Consistency

[tonyrey]

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.

The Pope’s exact words:

“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.”

In the 1960s the Vatican condoned giving contraceptive pills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy, arguing that the contraception was **a lesser evil **than pregnancy. So why isn’t a condom a lesser evil than HIV? It is not only the mother who is infected but also the baby…

 

[ddarko]

The Pope’s exact words:

“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.”

Yes, and why do you always skip the next line in the interview? I reproduced it to you in post #58. As that line clearly states in the Pope’s words (reproduced yet again for the third time since you keep skipping it)

“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.”

It appears that you are reading an incomplete idea by skipping the ending of the answer.

In the 1960s the Vatican condoned giving contraceptive pills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy, arguing that the contraception was **a lesser evil **than pregnancy. So why isn’t a condom a lesser evil than HIV? It is not only the mother who is infected but also the baby…

This has nothing to do with what the Pope said in the interview. This is why I said last time that you are making this an issue between lesser evils when the Pope was not even talking about anything to do with lesser evils.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

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

You have evaded the point that the Pope was responding to harsh criticism of the Church’s teaching because **the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. **His message is not solely for the benefit of “very stupid, even malicious, people”…

 

[tonyrey]

This has nothing to do with what the Pope said in the interview. This is why I said last time that you are making this an issue between lesser evils when the Pope was not even talking about anything to do with lesser evils.

1. Is using a condom an evil?
2. Is HIV an evil?
3. Was the Pope talking about using a condom in relation to HIV?

 

[ddarko]

1. Is using a condom an evil?
2. Is HIV an evil?
3. Was the Pope talking about using a condom in relation to HIV?

Why are you doing this? Seriously, I think you don’t want an answer except “I agree with you Tony”. We are not discussing lesser evils here.

You had a misinterpretation of the Pope’s comments, perhaps based on the thinking that he was talking about lesser evils. But it should be clear from the line that you kept skipping in his answer that it was not the case.

That was what this discussion was and thats as far as I am willing to take this conversation. If you want to discuss lesser evils, go open a new thread. That is not the topic of this thread after all.

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

You have evaded the point [you have evaded the error you made ] that the Pope was responding to harsh criticism of the Church’s teaching because **the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. **His message is not solely for the benefit of “very stupid, even malicious, people”…

That is false on two counts: 1) that I evaded the point and 2) the point itself, namely that the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV (as if this book would change that?! - are you serious? - what Vatican policy do you think has been made explicit by virtue of this book?).

As for his message not being for the benefit (solely) of “very stupid, even malicious, people,” I honestly believe you would have to be very stupid or maliciously motivated not to understand that the principle that Pope referred to is obviously implied by Church teaching. But I’m open to hearing counter-arguments… So tell me: *how can you deny this? *

What is difficult or possibly controversial or novel about the following claim, within the context of the Church’s moral teaching?:

“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. 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.”

 

[tonyrey]

Why are you doing this? Seriously, I think you don’t want an answer except “I agree with you Tony”. We are not discussing lesser evils here.

You had a misinterpretation of the Pope’s comments, perhaps based on the thinking that he was talking about lesser evils. But it should be clear from the line that you kept skipping in his answer that it was not the case.

That was what this discussion was and thats as far as I am willing to take this conversation. If you want to discuss lesser evils, go open a new thread. That is not the topic of this thread after all.

In the 1960s the Vatican condoned giving contraceptivepills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy, arguing that the contraception was **a lesser evil **than pregnancy. If you refuse to answer straightforward questions there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

That is false on two counts: 1) that I evaded the point and 2) the point itself, namely that the Vatican had never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV (as if this book would change that?! - are you serious? - what Vatican policy do you think has been made explicit by virtue of this book?).

As for his message not being for the benefit (solely) of “very stupid, even malicious, people,” I honestly believe you would have to be very stupid or maliciously motivated not to understand that the principle that Pope referred to is obviously implied by Church teaching. But I’m open to hearing counter-arguments… So tell me: *how can you deny this? *

What is difficult or possibly controversial or novel about the following claim, within the context of the Church’s moral teaching?:

“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. 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.”

Font size does nothing to strengthen your argument and makes it look rather childish!

Has the Pope or the Vatican ever stated before that using a condom is a first step in the direction of a moralization? It may be insignificant for you but it makes an immense difference to millions of unfortunate people who have been led to believe the Church is opposed to the use of condoms in any situation whatsoever. If you cannot understand that simple fact it is a waste of time discussing the matter any further.

 

[ddarko]

In the 1960s the Vatican condoned giving contraceptivepills to nuns at risk of rape by fighters in the Congo to prevent pregnancy, arguing that the contraception was **a lesser evil **than pregnancy. If you refuse to answer straightforward questions there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Did the papal interview that you first quote happen in the 1960’s?

In case you didn’t know, NO, it happened recently. So since this discussion was on whether the Pope in that specific interview approved of Condoms, the matter has already been settled. That specific question had nothing to do with lesser evils.

So if you refuse to accept that straightforward answer, that’s your problem. The question has been answered and I figure you know it too which is why now you want to switch topics to lesser evils out of nowhere.

If you want to switch topics to lesser evils, I am not doing that on this thread.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Did the papal interview that you first quote happen in the 1960’s?

In case you didn’t know, NO, it happened recently. So since this discussion was on whether the Pope in that specific interview approved of Condoms, the matter has already been settled. That specific question had nothing to do with lesser evils.

So if you refuse to accept that straightforward answer, that’s your problem. The question has been answered and I figure you know it too which is why now you want to switch topics to lesser evils out of nowhere.

If you want to switch topics to lesser evils, I am not doing that on this thread.

1. Can you cite a document in which the matter of condoms and HIV had been settled prior to the interview?
2. Why does the Pope’s statement have nothing to do with the lesser of two evils when the use of condoms and the deliberate exposure to infection of a person with HIV are both evils?

If you fail to answer these simple questions there is no point in continuing this discussion because you know full well the answers.

 

[ddarko]

1. Can you cite a document in which the matter of condoms and HIV had been settled prior to the interview?

Here it is Tony, this better be it.
**
HUMANAE VITAE by Paul VI**

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

To quote the part that may interest you:-

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.** Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.**

**Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. **

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Here it is Tony, this better be it.
**
HUMANAE VITAE by Paul VI**

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

To quote the part that may interest you:-

God Bless

**“Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. **”
If the husband has HIV the relations are not normal. That is why the Pope brought up the subject. Why should the wife be exposed to infection if the husband insists on sexual intercourse - especially if he or she or both of them are non-Catholics?

 

[ddarko]

**“Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. **”
If the husband has HIV the relations are not normal. That is why the Pope brought up the subject. Why should the wife be exposed to infection if the husband insists on sexual intercourse - especially if he or she or both of them are non-Catholics?

Tony, please read everything and not just the parts that make you happy. You missed the following in the lines I quoted.

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

So as you can see, a spouse is not justified in using contraception in sex (an intrinsically evil act) to justify a good end (preventing harm to the spouse).

As I have also repeatedly stated, the Pope said the same thing in the interview. That is why right after recognizing the good intention that someone infected with AIDS might have to use a condom, he said the following:-

“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.”

Now please, its ok to admit that you were wrong and confused about this issue. Everyone makes mistakes.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

So as you can see, a spouse is not justified in using contraception in sex (an intrinsically evil act) to justify a good end (preventing harm to the spouse).

As I have also repeatedly stated, the Pope said the same thing in the interview. That is why right after recognizing the good intention that someone infected with AIDS might have to use a condom, he said the following:-

“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.”

I am deleting all your remarks which are irrelevant.

Why should the wife be exposed to infection if the husband insists on sexual intercourse - especially if he or she or both of them are non-Catholics?

We are always justified in choosing the lesser of two evils. That is an absolute moral principle to which there are no exceptions whatsoever. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting the letter of the Law before love and compassion. That is why the Pope has made allowance for the unfortunate victims and potential victims of AIDS. He would not have brought up the subject if he had nothing further to add…

Those are my final words on the subject…

 

[ddarko]

I am deleting all your remarks which are irrelevant.

Why should the wife be exposed to infection if the husband insists on sexual intercourse - especially if he or she or both of them are non-Catholics?

We are always justified in choosing the lesser of two evils. That is an absolute moral principle to which there are no exceptions whatsoever. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting the letter of the Law before love and compassion. That is why the Pope has made allowance for the unfortunate victims and potential victims of AIDS. He would not have brought up the subject if he had nothing further to add…

Those are my final words on the subject…

Perhaps you are unable to read more than a certain number of lines in a sentence.

This is what Jesus has revealed through his Church:-

"it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. " – HUMANAE VITAE by Paul VI

Now you might have your own opinion.

But that is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church and hence not a valid position for anyone faithful to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church’s position is as above (HUMANAE VITAE) and has remained consistent throughout history and will be to the future.

God Bless