Media Distorts Pope’s Position On Condoms in Africa

[jpm1977]

Now getting back to your question. If the daughter tearfully is sorry, she will understand, and hopefully you will too, that by committing a sin, she is going to have to pay the consequences. Neither of you will like it, but it’s better than paying the consequences eternally in Hell, don’t you think? Would you rather suffer on this earth with something like HIV (God forbid) and then go to Heaven or would you like to commit sin constantly with protection and not suffer the consequences until you will be forced to suffer them eventually in the afterlife?

I wish I could get you to understand what I’m trying to say. But if this attempt has not worked, then I’m afraid nothing I write further on the matter will either. Maybe I’m just having an off-day today on the forums. It happens…

You seem to imply that the hypothetical daughter will go to Hell if she used (or allowed to be used) a condom, but that’s not necessarily the case. Its a false dichotomy to assume the choices are: 1) Have sex, get AIDS and die but go to Heaven, or 2) have sex, use a condom (maybe) don’t gets AIDS, live longer, then go to Hell. Sex is not more or less forgivable than use of a condom. A true and proper confession absolves all sin, mortal or venial.

So if the incident happens when the daughter is 17, and then when she’s 19 she sees the error of her ways, truly repents, confesses and is absolved, then she’s not on her way to Hell no matter if she used a condom or not, correct? So if that were the case, isn’t she and her hypothetical family going to be happy that she used that condom? Was it a sin? Yes. Might it have saved her life? Also yes. So, what’s better, a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, catches AIDS, confesses, repents and dies at 30, or a a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, but avoids catching AIDS, confesses, repents and lives a long life and has a big, beautiful Catholic family later in life?

I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late, but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.

(I know condoms are not 100% effective, but were talking about a reduction in risk, not a certainty).

 

[Snerticus]

You seem to imply that the hypothetical daughter will go to Hell if she used (or allowed to be used) a condom, but that’s not necessarily the case. Its a false dichotomy to assume the choices are: 1) Have sex, get AIDS and die but go to Heaven, or 2) have sex, use a condom (maybe) don’t gets AIDS, live longer, then go to Hell. Sex is not more or less forgivable than use of a condom. A true and proper confession absolves all sin, mortal or venial.

So if the incident happens when the daughter is 17, and then when she’s 19 she sees the error of her ways, truly repents, confesses and is absolved, then she’s not on her way to Hell no matter if she used a condom or not, correct? So if that were the case, isn’t she and her hypothetical family going to be happy that she used that condom? Was it a sin? Yes. Might it have saved her life? Also yes. So, what’s better, a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, catches AIDS, confesses, repents and dies at 30, or a a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, but avoids catching AIDS, confesses, repents and lives a long life and has a big, beautiful Catholic family later in life?

I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late, but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.

(I know condoms are not 100% effective, but were talking about a reduction in risk, not a certainty).

Yes I see your point, but no it’s still a sin. If she was sorry she had sex and repented, yet not sorry she used a condom, and therefore didn’t repent of that sin, then she hadn’t fully repented, had she? If she did fully repent and used a condom and perhaps was glad not to get an STD because of use of the condom, that’s kind of splitting hairs if she also repented to using the condom. I don’t know if it would warrant Hell, but it certainly could warrant a bit longer stay in Pergatory.

 

[Snerticus]

I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late

No, why it’s wrong is they think they can do it at all.

but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.

It also makes it possible for those who commit incest to avoid any physical repercussions thereof and return to the flock too, but I don’t see anyone advocating the use of condoms in incestuous acts. I mean c’mon, if your going to commit the sin of incest, you might as well be protected, right? I’m trying to be fececious here while proving a point…

 

[jpm1977]

No, why it’s wrong is they think they can do it at all.

It also makes it possible for those who commit incest to avoid any physical repercussions thereof and return to the flock too, but I don’t see anyone advocating the use of condoms in incestuous acts. I mean c’mon, if your going to commit the sin of incest, you might as well be protected, right? I’m trying to be fececious here while proving a point…

On the contrary, I think every secularist in the world would cheer the incestor’s use of a condom. After all, consider the plight of the 9 year old in Brazil. If her step-father (I think it was) had used a condom, she might not have gotten pregnant, had the abortion, etc. To a secular mind, the condom should be used in every kind of sexual intercourse except when one decides to have a child, so yes I think it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow anywhere outside the Catholic Church to suggest someone in an incestuous relationship used a condom. I dare say even many Protestants would hold that view. (“Well, at least he made sure she wouldn’t get pregnant…”).

And, although you may be horrified, I would say the same thing. If anything, in the case of incest with a girl, it’s an easier argument because its rape, not a consensual sin where the woman has some complicity and arguably should accept the risk. Rape is a sin, and the person being raped is not committing a sin by being raped because they are not undertaking an act of will. So in that case, I think it would obviously be better if the rapist or incestuous person used a condom to spare the victim of the crime the added injury of disease or the chance of a pregnancy that might tempt her to the sin of abortion.

I would think if a man with HIV was raping a woman without HIV, it might be a sin for him not to use a condom. After all, if he rapes her, that’s one sin, but if she gets infected and dies as a result, now he has likely committed murder as well.

 

[jpm1977]

Yes I see your point, but no it’s still a sin. If she was sorry she had sex and repented, yet not sorry she used a condom, and therefore didn’t repent of that sin, then she hadn’t fully repented, had she? If she did fully repent and used a condom and perhaps was glad not to get an STD because of use of the condom, that’s kind of splitting hairs if she also repented to using the condom. I don’t know if it would warrant Hell, but it certainly could warrant a bit longer stay in Pergatory.

I don’t think we really are in disagreement on the confession point. I can understand the slippery slope arguments as far as condom use on the grand scale, its only on the interpersonal level in a place where there is so much disease that gives me some grief.

We can’t know others’ mental states and so we should leave it to God to judge, but I would hope that everyone would see the light!

 

[RobbyS]

You seem to imply that the hypothetical daughter will go to Hell if she used (or allowed to be used) a condom, but that’s not necessarily the case. Its a false dichotomy to assume the choices are: 1) Have sex, get AIDS and die but go to Heaven, or 2) have sex, use a condom (maybe) don’t gets AIDS, live longer, then go to Hell. Sex is not more or less forgivable than use of a condom. A true and proper confession absolves all sin, mortal or venial.

So if the incident happens when the daughter is 17, and then when she’s 19 she sees the error of her ways, truly repents, confesses and is absolved, then she’s not on her way to Hell no matter if she used a condom or not, correct? So if that were the case, isn’t she and her hypothetical family going to be happy that she used that condom? Was it a sin? Yes. Might it have saved her life? Also yes. So, what’s better, a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, catches AIDS, confesses, repents and dies at 30, or a a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, but avoids catching AIDS, confesses, repents and lives a long life and has a big, beautiful Catholic family later in life?

I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late, but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.

(I know condoms are not 100% effective, but were talking about a reduction in risk, not a certainty).

*I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late, but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.
or avoid repercussions and continue on her" merry" way? I think you are presuming on the mercy of God. It is more likely to leave her hardened.

The raw truth about the condom is brought out by looking at its history. It was developed to prevent whores from getting pregnant. At the time, there was high morality rate among whores, higher than in the most primitive villages today. Brothels resorted to the condom not to prevent disease but to prevent pregnancies that took the girls out of service and saddled them with the care of kids, or resulted in their deaths.
It is a birth-control devise that only incidentally helps prevent disease.

 

[Doc2be]

You seem to imply that the hypothetical daughter will go to Hell if she used (or allowed to be used) a condom, but that’s not necessarily the case. Its a false dichotomy to assume the choices are: 1) Have sex, get AIDS and die but go to Heaven, or 2) have sex, use a condom (maybe) don’t gets AIDS, live longer, then go to Hell. Sex is not more or less forgivable than use of a condom. A true and proper confession absolves all sin, mortal or venial.

So if the incident happens when the daughter is 17, and then when she’s 19 she sees the error of her ways, truly repents, confesses and is absolved, then she’s not on her way to Hell no matter if she used a condom or not, correct? So if that were the case, isn’t she and her hypothetical family going to be happy that she used that condom? Was it a sin? Yes. Might it have saved her life? Also yes. So, what’s better, a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, catches AIDS, confesses, repents and dies at 30, or a a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, but avoids catching AIDS, confesses, repents and lives a long life and has a big, beautiful Catholic family later in life?

I can see that the mere availability of condoms makes its easier for some to fall into the trap of promiscuity, because they think they can do it without consequences until it is too late, but it also makes it possible for those who sin to avoid physical repercussions thereof, and return to the flock.

(I know condoms are not 100% effective, but were talking about a reduction in risk, not a certainty).

From what I gather it seems that it isn’t about repentance from sin or changing of ways in your little scenario…

If she got AIDS from not using a condom, that is a responsibility of her actions previously. The sin my be gone, but the physical body is not the same as the spiritual soul

If she used a condom and did not get AIDs then went to confession and changer her life…great. Her is life is no better or worse for using the condom or not at this point.

Yet, you take it one step further…

Might it have saved her life? Also yes. So, what’s better, a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, catches AIDS, confesses, repents and dies at 30, or a a youthful daughter or son who sins in their youth, but avoids catching AIDS, confesses, repents and lives a long life and has a big, beautiful Catholic family later in life?

You assume that it is for this life that we live. If she catches AIDs or not it does not matter as long as she lives her life for God. There is no gray area…we make the gray area because we want our “easy out’s”. God’s way is hard, detachment from this world is hard, but not impossible. So, if she repented and went on to lead a good life, then she wouldn’t care if she got AIDs because Jesus wouldn’t see her diseased body but her glorified body in heaven. So much of this is, IMHO, worthless rambling about a "gray area of protection’. We can not live for this life and Heaven, you can not serve both God and mammon.

So to answer your question, I would rather have a son or daughter that truly leads a life that is worthy of heaven, no matter if they have AIDs or not. We should never allow the enabling of sin (sex outside of marriage) just to make some parts of life easier. Relativism is a short road to eternal death.

Those are my 2 cents.

 

[mapleoak]

Why can’t he say something like:

“Let me be clear the Church teaches that sex should be kept within marriage and this is the best way to combat AIDS. However, if someone chooses to reject the Church’s teaching and sin by having sex outside of marriage, use of a condom is better than not using one. It is not 100% safe, but it is better than using nothing at all.”

I can guarantee you will never, ever hear the Church teach something like this.

I mean, isn’t that what the Vatican is effectively going to say in the form of “clarifications” later that will get no press.I mean no, you will never ever hear the Church teach something like this.

I am sometimes baffled at the Pope’s and the Vatican’s use of obtuse, hard to understand language. John Paul I spoke more straightforwardly. I know the Pope is German and most of those in the Vatican are Italian, but it shouldn’t be that hard to speak in a direct way.

It can be baffleing to someone when he hears the Church speak unambiguosly about a truth rather than teaching what he wants to hear.

 

[mapleoak]

As far as the murder/gun analogy, I think its a closer analogy to say: Assaulting someone is a sin, but if you’re going to assault someone, would you at least use your fists instead of a knife dripping with HIV infected blood. The fists will result in injury, but likely not death; the knife might result in just an injury, but will more likely lead to death. Murder is worse than assault, so please try to limit the damage of your sin of assault so that it doesn’t end in death.

Is that condoning assault? I think not. If my analogy is off please tell me, but I think it stands to reason.

You are really suggesting the Pope should say something as ignorant as this parallel analogy?

 

[jpm1977]

You are really suggesting the Pope should say something as ignorant as this parallel analogy?

If the analogy doesn’t hold up, please tell me how. If it does, its a valid way to make an argument.

 

[mapleoak]

If the analogy doesn’t hold up, please tell me how. If it does, its a valid way to make an argument.

Yes, it is a valid argument to show how ludicrous it is to say the Pope should condemn the use of condoms while at the same time using a “if you’re gonna do it anyways” bit.

 

[fix]

I don’t see how it logically follows that acknowledging that condoms reduce the chance of passing along HIV equates to condoning sin. Could someone walk me through that logical progression?

For one thing encouraging condom use is encouraging people to continue acting badly. That is a sin.

 

[jpm1977]

For one thing encouraging condom use is encouraging people to continue acting badly. That is a sin.

That only begs the question. There is a distinction between encouraging condom use and acknowledging the in individual situations, if used properly, they can reduce the risk of transmission of a disease. To hint that they are totally ineffective can encourage people to not use them at all, exacerbating the AIDS problem in Africa. The continent will not convert overnight and become practicing Catholics. Until they do, there are a lot of statements that could be made that would stop short of “encouraging” condom use, but recognize what the device does and does not do.

 

[Doc2be]

That only begs the question. There is a distinction between encouraging condom use and acknowledging the in individual situations, if used properly, they can reduce the risk of transmission of a disease. To hint that they are totally ineffective can encourage people to not use them at all, exacerbating the AIDS problem in Africa. The continent will not convert overnight and become practicing Catholics. Until they do, there are a lot of statements that could be made that would stop short of “encouraging” condom use, but recognize what the device does and does not do.

What condoning condom use does:

It says that we accept that, as a people, Africans are below human standards and have no hope of controlling themselves. It admits that they have no choice in having sex or spreading HIV/AIDs and that we must lower our standards to help them.

If we support a means that stops the spread of disease which is against the Gospel message of Jesus Christ then yes we support a means that if it does not directly cause sin then it directly supports a sinful lifestyle. What kind of Church or God, who is all-loving and all-merciful, would support a sinful lifestyle.

If you truly meditate and contemplate what Jesus would do in this situation. Would he go to Africa and hand out condoms saying I know you won’t be able to control yourself and I just want to help you not spread this disease. NO! I would love to hear how you could justify that with any message in the Gospel or Tradition.

Jesus, as He does through His Church/Holy Spirit, urges the people to rise above their sinful nature and reach out and help each other. Do not help each other continue to live in sin but to rise above the evils of the day and truly heal the continent!

I agree, this will not happen over night, but it will be quicker if people see constancy and a true love of their spirit and person. I would have more faith in someone who had more faith in me…the Church expresses more faith by acknowledging the fact that each and every person in Africa has a choice to rise above their situation if they buy turn to God for Strength…we do not condemn anyone to a disease or situation. We just have more hope than a society that depends upon human reasoning and logic to solve problems.

Something to think about.

 

[fix]

That only begs the question. There is a distinction between encouraging condom use and acknowledging the in individual situations, if used properly, they can reduce the risk of transmission of a disease. To hint that they are totally ineffective can encourage people to not use them at all, exacerbating the AIDS problem in Africa. The continent will not convert overnight and become practicing Catholics. Until they do, there are a lot of statements that could be made that would stop short of “encouraging” condom use, but recognize what the device does and does not do.

No. To teach others to sin and act unjustly is wrong. Wrong morally and wrong medically.

Condoms do not protect in the manner you seem to be claiming. If there were no sin invloved and you could prove one time use in one particular circumstance would save a life then you would have a point. But, we know several facts.

1. The ends never justify the means. We do not commit intrinsically evil acts to acheive a good end.
2. The condom culture invites people to continue acting wrongly mistakenly thinking the magic condom will save them. In fact, it allows people to keep doing wrong and keep risking the chance of transmission.
3. Support for condoms supports the manufacturer to keep making items intended to further a bad action. Also, morally worng.