Media Ignores Truth in Reporting on Pope and Condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
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
Click to expand...
🎉:nunchuk::clapping:
 
OriginalJS said:
Isn’t the Pope just saying that condoms can be used to prevent disease but not to prevent pregnancy?
Click to expand...
No. He isn’t. Not even close.

You have to read everything he said and make the logical conclusions.

A. Hypothetical scenario: Man using condom. Condom use wrong both as pregnancy prevention OR even, in a ‘male/male’ situation as a supposed ‘disease prevention.’ Why? Because the sexual actions are themselves wrong, and the use of a condom is often misused to try to ‘justify’ the actions.
B. This man, doing a wrong action (male prostitution) develops a concern for the health of his partner.
The CONCERN is a positive idea. We should all be concerned for the health and well being of all people.
C. Because of the concern, the man thinks, "I will use a condom to keep disease from hurting my partner.
D. Even though ‘concern’ is a good thing, condom use itself is not, and never will, be a good thing. **only RESPONSIBLE SEXUAL ACTIONS ARE GOOD. Male prostitution is NEVER a responsible sexual action. The idea that it would be ‘okay’ to continue with the sex provided the person gets ‘disease protection’ is WRONG and IRRESPONSIBLE. It’s an attempt to justify the sexual acts which are WRONG by making it seem as though only the possible ‘disease’ would be the problem or the moral wrong, and the condom use would ‘fix’ that. **
**E. **So the Pope reminds us. . .even though it is a ‘good’ thing for people to be concerned about others. . .the way we go about it needs to be good. The end is not justified by the means, and condom use is not a moral way to deal with sexual sins. Only the kind of concern which leads to good and proper moral responses (not the use of condoms to give a ‘false security’ can ultimately help humanity.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
No. He isn’t. Not even close.

You have to read everything he said and make the logical conclusions.

A. Hypothetical scenario: Man using condom. Condom use wrong both as pregnancy prevention OR even, in a ‘male/male’ situation as a supposed ‘disease prevention.’ Why? Because the sexual actions are themselves wrong, and the use of a condom is often misused to try to ‘justify’ the actions.
B. This man, doing a wrong action (male prostitution) develops a concern for the health of his partner.
The CONCERN is a positive idea. We should all be concerned for the health and well being of all people.
C. Because of the concern, the man thinks, "I will use a condom to keep disease from hurting my partner.
D. Even though ‘concern’ is a good thing, condom use itself is not, and never will, be a good thing. **only RESPONSIBLE SEXUAL ACTIONS ARE GOOD. Male prostitution is NEVER a responsible sexual action. The idea that it would be ‘okay’ to continue with the sex provided the person gets ‘disease protection’ is WRONG and IRRESPONSIBLE. It’s an attempt to justify the sexual acts which are WRONG by making it seem as though only the possible ‘disease’ would be the problem or the moral wrong, and the condom use would ‘fix’ that. **
**E. **So the Pope reminds us. . .even though it is a ‘good’ thing for people to be concerned about others. . .the way we go about it needs to be good. The end is not justified by the means, and condom use is not a moral way to deal with sexual sins. Only the kind of concern which leads to good and proper moral responses (not the use of condoms to give a ‘false security’ can ultimately help humanity.
Click to expand...
I understand that male prostitution is morally wrong. But that avenue avoids the difficult question. Should the male prostitute use a condom in an effort to prevent the spread of a deadly disease or not? If he does not isn’t that recklessly endangering another? If he does isn’t he showing compassion?
 
OriginalJS said:
I understand that male prostitution is morally wrong. But that avenue avoids the difficult question. Should the male prostitute use a condom in an effort to prevent the spread of a deadly disease or not? If he does not isn’t that recklessly endangering another? If he does isn’t he showing compassion?
Click to expand...
No.
Look at the baseball bat analogy for a mugger.

The mugger is committing a sin.

So is the male prostitute. Sexual sin.

The mugger has ‘compassion’ about ‘recklessly endangering’ another and uses a padded cosh instead of a baseball bat.

The prostitute has ‘compassion’ about ‘recklessly endangering’ another and uses a condom instead of 'not.

So: Is the mugger’s PADDED COSH a moral good? It isn’t, is it? even though the cosh ‘protects’ the person from being knocked senseless, using it is NOT a good thing. Would you say, "oh hey, hit me with the padded cosh’ or would you say, DON’T HIT ME AT ALL? I think you’d say the latter.

Likewise, the condom is not a good either. It might (MIGHT!) offer some protection, but the fact is, NOT ENGAGING IN SEX would offer TOTAL protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top