Pope Benedict on Condoms in "Light of the World"

[Corki]

If you read the full story, which I know nobody does anymore, they did a great job of putting the quotes into context. I read this story both as a Catholic and a journalist, so maybe I just was able to read into it a little more than non-journalists. Either way, though, this is a rare AP story because I didn’t come away shaking my head at horrible reporting.

They may have put quotes into context but they didn’t “get” the message. These two paragraphs (from the AP article) show that they are looking at this condom reference in terms of contraception. And that’s the wrong message.

The Vatican’s ban on contraception remains, but Alberto Melloni, an Italian church historian, said Benedict “opened without a doubt a crack that cannot help but have consequences.”

Benedict stepped where no pope has gone since Paul VI’s famous 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” barred Catholics from using condoms and other artificial contraception. Pressure to lift the ban has grown with the spread of the HIV virus, which has infected some 60 million people worldwide and led to 25 million AIDS-related deaths over three decades.

 

[edwest2]

A clarification has been issued: No Change.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325

Peace,
Ed

 

[sidbrown]

Please read the Janet Smith analysis in the OP. The AP story gets it wrong too.

The reason the Pope discusses the example of male prostitution is that, in that case, a condom has NO contraceptive effect. It is simply a way to reduce the spread of infection.

A condom is a piece of latex. It is only immoral in its use. Used as a barrier between a man and woman, it is immoral. Used as an infection barrier where there is no contraception is occurring it is not. You can use it as a water balloon and it wouldn’t be immoral either since there is no contraceptive action.

But the Vatican website mentions female prostitutes. Is it better now to use a condom when having sex with a female prostitute?
“Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione,…”
vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/text.html#13

 

[centurionguard]

Corki wrote:

What the Pope really says in his new book.

catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=220ope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

Quote:
The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.
I don’t think anyone has posted Janet Smith’s analysis yet. Now, let’s get some sanity back.

…

The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

What Moral Responsibility?

Even Medical Experts and huge companies that produce and market condoms agree that the (“Condom”) has Never been an (“Absolute”) against avoiding Pregnancy or contracting HIV during Sexual Intercourse or Acts of Sodomy between both Homosexual’s and Heterosexual couples. Condoms are meant to be a preventative, not an absolute. Condoms can and do easily tear during acts of sex.

Maybe I’m missing something here…how can there ever be an evolutionary growth that indicates a selfless sense of moral responsibility in preventing harm in a married, single or homosexual couples using condoms to prevent pregnancy or HIV during sexual intercourse or acts of sodomy?

 

[manualman]

What the pope is simply saying is that when a promiscuous person recognizes the danger their actions put others and themselves into and in recognition of that danger wish to make a CHANGE in their behavior, THAT is the first step towards moral responsibility. The condom is a shortcut, cheater solution that makes promises it can’t fulfill (especially because even at its ideal best it only prevents some physical consequences of promiscuity and ZERO spiritual conssequences). But when the motivation to use one is the consideration of the wellbeing of others, that IS a step forward on the part of the sinner.

As catholics, we don’t see sin as binary like many protestants. There ARE varying levels of sinfulness. Making an attempt (even a feeble one) to try to avoid harm to others DOES reduce the sinfulness of an act.

Nobody ought to misread this. It doesn’t legitimize promiscuity or OK condom use. Nobody applauds when a man stop beating his wife and merely berates and belittles her instead, even if it IS an improvement of limited sorts. Same thing here.

 

[mlund]

The man who authored the forward to Light of the World offers some insight into both what the Pope wrote and how the New York Times yet again misrepresented what was said and written to their own agenda.

nationalreview.com/articles/253679/deflating-nyt-condom-scoop-george-weigel

The anti-Catholic media never ceases to amaze me with their unique mix of ignorance and malice.

• Marty Lund

 

[edwest2]

If Benedict XVI’s words are taken out of context as some are claiming, how will the headlines from the secular media shape your church’s teaching? The reason I ask is because somehow after Vatican II, word got out that women didn’t have to veil themselves anymore. I heard or read somewhere that the Vatican never really said that, but just went along with it. Will the Vatican just go along with this?

In Christ,
Andrew

We don’t use or need the secular media to shape the Church’s teachings. On the other hand, the pagan secularist media loves to sow confusion which is not our fault.

No, the Vatican has issued a statement clarifying it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bookcat]

zenit.org/article-31026?l=english

 

[Corki]

In the same vein as Dr. Smith’s analysis, here are two other very good articles.

The first is by Pia de Solenni, a moral theologian.

So, to clarify, he’s not endorsing condoms. He’s saying that it could be the first step of a particular individual to realize that their action is wrong. His example of a male prostitute is very particular. The Church doesn’t believe that male prostitution is a good thing; so it’s not going to endorse anything that would facilitate the behavior even if it’s ostensibly with the good intention of protecting one’s self or another. That good intention doesn’t change the nature of the behavior itself.

piadesolenni.com/pope-oks-condoms/#more-1016

The second by Jimmy Akin:

ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?

Also Phil Lawler, at Catholic Culture, has an analysis of what’s going on at L’Osservatore Romano who broke a media embargo and started this whole media circus:


http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

Pope Benedict has not changed the Church’s teachings, or even intimated that they might be subject to change. The Holy Father has not called for a new debate on the morality of contraception. He has not suggested that condom use might sometimes be morally justifiable.

Yet today millions of people around the world believe that the Pontiff has changed Church teaching, has opened the question of contraception for debate, and has justified condom use in some circumstances. How did that happen?