Media Ignores Truth in Reporting on Pope and Condoms

[Abyssinia]

This past weekend, in a particularly embarrassing journalistic feeding frenzy, the mainstream media fell all over itself to see who could most egregiously misquote Pope Benedict XVI.

For those who are unaware of the “controversy”: On Saturday the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published an excerpt from an upcoming book, Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times. The book, which is slated to be released in English by Ignatius Press tomorrow, is essentially a long interview with Pope Benedict by journalist Peter Seewald. In it, Seewald engages Benedict in a discussion of the Church’s take on condom use, particularly in Africa.

The editors at the usually reliable L’Osservatore Romano made two critical errors.

First, they decided that they would be the only major news source in the world to violate the book’s strict press embargo, releasing Italian-language excerpts from the book before the official launch date. Secondly, they inexplicably decided that they would only publish a tiny segment of Benedict’s statements on condom usage, without any context whatsoever.

Here is the quote that has drawn so much attention:

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. 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.

This paragraph doesn’t strike me as at all ambiguous. Benedict is merely pointing out that when people like prostitutes use a condom, it can be seen as a faint glimmer of responsibility, a tiny baby step on the road to moral recovery. And he goes on to explicitly rule out condoms as a solution to HIV/AIDS, pointing out that the epidemic will only end when human sexuality is understood in its proper context of faithful and responsible human love

Full: lifenews.com/2010/11/24/opi-1019/

 

[Los_Angeles]

The media got it wrong becuase they think that the personal views of the Pope make official Catholic doctrine, when they do not.

Our beliefs do not change every time a Pope espouses his personal views. We as Catholics follow the official Catholic doctrine e.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church. What the Pope said does not change official Catholic doctrine regardless of how it is interpreted.

This reminds me of when President Obama spoke at Notre Dame. I did not agree with the Presidents speech on abortion, and just because he was allowed to speak at a Catholic University, does not mean that it is official Catholic doctrine.

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

 

[TomKat27]

To me it seems obvious that the Pope is not saying anything to do with how babies are made

He clearly states that the prostitutes using the condoms are MALE - where there is no chance of conceiving since a male prostitute does not sleep with females?

Does anyone agree with me?

 

[Catholic1954]

The media ignores the truth in most stories, if they can stir up conterversy by fudging the facts or clouding the issues with histeria.

 

[edwest2]

At present, the media is primarily selling fear and misdirection. Since the major media outlets are primarily Leftist in orientation, any comment that could be used to undermine Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular, must be used for psychological warfare purposes. Deception and confusion go hand in hand.

Unfortunately, in a world that is used to getting answers in under 0.5 seconds on google, we must realize the Church does not work that way. Just as Cardinal Schoenborn caused an uproar five years ago in statements he made in the New York Times about the subject of evolution and the Church. I think we should realize that in order to sell newspapers, the media believes it’s OK to go sensationalistic. In 2000, veteran reporter and news anchor, Walter Cronkite, told Larry King that he greatly disliked what he called the tabloidization of the news. News as entertainment might be more fun or interesting to watch but how will we have a well informed people if we do not go beyond a few sound bites?

I think the internet is actually making people dumber, especially when opinions get elevated to fact status when they are based on incomplete or inaccurate information. If we want the truth, we will have to work at it as some have done here. We can no longer rely on the media having our best interests at heart.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

At present, the media is primarily selling fear and misdirection. Since the major media outlets are primarily Leftist in orientation, any comment that could be used to undermine Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular, must be used for psychological warfare purposes. Deception and confusion go hand in hand.

Ed, you’re a lot smarter guy than to be one who believes that paranoid stuff.

 

[Ghosty]

Sadly people are missing the follow-up question that directly followed the oft-quoted portion.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

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.

If this portion had been quoted, the controversy would be dead where it started.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BobCatholic]

The leftstream media never gets religion right.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sadly people are missing the follow-up question that directly followed the oft-quoted portion.

If this portion had been quoted, the controversy would be dead where it started.

Peace and God bless!

I dont see how this quote is going to help. basically what i see here is that the pope says that the Church does not accept but it is ok for them to use. how is this good? plus the title of the Book doesnt help the situation either. how is the use of condoms by male prostitutes lead to morality if condoms promotes free sex and all? isnt free sex imorality?

 

[tester]

To me it seems obvious that the Pope is not saying anything to do with how babies are made

He clearly states that the prostitutes using the condoms are MALE - where there is no chance of conceiving since a male prostitute does not sleep with females?

Does anyone agree with me?

I do not agree

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that condoms are sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS can apply to anyone – gays, heterosexuals and transsexuals – if that is the only option to avoid transmitting the HIV virus to others, the Vatican said Tuesday.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi made the clarification because the German, English and French versions of the book used the male article when referring to a prostitute, but the Italian version used the female form.

"I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘No’," Lombardi said.
“The point is it (condom use) should be a first step toward responsibility in being aware of the risk of the life of the other person one has relations with,” he said.

"If it is a man, a woman or a transsexual who does it, we are always at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other."

 

[Ghosty]

I dont see how this quote is going to help. basically what i see here is that the pope says that the Church does not accept but it is ok for them to use. how is this good? plus the title of the Book doesnt help the situation either. how is the use of condoms by male prostitutes lead to morality if condoms promotes free sex and all? isnt free sex imorality?

The Pope didn’t say it was “ok to use”, he said the exact opposite. He specifically and very clearly said it was not moral.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I do not agree

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that condoms are sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS can apply to anyone – gays, heterosexuals and transsexuals – if that is the only option to avoid transmitting the HIV virus to others, the Vatican said Tuesday.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi made the clarification because the German, English and French versions of the book used the male article when referring to a prostitute, but the Italian version used the female form.

"I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘No’," Lombardi said.
“The point is it (condom use) should be a first step toward responsibility in being aware of the risk of the life of the other person one has relations with,” he said.

"If it is a man, a woman or a transsexual who does it, we are always at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other."

The problem here is that the Pope never said they were moraly justifiable. He said the exact opposite, in fact. Yes, they are a first step towards responsibility, but the Pope also says explicitely that they are not a moral solution.

Personally I see how it could be justified under certain circumstances without violating Catholic moral teaching, but that’s not what the Pope has said yet.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you’re a lot smarter guy than to be one who believes that paranoid stuff.

Rich,

I work in the media. News is manipulated. I’ve seen it firsthand. In the past, newsfeeds were not electronic but physical. I was at a newspaper office as news literally came in over the wire as a printout. They get to pick and choose what goes in and what doesn’t see print.

Sorry Rich. I hate to break it to you but newspaper editors can be very influential. They make friends with big business types and tend to avoid printing stories that might hurt their buddies. Or advertisers, who might get angry and simply pull their ads. Newspapers run on advertising dollars.

Those are the facts, Rich.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abyssinia]

I do not agree

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that condoms are sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS can apply to anyone – gays, heterosexuals and transsexuals – if that is the only option to avoid transmitting the HIV virus to others, the Vatican said Tuesday.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi made the clarification because the German, English and French versions of the book used the male article when referring to a prostitute, but the Italian version used the female form.

"I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘No’," Lombardi said.
“The point is it (condom use) should be a first step toward responsibility in being aware of the risk of the life of the other person one has relations with,” he said.

"If it is a man, a woman or a transsexual who does it, we are always at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other."

Pope Benedict XVI did NOT approve the use of prophylactics by homosexuals, heterosexuals or transexuals to prevent the spread of HIV. The secular media took his words OUT OF CONTEXT and whenever you TAKE A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT YOU GET A PRETEXT. “Pope OK’s Condoms” appeared on one cable network while another said “Vatican Allows Everyone to Use Condoms” to "Pontiff Says Certain Circumstances Warrant Condom Use"All of these are FALSE.

Consider this:
all acts of rape are gravely evil, immoral and sinful that is true and no one would debate it, would they? How about this statement? intentionally infecting someone with a disease is also evil, immoral sinfulNow, if someone were to say better a rapist to wear a condom and not infect his victim with a venereal disease does that DE FACTO translate into the person saying condom use makes rape acceptable ? Of course not. That a rapist who previously never used condoms but knew he had AIDS now all of a sudden begins to use condoms to prevent infecting his victims is still committing heinous evil (rape) but he is showing a sign of moral improvement insofar as he does not want to infect an innocent victim with a deadly disease. But it is not construed as a green light for rapists to attack women just so long as they use condoms.

Similarly, the Pope was NOT approving condom use. He was saying it can be a sign of moral improvement that someone engaged in immoral sexual intercourse is at least trying to prevent infecting a person with a deadly disease. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Rape is always wrong. All sex outside of marriage be it between an unmarried man and unmarried woman or between two men or two women. Yet, if someone has a VD, not only should they do everything to prevent spreading the disease, they should also ABSTAIN FROM ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Rapists have no right to rape. Sex is not a right but a privilege of marriage which is a covenant between one man and one woman. Married sex must be oriented to love (unity) and life (procreation) otherwise it is sinful behavior. Contraceptive sex is immoral just as in vitro fertilization.
If a bank robber handed out bullet proof vests to the customers and employees at the bank would that make his act of robbery acceptable? Of course not. Handing out condoms to prostitutes may prevent venereal disease but it also promotes immoral activity since the removal of the threat of physical harm can tempt many to give in to temptation. No immediate consequences to actions leads some people to fool themselves that evil actions can sometimes be tolerated.Why not give condoms to teenagers in high school? Most are having sex anyway? Could condom use lure some who would normally abstain now try “protective sex”? How about just saying NO? As draconian as it sounds, human beings are able and have been able to abstain from sex until marriage for millennia.THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFIES THE MEANS and the MEANS NEVER JUSTIFIES THE ENDSex outside marriage is immoral. Contraceptive sex is immoral. Spreading venereal disease is immoral. Having children outside of marriage is immoral.

Abortion is a grave evil. Obviously, giving birth as an unwed mother is far better than killing the innocent life of the unborn via abortion. Nevertheless, the BETTER scenario is for unmarried people NOT to have any sex and for married people to practice Natural Family Planning rather than use contraceptives.The Church condemns suicide. She also condemns terrorism. If a terrorist chooses to kill himself rather than kill innocent victims, it is a lesser evil and he is showing some moral movement in the right direction, but no one can construe that as a blanket endorsement of suicide. Better if the terrorist kill NO ONE, neither innocent victims nor himself. Better he repent and reform from his evil ways ALL THE WAY.Pope Benedict was merely making a moral statement that someone already involved in evil and sinful activity shows signs of moral improvement when they choose the lesser of two evils.

HOWEVER, any and all evil should be avoided. Why not give clean needles to college students so they will not get infections from tripping on heroin? How about not doing drugs at all? Why not have wives give their husbands a condom whenever he goes out of town for a business trip? Is it not better he not impregnate someone he is not married to OR that he not bring home a VD?

blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2010/11/condomania.html

 

[Abyssinia]

I do not agree

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that condoms are sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS can apply to anyone – gays, heterosexuals and transsexuals – if that is the only option to avoid transmitting the HIV virus to others, the Vatican said Tuesday.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi made the clarification because the German, English and French versions of the book used the male article when referring to a prostitute, but the Italian version used the female form.

"I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘No’," Lombardi said.
“The point is it (condom use) should be a first step toward responsibility in being aware of the risk of the life of the other person one has relations with,” he said.

"If it is a man, a woman or a transsexual who does it, we are always at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other."

Part two:

How about he remain chaste in marriage at all times?Imagine a parent discovered their child is the local bully. He beats younger children up. What is the proper behavior to be sought? Is it not that Junior STOP his belligerent and violent actions? Or would it be acceptable if the parents got their son to move from physical violence to mere verbal and emotional violence? When compared, there is the lesser of evils, but there is also the reality that all abuse is evil and UNACCEPTABLE. Some is worse than others but we cannot tolerate ANY abuse. A sliding scale is not good enough. However, if you are the counselor advising the parents, you can say to them that a movement away from physical violence to only verbal abuse is an improvement BUT IT CANNOT STOP THERE. Likewise, use of condoms compared to indiscriminate and prolific sex is less evil than unrestricted promiscuity but it is not good enough to stop at that level. The final goal must be what is GOOD and not what is just less evil.The Pope did NOT promote condom use. He made a comment on an evil situation which could be less evil in one way but ultimately the BEST way is to avoid all immoral and evil acts COMPLETELY.

blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2010/11/condomania.html

 

[DawnInTexas]

…The outcome of his remarks, printed prematurely without permission and proper context by the Vatican’s own newspaper, was foreseeable: it has been used to justify the use of condoms as contraception. A simple search of the main story reveals a potpourri of nonsensical misinterpretations of the actual truth…

…***For the days of sifting are growing more intense and the choice for or against the truth is becoming more defined by the hour ***until, some day, it will be definitive—and then the Church will be handed over to her enemies as was Christ, her Head…

Click Here: The Pope, a Condom, and the Purification of the Church

The Wheat is being Sifted from the Chaff. Can you see it?
Remain obedient to Pope Benedict XVI.
God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[OriginalJS]

Isn’t the Pope just saying that condoms can be used to prevent disease but not to prevent pregnancy?

 

[DawnInTexas]

Isn’t the Pope just saying that condoms can be used to prevent disease but not to prevent pregnancy?

From the link I posted above (Mark Mallett), under THE POPE AND THE CONDOM STORM :

…First, Pope Benedict said nothing antithetical to Church teaching in the casual interview printed in a new book, Light of the World. He made a technical point that a male prostitute using a condom, so as to prevent infection, is making “a first step in the direction of a moralization.” Think of an evil executioner choosing to use the guillotine instead of lethal torture to reduce the pain of his victim. The execution is still immoral, but represents “a first step in the direction of a moralization.” Benedict’s remarks are not an approval of the use of contraception but a commentary on the progression of morality in a dulled conscience…

Males.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Holly3278]

They’re blind, what else can be said? The Mainstream Media and all other cronies involved with them are a good example of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Ghosty]

Isn’t the Pope just saying that condoms can be used to prevent disease but not to prevent pregnancy?

He’s not even saying that, in fact. He excplicitely said that condoms are not a moral solution to the spread of disease. All he said was that the use of condoms by someone with AIDS shows a growing moral awareness and concern for others on their part, and that development is good and encouragable.

I believe that the Pope would have been justified in saying that condoms are ok to use in certain circumstances, but that’s not what he said in the book.

Peace and God bless!