leads to the idea that we are like a bunch of animals that can’t control themselves. it’s like telling your children that while you believe fornication is wrong, when you do it use a condom. i don’t think that’s a good way to handle the problem.

Getting male prostitutes to wear a condom is a good thing. The bad thing is that they sell their bodies for money.It is that that is degrading, or more so than the wearing of the condom.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Nonsense. The words “conservative” and “liberal” have broader meanings than simply describing secular political orientation.

Some Catholics (conservatives) will favor the Church doing things as traditionally as possible, others (liberals) will favor newer or different approaches. This doesn’t have to touch on Church teaching, although in some cases it might.

…

One is Catholic, or not Catholic.

Doing things “traditionally” vs. “newer or different approaches” must still fall into acceptable or not acceptable by the rules of the Catholic Church.

Recieving Holy Communion by the tounge is acceptable and so is recieving Holy Communion by the hand.

Neither is more conservative or liberal than the other, they are both acceptable by the rules of the Catholic Church.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Student09]

Wow, every article is more absurd and offensive than the last one!

This is so ridiculous. It starts out by saying that conservative Catholics are “at odds” with the Vatican and “rejecting” what the pope said. Then towards the end it says,

The pope’s comments in a book interview do not amount to an official teaching, a point conservative Catholics made repeatedly and vociferously Tuesday. They argued that the pope was only noting that by using a condom, a person with HIV is displaying some moral sense about the consequences of his behavior.

Wow, a true statement! How shocking … too bad it’s at the end of a long article at which point most people will be skimming anyway.