Conservatives at odds with Vatican over condoms

[Los_Angeles]

The writer doesn’t understand it because it isn’t true. Any group can be subdivided into smaller groups. My family can be subdivided into those who are more conservative and those who are more liberal in the quantity of toppngs they apply to homemade pizza. My parish can be subdivided into groups based on which mass times they prefer to attend. My diocese can be divided into those who prefer the old bishop, and those that prefer the new one. And Catholics throughout the world can be divided into those who deeply believe that nothing positive should ever be said about condoms, and those who don’t feel as strongly against them.

Yes you could conduct a poll and divide people into subgroups based on their likes and dislikes, as long as it does not conflict with their Catholic faith.

What I am talking about is the impossibility of dividing the Catholic Church as regards to matters of faith. There is no such thing as a Catholic with conservative Catholic beliefs or a Catholic with liberal Catholic beliefs. The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith.

Since a very small chunk of the population reads the news anymore, I doubt the reporter deludes himself into thinking he has that kind of power. I hope few members here are deluded by that thought.

If just one person were influenced by an error in the mainstream media regarding the Catholic Church, it is worth correcting.

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

 

[RobbyS]

Condoms can not stop HIV/AIDS. They have a 15% failure rate.

epigee.org/guide/condomfaq.html

The FDA requirements say that no more than one condom in 250 can fail a leakage test.[10] Do the math: When the United States donated eight hundred million condoms to developing nations in 1990, the condom companies could have included 3.2 million defective condoms in the batch! But it gets worse: Globally those who promote “safe sex” say that the world needs twenty-four billion condoms every year in order to be protected.[11] If they had their wish, and each government ensured that condoms were at least as reliable as those produced in America (which they are not),[12] there could be ninety-six million defective condoms being used every year.

[10]. “Perspectives in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Condoms for Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 37:9 (March 11, 1988), 133–137.

[11]. Gardner, et al., “The Condom Gap: A Health Crisis,” Population Reports, Series H, No. 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Population Information Program, April 1999), 36.

[12]. Associated Press, “Study Finds Fewer Defects in Condoms on U.S. Market,” The New York Times, May 12, 1988.

chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/methods/condom/condom

Of course condoms can’t stop AIDS. Even the secular media recognize that the ABC approach is what is practical. But we should not dwell on condoms as if their efficacy were what is important.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes you could conduct a poll and divide people into subgroups based on their likes and dislikes, as long as it does not conflict with their Catholic faith.

I would argue that is essentially what the reporter is doing when he labels a group “conservative Catholics.”
Los Angeles:

What I am talking about is the impossibility of dividing the Catholic Church as regards to matters of faith. There is no such thing as a Catholic with conservative Catholic beliefs or a Catholic with liberal Catholic beliefs. The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith.

Since the beliefs of even the best Catholics can only approximate “the Catholic faith,” we all have beliefs that may extend beyond the truth of the Faith, and we all fall short in our beliefs in some areas. This discrepancy is only magnified by the fact that many details of the Faith are murky and it is not always clear what is opinion and what is doctrine. So I would disagree with you; the beliefs of some Catholics may tend more toward the conservative, and the beliefs of others more toward the liberal, even while many of their core beliefs may be identical.

 

[Los_Angeles]

I would argue that is essentially what the reporter is doing when he labels a group “conservative Catholics.”

Based on the Associated Press article on Yahoo, I think she is incorrectly labeling Catholics that would correctly want to wait for something like an infallible ex cathedra statement from the Pope regarding condom use as “conservative” versus those that might falsely claim the Catholic Church has changed its stance on condoms because of how they interpret His personal views.

Since the beliefs of even the best Catholics can only approximate “the Catholic faith,” we all have beliefs that may extend beyond the truth of the Faith, and we all fall short in our beliefs in some areas. This discrepancy is only magnified by the fact that many details of the Faith are murky and it is not always clear what is opinion and what is doctrine. So I would disagree with you; the beliefs of some Catholics may tend more toward the conservative, and the beliefs of others more toward the liberal, even while many of their core beliefs may be identical.

Now is that statement itself clear and not murky?

If you make the claim that “…many details of the Faith are murky and it is not always clear what is opinion and what is doctrine” then that statement would invalidate itself because it must be clear and not murky to know that something is is not clear and murky.

Now if is clear that something must be clear, I would start with the Catholic Church as being clearer than myself because the Catholic Church is from Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, and I can make errors.

I believe everything that the Catholic Church says one must believe in order to be a member of the Catholic Church. I may not know everything that the Catholic Church teaches, but if I were to run across official teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for example, I must accept them to remain Catholic. If I do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am attempting to change the teachings.

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

 

[Holly3278]

There for a second I thought this article came from The Onion.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

ff I were to run across official teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for example, I must accept them to remain Catholic.

The problem there is to decide what in the Catechism is an “official teaching” and what is not. Not everything in the Catechism is to be taken as infallible.

If I do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am attempting to change the teachings.

Have you not considered that it might have just been a matter of your not understanding something, not that you are trying to change the teachings?

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

???

 

[Los_Angeles]

The problem there is to decide what in the Catechism is an “official teaching” and what is not. Not everything in the Catechism is to be taken as infallible.

As I understand it, the Pope or an Ecumenical Council can make an infallible statement.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.shtml#891

Also, as I understand it, the guarantee that we have from the Catholic Church is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is free from doctrinal or moral error. Many of the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church reference Sacred Scripture and Code of Cannon Law.

Have you not considered that it might have just been a matter of your not understanding something, not that you are trying to change the teachings?

I must admit that as a fallible person, I could possibly misunderstand something that the Catholic Church teaches. The fact remains however that the Catholic Church is the standard to which I seek to understand the Catholic faith.

???

My disclaimer is to check what I say on this forum with the Catholic Church to make sure that it does not conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

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

 

[The_Rock]

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century, Germany):

“During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude, the Apostle, spoke when he said: ‘These men blaspheme- whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. . . They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.’”
“During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh.”
“They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man.” (Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy,Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).

I will pray that the false interpretations of what the Pope said will cease.

 

[TNT]

What motivated B16 to even offer a commentary on a settled subject?
He had a reason for it, you can be certain.
Who is he preaching to anyway?
A “male prostitute”: Is he talking about “gay-fer-pay” or gigolos?
He doesn’t say. Why not?
Therefore, I can rightfully say he INCLUDES gigolos, which is heterosex.
(Reinforced by the official Vatican Spokesman.)
Condoms in the act of heterosex is also intrinsically evil, and therefore the act becomes a double set of intrinisically evil acts.
Either one is intrinsically evil and has no mitigating parameters such as “at least he had the moral sense of using an alleged disease prevention technique”.
From that he sees “HOPE” ??
B16 is doodling on thin ice, but I don’t know his MOTIVES for doing so.
However long it takes,
I suspect that this little commentary is an introduction to a more expansive permission of condoms.
We shall see.
Remember when Communion in the hand was ok, but not ok?
Then what happened…

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this** or that case**, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The camel’s nose is now under your tent…again.

Meanwhile, the Practicing Catholic population in the Western World is in unmitigated implosion.
Birth control in the “catholic” populations is rampant.
No comment.

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.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

What exactly did the Pope say that was so revolutionary and radical? Did he say HIV discordant married couples can use condoms to protect the other from getting the disease? No. Did he say condoms where moral? No. Did he say condoms are not bad? No. Did he say if people are going to have sex anyway, use a condom. No.

You can switch the ‘‘man’’ with a woman or a transsexual.

There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?

If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.

lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/what-pope-benedict-said-about-condoms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lovingit+%28Catholic+and+Loving+it!%29

He gave an example of a prostitute, the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention, but the action of wearing a condom is still wrong.

 

[Alan55]

Yes you could conduct a poll and divide people into subgroups based on their likes and dislikes, as long as it does not conflict with their Catholic faith. What I am talking about is the impossibility of dividing the Catholic Church as regards to matters of faith. There is no such thing as a Catholic with conservative Catholic beliefs or a Catholic with liberal Catholic beliefs. The Catholic faith is the Catholic faith.

I’ve used the term “conservative” and “liberal” with regard to Catholics, so let me take a crack at your comments, with which I disagree in spirit at least. Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church with regard to essentials can disagree, sometimes vehemently, with regard to inessentials. There is such a thing as “conservative” and “liberal” Catholic beliefs, at least with respect to non-dogmatic issues.

“Liberals” generally promote the reforms of Vatican II, such as a greater role for laity in the Church, the Mass in the vernacular, changes in Church architecture and design, ecumenical efforts, etc., etc., and post-Vatican II emphases such as a preferential option for the poor, efforts to address justice and peace issues (“structural sin”), a greater role for bishops conferences vs. the Vatican regarding local issues, etc., etc.

“Conservatives” have been much quicker to say that the reforms following Vatican II were travesties and sought a “reform of the reform” (yes, I classify Pope Benedict XVI as a conservative). They were glad to see the return of the mass in Latin (at least as an option), found lay leadership more problematic, particularly in liturgical roles formerly reserved to the ordained (e.g., EMHC) or at least to males (such as altar servers), found the emphasis on structural sin at best a distraction from the real issue (personal sin) or at worst a Marxist aberration, and favored papal/Vatican leadership vs. the episcopal conferences. More positively, they sought to foster a greater sense of awe and mystery in liturgy, valued the central role of priests, bishops and the pope, and promoted life issues as the leading social justice issue of our time.

A person falling into either camp could be a “true Catholic” despite the aspersions cast by one side against the other. In my view, the dismissive attitudes of the liberals, who held sway in the 1970s and 1980s, has given way to the criticism of liberals as “Catholic in name only” and “cafeteria Catholic” in the 1990’s and 2000s. Every dog has his day.

I realize that I’ve grossly oversimplified, but I think that there is a legitimate place for the label “liberal” and “conservative” in describing Catholics. In the end of the day, we have to use words, despite their imprecision and potential for misunderstanding, and these are perfectly fine words IMHO. What makes me angry is those who would inappropriately classify people who hold other believes regarding non-dogmas as non-Catholics, often calling them stupid, poorly informed, or even heretics in the process. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that online, where cranks and cowards have an open mike to express their outrage with those who disagree with them. A little civility, dare I say love, would be nice in the family.

 

[Man]

It is very simple. In traditional moral law, as in the old encyclopedia, there is such a thing as ‘Sins crying out to Heave for Vengeance.’ As proper and orthodox Catholics, many of us believe that this list is still applicable today, and is even evident in our civil laws which continue cause a Hell on Earth phenomenon when they are grievously transgressed, such as when someone knowingly and willingly spreads AIDS to another via sexual relations. This could be called murder and, of course, is very much illegal in many countries. And also murder is a sin crying out for vengeance.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve used the term “conservative” and “liberal” with regard to Catholics, so let me take a crack at your comments, with which I disagree in spirit at least. Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church with regard to essentials can disagree, sometimes vehemently, with regard to inessentials. There is such a thing as “conservative” and “liberal” Catholic beliefs, at least with respect to non-dogmatic issues.

“Liberals” generally promote the reforms of Vatican II, such as a greater role for laity in the Church, the Mass in the vernacular, changes in Church architecture and design, ecumenical efforts, etc., etc., and post-Vatican II emphases such as a preferential option for the poor, efforts to address justice and peace issues (“structural sin”), a greater role for bishops conferences vs. the Vatican regarding local issues, etc., etc.

“Conservatives” have been much quicker to say that the reforms following Vatican II were travesties and sought a “reform of the reform” (yes, I classify Pope Benedict XVI as a conservative). They were glad to see the return of the mass in Latin (at least as an option), found lay leadership more problematic, particularly in liturgical roles formerly reserved to the ordained (e.g., EMHC) or at least to males (such as altar servers), found the emphasis on structural sin at best a distraction from the real issue (personal sin) or at worst a Marxist aberration, and favored papal/Vatican leadership vs. the episcopal conferences. More positively, they sought to foster a greater sense of awe and mystery in liturgy, valued the central role of priests, bishops and the pope, and promoted life issues as the leading social justice issue of our time.

A person falling into either camp could be a “true Catholic” despite the aspersions cast by one side against the other. In my view, the dismissive attitudes of the liberals, who held sway in the 1970s and 1980s, has given way to the criticism of liberals as “Catholic in name only” and “cafeteria Catholic” in the 1990’s and 2000s. Every dog has his day.

I realize that I’ve grossly oversimplified, but I think that there is a legitimate place for the label “liberal” and “conservative” in describing Catholics. In the end of the day, we have to use words, despite their imprecision and potential for misunderstanding, and these are perfectly fine words IMHO. What makes me angry is those who would inappropriately classify people who hold other believes regarding non-dogmas as non-Catholics, often calling them stupid, poorly informed, or even heretics in the process. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that online, where cranks and cowards have an open mike to express their outrage with those who disagree with them. A little civility, dare I say love, would be nice in the family.

Sounds plausible, except you left out a lot of heterodox beliefs often held by “liberal” Catholics: female clergy, homosexual unions, artificial birth control, etc. These are held despite the very clear teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[Alex111]

I saw on another thread an article about how the Pope’s and Father Lombardi’s condom comments have undermined the struggle of Bishops in the Philippines against a proposed “reproductive health” law:

lifesitenews.com/news/confusion-over-popes-comments-threaten-philippines-bishops-campaign-against/

A similar scenario will surely play out here in the US, with the fight for the repeal of Obamacare, and (until then) the fight against the implementation of the most pro-death aspects of Obamacare.

Official or not, ex-cathedra or not, Magisterial or not, public statements from the Pope, and from a Vatican “spokesman” at a press conference claiming to “clarify” what the Pope said, are supposed to have SOME degree of credibility, aren’t they? I’ve read the full text of what Benedict XVI said, and what Lombardi said as “clarification,” including his comment about “a man, a woman, or a transsexual.” As far as I know the Vatican has in no way repudiated Lombardi’s statements. If Lombardi did indeed say what he’s quoted as saying, then this is not only about HIV prevention but also condoms as BIRTH CONTROL, since a female prostitute engaging in heterosexual sex has the potential to GET PREGNANT and bring INNOCENT LIFE into the picture.

I can understand being sensitive to individual people in difficult circumstances (such as prostitutes). But I thought that the Church’s point in condemning condom use was that, in the big picture, the use of condoms causes a false sense of security, changes in sexual behavior, and INCREASES in problem pregnancy, disease transmission, and abortion. I believe that Benedict XVI’s condom statement, and especially Lombardi’s “clarification”-- taken for what they are, aside from the media distortions-- have seriously undermined this valid argument, damaged the Church’s credibility, and harmed the pro-life cause worldwide.

I understand the Pope is not infallible when not speaking ex-cathedra; I understand that the Church is full of sinners, some of whom hold erroneous opinions; I understand that the Church will not be remotely close to perfect in this life. However, I don’t think it’s wrong to expect some minimal standard of credibility; some minimal standard of discipline in the face of extreme and unrepentant heresy on the part of tyrannical pro-death Catholic leaders like Pelosi, Biden, and Sebelius. In my opinion, the Pope’s “BUT in this or that case” and Lombardi’s “a man, a woman, or a transsexual” are gift-wrapped cases of ammunition for the culture of death, and a giant middle finger to beleaguered pro-life activists worldwide.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I dont know about you guys, but today the professor in my class decided to spread the news about the pope’s comment. He said to everybody that the CC finally changed its teaching’s on condoms. i tried to refute but he didn t believe me.

 

[Man]

Using a condom can send you to Hell.

Killing another person can send you to Hell right now.

XXXXXX EDIT XXXXXX

To be even more explicit, I am trying actively to discourage people from killing one another, exactly as society has done for who knows how long. This must be an expression of creation.

Unlike the Hell the Jesus can save you from, if you kill someone you can go to a Hell that Jesus will not be able to save you from for quite some time. Sometimes this prison of Hell is emotion, mental, spiritual, or corporeal.

DO NOT KILL.

If you don’t realize that killing is bad, society will TELL YOU in language you CANNOT DENY HEARING, and yet still you might be OBSTINATE, AND you can GO TO HELL for that too.

XXXXXX EDIT 2 XXXXXX

In a manner of speaking society/prison/your mental state (depression perhaps), is the meeting with Christ itself. That is to say, it could be construed in spiritual terms as when you meet your Maker.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sheesh, let’s try to fix one set of confusing news articles with another.

I would encourage everyone to actually read what the pope actually said in context. Weigel’s article gives some lengthy quotations that help put the pope’s comments into the proper perspective:

Deflating the New York Times Condom Scoop

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.

That’s exactly right. Good analogy. Janet Smith used a similar analogy of a bank robber using a gun with no bullets. Using such a gun to rob a bank might indicate a growing awareness of moral responsibility on the part of the bank robber, but surely no one would advocate world-wide initiatives to supply potential bank robbers with bulletless guns.

The pope’s words that condom use by a male prostitute “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” is a far, far cry from the pope saying that condom use is morally acceptable. Notice the press has completely ignored the very next sentence: “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.”

Do people not realize that no pope has ever, nor would they ever, make important doctrinal statements in the context of an interview with a reporter? I mean, I know it might be a blow to the ego of journalists, but the Church does not operate that way. Thank the Lord!

 

[Alex111]

The Pope’s whole quote in context-- which I have read-- may be interpreted as not advocating condom use…But Father Lombardi’s comments, which the Vatican has not refuted, are completely insane. The Vatican’s handling of this is so abysmal that one almost thinks that they’re attempting some grand ecumenical gesture to bring the Roman Church closer to the US Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other liberal Western Protestants.

Just because it isn’t an official Papal pronouncement, and doesn’t change Church teaching, that doesn’t mean it won’t have serious consequences.

From LifeSiteNews:

The “destruction of countless children in the womb” and the “corruption” of children already born will be the result of the massive confusion over comments on the use of condoms for AIDS prevention by Pope Benedict XVI, published last month, a prominent pro-life Catholic has said.

John Smeaton, head of the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the oldest pro-life organization in the world said, addressing Pope Benedict directly, “Countless children, perhaps my own grandchildren, will be deliberately corrupted as a result of the exploitation and misrepresentation of your interview about condoms by opponents of Catholic teaching within the Catholic Church.”

…Smeaton, writing last week from Torun, Poland where he addressed the third international Congress of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and the International Gilson Society, not only criticized the media for its role in distorting the pope’s remarks, but said that the episode suggests all is not well even among the Roman curia…

Source: lifesitenews.com/news/massive-fallout-from-fonfusion-over-popes-condom-remarks-predicted?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=718e7645d4-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_01_2010&utm_medium=email