Consistency

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcteague
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ddarko said:
The Pope is making a psychological comment. NOT a moral one. He is only recognizing that to wear a condom at least means the person is starting to look beyond mere self-gratification and show some concern for the other. But is it the right way to show concern? NO. The pope himself states in the next line

"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." even though

And how does the infected spouse wearing a condom not cause any distress to the other spouse?

For
  1. Condoms are not 100% effective.so the healthy spouse might still get the disease
  2. The spouse is simply using the other without completely giving themselves to each other WHICH IS NOT LOVE.
So condoms don’t solve distress.
Click to expand...
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Wearing a condom does not entail a lack of love.
  4. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
 
Betterave said:
The lack of distinctions with respect to the moral requirement to use only licit means in order to produce licit ends. Talking only about the licitness or goodness of the end is obviously totally inadequate from a Catholic standpoint.

See previous post.
Click to expand...
Refer to my post to Darko.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Wearing a condom does not entail a lack of love.
  4. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
Click to expand...
  1. Right.
  2. Right.
  3. Wrong.
  4. Wrong.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
Click to expand...
So what are you trying to say here? You’d rather still have sex for your own gratification even though you know the person MIGHT still get AIDS as a result?

If a person truly LOVED his/her spouse, the right thing to do is to DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THE OTHER SPOUSE DOES NOT GET AIDS. That is only possible through abstinence. Not contraception since you have obviously admitted yourself that it is not 100% effective.

And wearing condoms does reduce the sexual act to just mutual gratification which is not love. Love requires complete giving of each other. Perhaps this whole confusion is because you do not know why Contraception is wrong in its own-right apart from the AIDS issue?

God Bless 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
So you agree that the Pope wouldn’t restrict reducing the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute and leave innocent wives of men with HIV to suffer the consequences…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8051553
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? Do you think the Pope has actually recommended “reducing the risk of infection…,” and that we just need to discuss who this recommendation might be aimed at? That is not the case. The Pope has merely acknowledged a very obvious point in the moral analysis of certain intrinsically evil acts. He has not recommended that people engage in these intrinsically evil acts, or that people choose the lesser of two evils. That is your doctrine, not the Church’s and not the Pope’s.
 
ddarko said:
So what are you trying to say here? You’d rather still have sex for your own gratification even though you know the person MIGHT still get AIDS as a result?

If a person truly LOVED his/her spouse, the right thing to do is to DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THE OTHER SPOUSE DOES NOT GET AIDS. That is only possible through abstinence. Not contraception since you have obviously admitted yourself that it is not 100% effective.

And wearing condoms does reduce the sexual act to just mutual gratification which is not love. Love requires complete giving of each other. Perhaps this whole confusion is because you do not know why Contraception is wrong in its own-right apart from the AIDS issue.
Click to expand...
Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following points:
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Wearing a condom does not entail a lack of love.
  4. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
 
Betterave said:
What are you even talking about? Do you think the Pope has actually recommended “reducing the risk of infection…,” and that we just need to discuss who this recommendation might be aimed at? That is not the case. The Pope has merely acknowledged a very obvious point in the moral analysis of certain intrinsically evil acts. He has not recommended that people engage in these intrinsically evil acts, or that people choose the lesser of two evils. That is your doctrine, not the Church’s and not the Pope’s.
Click to expand...
Why did the Pope bring up the subject? Merely to acknowledge a very obvious point? :rolleyes:
 
tonyrey said:
Why did the Pope bring up the subject? Merely to acknowledge a very obvious point? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Tony, there are a lot of very stupid, even malicious, people out there who would be happy to accuse the Church of being ignorant of such obvious points of moral analysis. I suppose the Pope wanted to remove any excuse that such people might have in misunderstanding the Church’s position.

Beyond that, the subject came up organically in the context of an interview. I think it’s silly to try to give some reductive account of why it came up when and where it did.
 
tonyrey said:
Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following points:
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Wearing a condom does not entail a lack of love.
  4. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
Click to expand...
Is your understanding really so darkened that you can’t see that ddarko has already stated what you request here?? The only significant one is 3), and ddarko’s answer has obviously been “disagree.”
 
Betterave said:
The only significant one is 3), and ddarko’s answer has obviously been “disagree.”
Click to expand...
From now on I am deleting all your extraneous remarks.
  1. Why does wearing a condom entail a lack of love?
Why are the following points insignificant?
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
 
tonyrey said:
From now on I am deleting all your extraneous remarks.
  1. Why does wearing a condom entail a lack of love?
Why are the following points insignificant?
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out that you are continuing to ask questions which have obviously already been answered - i.e., it seems that you’ve simply ignored what ddarko has already said. This is obviously perplexing for the rest of us (it seems to be your standard MO) and counter-productive to the discussion. I’ll let ddarko go ahead and answer your questions. I think your questions are trivial and I’ve already answered them, but I’ll let ddarko have a(nother) crack at it before saying any more.
 
Betterave said:
Tony, there are a lot of very stupid, even malicious, people out there who would be happy to accuse the Church of being ignorant of such obvious points of moral analysis. I suppose the Pope wanted to remove any excuse that such people might have in misunderstanding the Church’s position. Beyond that, the subject came up organically in the context of an interview.
Click to expand...
The subject came up in the context of an interview with a German journalist about a **book **by the Pope entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times” in which he responds to harsh criticism of the Church’s teaching because the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. It is not solely for the benefit of “very stupid, even malicious, people”…
 
tonyrey said:
Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following points:
  1. The Pope is realistic, acknowledging that wearing a condom is a lesser evil than causing infection.
  2. Condoms are not 100% effective but they are far more effective than using no condom at all.
  3. Wearing a condom does not entail a lack of love.
  4. Condoms prevent the distress of living with HIV.
Click to expand...
I thought I already did in my last post. I disagree with (3) right off the bat. Love is not compatible with contraception. That is the whole point why the church is against contraception. This is why I asked if you were aware of why the Church teaching is against contraception.

I also disagree with (1). The Pope simply spoke of the psychological aspect of an AIDS infected person trying to use a condom. He wasn’t even talking about lesser evils here.

Because he clearly states, at the end of that answer

“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.”

So for the purpose of this conversation as to what the Pope said, the subject of lesser evils don’t even need to be considered. He clearly states that Condoms are not the solution even though the idea to wear a condom might have been born out of a concern for the non-infected partner.

God Bless 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
The subject came up in the context of an interview with a German journalist about a **book **by the Pope entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times” in which he responds to harsh criticism of the Church’s teaching because the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. It is not solely for the benefit of “very stupid, even malicious, people”…
Click to expand...
You’ve again ignored what I said and pretended I said something I didn’t. What gives, tony? 🤷

FYI: it was not an interview about a book by the Pope; the interview with the Pope was published as the book.

@ddarko, post 58: very good points.
 
=mcteague;8035983]Much is made in this forum about the consistency of church positions and philosophy throughout the ages. But that sometimes strikes me as a double edged sword. And often a burden on its ability to reach a broader modern audience.
I just wonder what would happen if the Church were to change it’s position on, or to reinterprete, some significant issue.
I don’t mean something like " Pope announces God is dead. Resurrection done with mirrors". Which would obviously have a huge effect. But what if some writing of Thomas or some other foundational person was reinterpreted in broader and perhaps less rigid ways.
Would the Church just fall apart? Is complete consistency a requirement of the faithful. Could the Church ever say" we may not have been 100% correct about something.
Click to expand...
Given the FACTS that both the Holy Spirit [John 14:16-17] and Jesus Himself [John 17:15-19] remain in The Church to inspire, guide, GUARD and lead; it sems prudent of Informed, practicing Catholics to leave such matters in the hands of those God placed them:)

God Bless,
Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top