Gay male prostitute with or w/o condom—no difference

[TheAdvocate]

I say that if a gay male prostitute has sex with another man and uses a condom, his act is no more sinful than without a condom, because the potential for human life is not inhibited (for obvious reasons).

Agree?

 

[prstoessel]

A disordered act is a disordered act. However, our Holy Father has been recently quoted as saying that one who uses a condom to keep from spreading disease might be showing a sign of moral awakeness.

This is not to say that he condones the use of condoms. Only that we should see such acts as a first step in possible conversion in moral awareness.

 

[TheAdvocate]

A disordered act is a disordered act. However, our Holy Father has been recently quoted as saying that one who uses a condom to keep from spreading disease might be showing a sign of moral awakeness.

This is not to say that he condones the use of condoms. Only that we should see such acts as a first step in possible conversion in moral awareness.

Well, you can say that a disordered act is a disordered act, but a disordered act can be made even more sinful, no? For example, if someone were to beat his spouse with his fist, that would be disordered; but let’s say s/he used brass knuckles instead? More disordered, right? How about if a teenager steal $40 from his mom’s purse to buy video games. Disordered. But what if he stole $240? More disordered.

I never said that the pope condoned the use of condoms. I simply asked whether you agree that using a condom is not more disordered. How can it be more disordered? It’s not even a contraceptive in this case. It seems devout Catholics are afraid to say it’s not more disordered because they fear it would somehow lead to the approval of condoms—a slippery slope.

So…does anyone agree with me that it would not be more disordered?

 

[WetCatechumen]

My personal opinion is that using a condom is less morally disordered in the case of homosexuals because it reduces the risk of spreading disease.

However, with a heterosexual couple, no matter the situation, using a condom is always significantly more morally disordered.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Well, you can say that a disordered act is a disordered act, but a disordered act can be made even more sinful, no? For example, if someone were to beat his spouse with his fist, that would be disordered; but let’s say s/he used brass knuckles instead? More disordered, right? How about if a teenager steal $40 from his mom’s purse to buy video games. Disordered. But what if he stole $240? More disordered.

I never said that the pope condoned the use of condoms. I simply asked whether you agree that using a condom is not more disordered. How can it be more disordered? It’s not even a contraceptive in this case. It seems devout Catholics are afraid to say it’s not more disordered because they fear it would somehow lead to the approval of condoms—a slippery slope.

So…does anyone agree with me that it would not be more disordered?

wheww…yes it’s a slippery slope especially when communicating this certain issue to non-Catholics or ignorant Catholics. In this case I would have to agree with you especially if one of the males had an STD or AIDS; however the situation can’t be applied to a female prostitute (this is where others would sense a bias of sorts = slippery slope).

 

[WetCatechumen]

wheww…yes it’s a slippery slope especially when communicating this certain issue to non-Catholics or ignorant Catholics. In this case I would have to agree with you especially if one of the males had an STD or AIDS; however the situation can’t be applied to a female prostitute (this is where others would sense a bias of sorts = slippery slope).

Exactly - because in the case of a female prostitute it’s simultaneously a contraceptive act.

Homosexuals can’t contracept - homosexual sex by its nature is already completely contraceptive.

Although it would be a sin for a homosexual male to have a vasectomy, still.

 

[Elena_Wayne]

Condoms help prevent disease…that’s a good thing, right?

 

[MtnDwellar]

I wish that the Pope had not made the statement about gay male prostitutes and condoms.

We already have the position that homosexual acts are disordered. Prostitution is disordered. Why should he advise that condoms are acceptable during prohibited acts? We already had the answer.

It is like saying that if you are racing down the highway, evading the police, and running a red light, then you don’t have to use your turn signals.

Does he think that some male prostitutes were avoiding condoms because the Church teaches against condom use? While there are probably some Catholic gay male prostitutes, if they have decided not to follow teachings regarding homosexual prostitution, I doubt that they draw the line before condom use.

 

[prstoessel]

We already have the position that homosexual acts are disordered. Prostitution is disordered. Why should he advise that condoms are acceptable during prohibited acts? We already had the answer.

He did not advise that. He did not say that. He used it only as an example of a moral awakening within that individual.

 

[prstoessel]

So…does anyone agree with me that it would not be more disordered?

In this particular case, the only purpose of a condom is to avoid spreading a STD. Using a condom does not add to, nor take away from a gravely disordered act. Culpability for a disordered act depends on full knowledge and consent of the act and is a separate matter, non-dependent of whether a condom was being used.

 

[TimothyH]

A gay male prostitute could use a condom, a cow, a chain saw or a carburetor from a '62 Chevy as part of his sex act and it would still be a disordered act.

The gay male prostitute could use the condom to prevent disease so that he would not get sick and die himself and thereby continue his fornication. That is the opposite of moral awakening.

One could use condoms for baloons at a birthday party for an eight year old and that would be pretty disordered. Their use for any other purpose seems equally disordered to me. Condoms are designed for one purpose - fornication without the consequences of pregnancy. I find any use of condoms disordered.

Condoms in and of themselves are disordered, like a giraffe with three heads or something.

-Tim-

 

[prstoessel]

A gay male prostitute could use a condom, a cow, a chain saw or a carburetor from a '62 Chevy as part of his sex act and it would still be a disordered act.

The gay male prostitute could use the condom to prevent disease so that he would not get sick and die himself and thereby continue his fornication. That is the opposite of moral awakening.

One could use condoms for baloons at a birthday party for an eight year old and that would be pretty disordered. Their use for any other purpose seems equally disordered to me. Condoms are designed for one purpose - fornication without the consequences of pregnancy. I find any use of condoms disordered.

Condoms in and of themselves are disordered, like a giraffe with three heads or something.

-Tim-

That made me laugh. You are right on all counts. I would only add that if he were the one with the disease and decided to use a condom, then that is what our Holy Father was referring to in that he is seeking some (albeit small) kind of moral responsibility for his actions. It is a primitive step, indeed, but still a step.

 

[Newbie2]

In this particular case, the only purpose of a condom is to avoid spreading a STD. Using a condom does not add to, nor take away from a gravely disordered act. Culpability for a disordered act depends on full knowledge and consent of the act and is a separate matter, non-dependent of whether a condom was being used.

Well put.

A gay male prostitute could use a condom, a cow, a chain saw or a carburetor from a '62 Chevy as part of his sex act and it would still be a disordered act.

-Tim-

Carburetor? CARBURETOR???

Ahem…(still wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes)…good point.

 

[RosaryFan]

Well, you can say that a disordered act is a disordered act, but a disordered act can be made even more sinful, no? For example, if someone were to beat his spouse with his fist, that would be disordered; but let’s say s/he used brass knuckles instead? More disordered, right? How about if a teenager steal $40 from his mom’s purse to buy video games. Disordered. But what if he stole $240? More disordered.

I never said that the pope condoned the use of condoms. I simply asked whether you agree that using a condom is not more disordered. How can it be more disordered? It’s not even a contraceptive in this case. It seems devout Catholics are afraid to say it’s not more disordered because they fear it would somehow lead to the approval of condoms—a slippery slope.

So…does anyone agree with me that it would not be more disordered?

I would say that a homosexual prostitute’s use of a condom could be compared to an ax murderer letting you smoke a cigarette before he chops your head off. Is it less disordered? No…not really.

 

[Joe_5859]

To quote the Pope:

“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.”

To the OP: Are you trying to get at some larger point with your question?

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Well, you can say that a disordered act is a disordered act, but a disordered act can be made even more sinful, no? For example, if someone were to beat his spouse with his fist, that would be disordered; but let’s say s/he used brass knuckles instead? More disordered, right? How about if a teenager steal $40 from his mom’s purse to buy video games. Disordered. But what if he stole $240? More disordered.

I never said that the pope condoned the use of condoms. I simply asked whether you agree that using a condom is not more disordered. How can it be more disordered? It’s not even a contraceptive in this case. It seems devout Catholics are afraid to say it’s not more disordered because they fear it would somehow lead to the approval of condoms—a slippery slope.

So…does anyone agree with me that it would not be more disordered?

I think I agree. I am prepared to be wrong, but I do not think the Church condemns condoms specifically, but rather any and all forms of contraception. Homosexual acts are disordered, but not more or less so because of a condom since a condom is not, in that case, contraceptive. I think we are better off sticking to our guns about contraception- it is a clear and consistent teaching.

It is my understanding that the Church does admit some uses are licit. For instance, if a married man needs to give a sperm sample for some medical reason, he is advised to use a condom which has been perforated and have sex with his wife. Thus the act is open to life, it is not contraceptive, and he can give a sperm sample.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I think I agree. I am prepared to be wrong, but I do not think the Church condemns condoms specifically, but rather any and all forms of contraception. Homosexual acts are disordered, but not more or less so because of a condom since a condom is not, in that case, contraceptive. I think we are better off sticking to our guns about contraception- it is a clear and consistent teaching.

It is my understanding that the Church does admit some uses are licit. For instance, if a married man needs to give a sperm sample for some medical reason, he is advised to use a condom which has been perforated and have sex with his wife. Thus the act is open to life, it is not contraceptive, and he can give a sperm sample.

wow! it goes to show you how non black & white life really is…

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I think it is black and white, though. The teaching clearly and consistently forbids contraception. The Church also condemns homosexual acts. But condom use among homosexuals is not contraceptive. I do not think it changes the gravity of the sin.

 

[manualman]

Sometimes extreme examples help illustrate principles. Let’s take contraception, sex and homosexuality out of the issue for a minute and look closer at the IDEA of recognizing the harm of sin and BEGINING to attempt to address it. According to our faith, NOBODY is beyond redemption (nobody alive on this earth, anyways).

So let’s take an example of a psychopath mysoginist who picks up women at bars, takes them somewhere remote and murders them. Say one day he goes to do his usual sick thing, takes her out there and just before he kills her, he sees something in her that revives a tiny piece of humanity in him. He recognizes the wrongness of killing, but is still driven by his rage and this time commits a non-mortal beating.

Something DID change in him. His conscience DID make an appearance and remind him that he was being inhuman. He DID attempt to change his behavior to lessen the impact on his victim.

Now surely nobody here is foolish enough to say that acknowledging the above is tantamount to endorsing assault and battery! That’s rather obviously atrociously sinful in and of itself. But recognizing the harm that sin causes to others and attempting to limit that harm IS a first step towards repentance. It hasn’t matured yet, but IS a step.

 

[prstoessel]

Now surely nobody here is foolish enough to say that acknowledging the above is tantamount to endorsing assault and battery!

Only the mainstream media would be. But only if our Holy Father said it.

Headline News: “Pope advocates severe beatings of rape victims…”

Very well said.