Pope Benedict advocates right sexuality, not condom use, in fight against HIV [CNA]

[CNA_News]

feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6t0-SNfhlLQlztO4Hv7maUFFkbA/0/di
feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6t0-SNfhlLQlztO4Hv7maUFFkbA/1/di

Vatican City, Nov 20, 2010 / 07:39 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Excerpts of Pope Benedict XVI’s new book are already causing a stir. Though some media reports claim he offers a change in papal teaching about condom use, Pope Benedict in fact says that a humanized sexuality, not condoms, is the right response to HIV.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/B9Pn4dj3s3c

Full article…

 

[Annie39]

feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6t0-SNfhlLQlztO4Hv7maUFFkbA/0/di
feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6t0-SNfhlLQlztO4Hv7maUFFkbA/1/di

Vatican City, Nov 20, 2010 / 07:39 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Excerpts of Pope Benedict XVI’s new book are already causing a stir. Though some media reports claim he offers a change in papal teaching about condom use, Pope Benedict in fact says that a humanized sexuality, not condoms, is the right response to HIV.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/B9Pn4dj3s3c

Full article…

I read the article. I still believe it to be a “stunning turn around”.

Sadly,
Annie

 

[JaredR]

Annie, have you read the actual text? This is not a turn around at all. I have read the text of the interview, and the pope has not said anything people have claimed. I don’t even know how they pulled off this massive distortion of the Holy Father’s words. Read the text and you’ll see.

Compare these two scenarios to understand what the pope is saying in the interview:

SCENARIO A: A single mother doesn’t care about her two starving kids, but one day she decides to take responsibility for them. She starts selling her body for sex so she can afford to feed her children. Her intention to provide for the children is the first step towards moralization because she recognizes that she does not live for herself alone. However, prostitution is not a real or moral solution to her problems.

SCENARIO B: An HIV-positive prostitute has sex indiscriminately and does not care whom he infects, but one day he decides to take responsibility for his disease. He decides to start wearing condoms. His intention to reduce the risk of infection in his clients is the first step towards moralization because he recognizes that not everything is permissible and that he must assume responsibility for the good of others. However, condoms are not a real or moral solution to the evil of HIV infection.

Peace,
Jared

 

[Annie39]

Annie, have you read the actual text? This is not a turn around at all. I have read the text of the interview, and the pope has not said anything people have claimed. I don’t even know how they pulled off this massive distortion of the Holy Father’s words. Read the text and you’ll see.

Compare these two scenarios to understand what the pope is saying in the interview:

SCENARIO A: A single mother doesn’t care about her two starving kids, but one day she decides to take responsibility for them. She starts selling her body for sex so she can afford to feed her children. Her intention to provide for the children is the first step towards moralization because she recognizes that she does not live for herself alone. However, prostitution is not a real or moral solution to her problems.

SCENARIO B: An HIV-positive prostitute has sex indiscriminately and does not care whom he infects, but one day he decides to take responsibility for his disease. He decides to start wearing condoms. His intention to reduce the risk of infection in his clients is the first step towards moralization because he recognizes that not everything is permissible and that he must assume responsibility for the good of others. However, condoms are not a real or moral solution to the evil of HIV infection.

Peace,
Jared

I told you that I read the article. And, Jared, have you ever heard of situation ethics?

Catholic 101, it is NEVER permissible to do evil to achieve a good result.

I haven’t posted on CA for a long time and only read it from time to time due to time constraints. But this issue is one of the most important ones in my estimation.

Annie

 

[Snerticus]

I don’t see it as a stunning turnaround at all. The pope is not saying it’s okay to use condoms, he’s giving a very specific example of how doing so might be a ‘lesser evil’ than not. A ‘step towards moralization’ (as the article states) is not all of a sudden becoming moral, it’s just pointing in the right direction *toward *that goal.

I think the public is going to very much misinterpret this one… I’ve already seen one headline that says “Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV”. That’s not the message he’s giving at all, but I can bet you most people are going to interpret his words as a blanket permission and I can foresee him clarifying his statements in the near future.

 

[JaredR]

I told you that I read the article. And, Jared, have you ever heard of situation ethics?

Catholic 101, it is NEVER permissible to do evil to achieve a good result.

I haven’t posted on CA for a long time and only read it from time to time due to time constraints. But this issue is one of the most important ones in my estimation.

Annie

Annie, you are not understanding. Holy Father is not saying that the use of condoms is permissible. He is saying that intention to reduce the risk of infection is the first step towards moralization, but that the chosen solution is not a “real or moral” one. If you have truly read the text, you will know that nowhere does the Holy Father suggest that the use of condoms is permissible. On the contrary, he emphasizes that contraception is NOT a solution to the AIDS problem.

EDIT: I was referring to the text of Pope Benedict’s interview, not the article in the original post.

 

[Student09]

I told you that I read the article. And, Jared, have you ever heard of situation ethics?

Catholic 101, it is NEVER permissible to do evil to achieve a good result.

I take issue with Jared’s first scenario. A better analogy would be:

SCENARIO A: A female prostitute with two children doesn’t care about her children and leaves them starving at home while she is out on the street. One day she has a change of heart and decides to feed her children using some of the money earned from prostitution.

She was already making money by means of prostitution, so by feeding her children she is not adding another evil. See? She’s not doing evil to achieve a good result because she was already doing the evil. No one is applauding that evil, certainly not the pope, merely saying that less evil is better than more evil. Very different situation.

The reason contraception (eg. condoms) is evil is that it prevents conception and separates the sexual act from the possibility of procreation. But since a homosexual male prostitute’s sexual acts are already separated from the possibility of conception, the condom doesn’t actually add an evil to the existing evils; rather, it reduces the possibility of infection.

(I think this is what you meant to say, Jared - but this example is more analagous to what the pope is actually saying. God bless you!)

 

[TheWatcher]

I take issue with Jared’s first scenario. A better analogy would be:

SCENARIO A: A female prostitute with two children doesn’t care about her children and leaves them starving at home while she is out on the street. One day she has a change of heart and decides to feed her children using some of the money earned from prostitution.

She was already making money by means of prostitution, so by feeding her children she is not adding another evil. See? She’s not doing evil to achieve a good result because she was already doing the evil. No one is applauding that evil, certainly not the pope, merely saying that less evil is better than more evil. Very different situation.

The reason contraception (eg. condoms) is evil is that it prevents conception and separates the sexual act from the possibility of procreation. But since a homosexual male prostitute’s sexual acts are already separated from the possibility of conception, the condom doesn’t actually add an evil to the existing evils; rather, it reduces the possibility of infection.

(I think this is what you meant to say, Jared - but this example is more analagous to what the pope is actually saying. God bless you!)

Minor issues with your analogy.

1. The children are still potentially at risk from infection/disease from the prostitute, from contact with infected samples. (As if, she were to get roughed up and her children were to come into contact with her blood)
2. The children are still potentially at risk from reduced care, due to the prostitute becoming infected/diseased. If she has full-blown aids, she can’t care for her children as well as when she was healthy.

Would it not be less-evil to reduce the risk to the children?

If she cares so little about her children that feeding them is on a whim, some would argue that it is less-evil to allow her to prevent additional children to born into this circumstance.

I think the problem that so many people are having is wondering who will decide.

 

[larkin31]

Pope Benedict has said the right thing. Most ethics are situational. Any male with AIDS who has sex should do so ONLY with a condom. And that said condom use ameliorates human suffering, and as such is a positive result. The argument is humane.

Will this be perceived as a softening on the position against condom use? Sure. But so what? It is the RIGHT thing to do for this case.

 

[JaredR]

I take issue with Jared’s first scenario. A better analogy would be:

SCENARIO A: A female prostitute with two children doesn’t care about her children and leaves them starving at home while she is out on the street. One day she has a change of heart and decides to feed her children using some of the money earned from prostitution.

She was already making money by means of prostitution, so by feeding her children she is not adding another evil. See? She’s not doing evil to achieve a good result because she was already doing the evil. No one is applauding that evil, certainly not the pope, merely saying that less evil is better than more evil. Very different situation.

The reason contraception (eg. condoms) is evil is that it prevents conception and separates the sexual act from the possibility of procreation. But since a homosexual male prostitute’s sexual acts are already separated from the possibility of conception, the condom doesn’t actually add an evil to the existing evils; rather, it reduces the possibility of infection.

(I think this is what you meant to say, Jared - but this example is more analagous to what the pope is actually saying. God bless you!)

Actually, that is not what I meant to say. I don’t believe the pope is saying, “Well at least condom use doesn’t compound the sin here.” I believe he is saying, “The prostitute has shown a first step towards forming a right conscience by intending to reduce his risk of infecting others, but the solution he has chosen is not moral and it will not solve the HIV crisis.” Just as in my first scenario, the women has shown a first step towards forming a right conscience by intending to take care of her children, but her solution to their poverty is not a moral one, and it won’t solve the problem.

I think the only reason he mentioned male prostitutes is because contraception is usually not expected in these cases since there is no chance of pregnancy resulting from the homosexual act. Therefore, the prostitute’s intention of reducing the risk of HIV infection is purer than someone who also has the selfish motive of preventing life, where the health of others is not the primary consideration.

 

[Student09]

Actually, that is not what I meant to say. I don’t believe the pope is saying, “Well at least condom use doesn’t compound the sin here.”

That’s not what I was suggesting either. I was saying that the pope chose an example in which condoms were *not *acting as a contraceptive, in order to avoid the issue of “the ends justify the means” (in this case, that would mean that the intention of preventing infection justifies contraception). It gets more complicated when one is talking about a heterosexual couple.

I was responding to Annie saying that it is never permissable to do evil to achieve a good result. Which is true. That’s why your scenario was problematic - you can’t applaud a woman prostituting herself (doing an evil) to achieve a good result (feeding her children). It’s not analagous to what the pope said. Period.

We can agree to disagree or whatever.

But

CCC 2399: Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Pope Benedict has said the right thing. Most ethics are situational. Any male with AIDS who has sex should do so ONLY with a condom. And that said condom use ameliorates human suffering, and as such is a positive result. The argument is humane.

Will this be perceived as a softening on the position against condom use? Sure. But so what? It is the RIGHT thing to do for this case.

Males with AIDS shouldn’t be having homosexual sex and there are many who choose to abstain rather than chance infecting others whom they love.

 

[larkin31]

Males with AIDS shouldn’t be having homosexual sex and there are many who choose to abstain rather than chance infecting others whom they love.

Nor should they be having heterosexual sex (not sure why you restricted the remark to gay sex). But, since people have been fornicating for millenia, and the RCC fully knows this and understands this fact of life, the Pope is correct in suggesting that a condom is proper to prevent the spread of that disease and to reduce the human suffering that results from it.

 

[JaredR]

That’s not what I was suggesting either. I was saying that the pope chose an example in which condoms were *not *acting as a contraceptive, in order to avoid the issue of “the ends justify the means” (in this case, that would mean that the intention of preventing infection justifies contraception). It gets more complicated when one is talking about a heterosexual couple.

I was responding to Annie saying that it is never permissable to do evil to achieve a good result. Which is true. That’s why your scenario was problematic - you can’t applaud a woman prostituting herself (doing an evil) to achieve a good result (feeding her children). It’s not analagous to what the pope said. Period.

We can agree to disagree or whatever.

But

We can’t agree to disagree because we’re not disagreeing. I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. I am not applauding the hypothetical woman for prostituting herself. I am (hypothetically) encouraged that she is thinking of someone beside herself for a change. Her intention shows a first step towards morality, even if the solution she chose was immoral.

In his interview, the pope did not applaud anyone. He observed that the intention of the individual is promising but that the solution (or rather non-solution) is misguided.

 

[irishpatrick]

No matter how people want to spin this, the seeming result of what the Pope said is simple really:

There are times when wearing condoms is “BETTER” than not wearing condoms.

 

[Student09]

We can’t agree to disagree because we’re not disagreeing. I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. I am not applauding the hypothetical woman for prostituting herself. I am (hypothetically) encouraged that she is thinking of someone beside herself for a change. Her intention shows a first step towards morality, even if the solution she chose was immoral.

In his interview, the pope did not applaud anyone. He observed that the intention of the individual is promising but that the solution (or rather non-solution) is misguided.

Ok, yeah, we agree. Sorry, I’m sooooo sleep deprived right now!

 

[JaredR]

It’s OK, sis. This is a very nuanced conversation and it’s easy to confuse each other. Just like I misunderstood your post.

 

[averheyen]

No matter how people want to spin this, the seeming result of what the Pope said is simple really:

There are times when wearing condoms is “BETTER” than not wearing condoms.

Which is a ridiculous thing to say. You might as well start saying that giving a young woman who’s “running around” a shot of depro-provera is “BETTER” than the consequences that would result. Some might agree, but that’s not charity in truth. The sifting down of this line of argumentation gets to the point where any of the tennants of the christian faith only really apply to those living lives of devout saints.

I respect and love our holy father, and he’s a much MUCH smarter man that I, but if I of all people can find more holes in his argument (or senerio) then a plate of swiss cheese, there must be something wrong with it.

 

[JaredR]

Which is a ridiculous thing to say. You might as well start saying that giving a young woman who’s “running around” a shot of depro-provera is “BETTER” than the consequences that would result. Some might agree, but that’s not charity in truth. The sifting down of this line of argumentation gets to the point where any of the tennants of the christian faith only really apply to those living lives of devout saints.

I respect and love our holy father, and he’s a much MUCH smarter man that I, but if I of all people can find more holes in his argument (or senerio) then a plate of swiss cheese, there must be something wrong with it.

We must be reading separate texts, because I don’t see the argument that you and irishpatrick are seeing. I see the Holy Father saying nothing new, and that is my sincere reading, not spin or damage control.

 

[Leo1984]

I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. It seems plain enough that the Holy Father is saying that the intent to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV is good, but the use if condoms is not good.

I think the Holy Father is wise enough to know that people need to walk before they can crawl. Sinners often have to work their way to holiness by slowly sinning less and less. So, for a man with AIDS to come to the decision that he should protect his sexual partners from his disease, this is a good intention. However, the use of condoms to accomplish this is not licit. He needs to work his way to holiness one choice at a time. I think HF is simply pointing out that the choice toward morality is good but the chosen method is not good. This is in no way a reversal of Church teaching. In fact, it sounds a lot like “the ends do no justify the means” to me.

The only thing that astounds me is the way the media twists the Holy Father’s words. Well…not too much.