Pope Benedict's comments on condom use

[JonNC]

I think the Janet Smith article is excellent for folks who may be confused about what Pope Benedict said.

A couple of questions though:

Why does the media (or Protestants, for that matter) even care what the pope thinks or says? If the Church is so obviously out of step with the “real” world, why would they even bother to misrepresent Church teaching?

Man! it’s tough bein’ th’ big dog!

Well, Mark, I personally care a lot about what Pope Benedict thinks. My reason for starting the thread was to get the opinions of my Catholic firends here, such as yourself, since I trust the opinions here far more than that of the media (or of the loudest of the protestants in our cutlure, for that matter).

Jon

 

[mark_a]

I would like to believe if the Catholic Church focused on its own issues, within its “own walls,” so to speak, there might be less scrutiny.

The scrutiny goes with the territory. Misrepresentation of the pope’s remarks is just plain wrong.

But, your church also likes to involve itself in the secular or “real” world, especially, recently, in secular politics.

You betcha. Especially when the culture is headed to hades.

Do you think Church leadersip should not lead Catholics?

Should we take the JW approach of disengaging from society and let everyone else fight the battles while we enjoy the benefits?

It’s tough bein’ th’ big dawg!

 

[mark_a]

Well, Mark, I personally care a lot about what Pope Benedict thinks. My reason for starting the thread was to get the opinions of my Catholic firends here, such as yourself, since I trust the opinions here far more than that of the media (or of the loudest of the protestants in our cutlure, for that matter).

Jon

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the way my post seemed to blast your question.

I did understand that you were asking for Catholic opinions, much in the way I might wonder about recent developments among Lutherans. But I read the whole thread and a couple of articles before responding to your question and must admit my mind had wondered from the op.

Once again, I’m sorry.

 

[edwest2]

For those who think the Pope was somehow unwise, I can only refer to another ‘incident’ over which there was much freaking out. An article written by Cardinal Schoenborn published in the New York Times in 2005.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1

After the article appeared, Cardinal Schoenborn wrote that he expected a certain amount of misunderstanding. This led to some fruitful dialogue between him and some critics.

But, once again, it is the media that seeks to distort. Does anyone think that the Pope should keep silent about an important issue even if he knows the media will distort it and thereby confuse some people?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mark_a]

For those who think the Pope was somehow unwise, I can only refer to another ‘incident’ over which there was much freaking out. An article written by Cardinal Schoenborn published in the New York Times in 2005.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1

After the article appeared, Cardinal Schoenborn wrote that he expected a certain amount of misunderstanding. This led to some fruitful dialogue between him and some critics.

But, once again, it is the media that seeks to distort. Does anyone think that the Pope should keep silent about an important issue even if he knows the media will distort it and thereby confuse some people?

Peace,
Ed

I think I agree with your point. In fact, I wonder if the same reasoning applies to the seeming lack of action against pro-abort politicians.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the way my post seemed to blast your question.

I did understand that you were asking for Catholic opinions, much in the way I might wonder about recent developments among Lutherans. But I read the whole thread and a couple of articles before responding to your question and must admit my mind had wondered from the op.

Once again, I’m sorry.

No need, Mark. I know the intensity you have for this issue, and as you know, you were the first Catholic brother here that came to my mind regarding the issue. I always value your insight.
And I appreciate the other responses to the thread, as well.

Jon

 

[Marlowann]

That you are free to ingage in sexual activity with no chance of there being any other effects than the feel good of the moment.

Well the purpose of a condom is certainly to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but there is still no guarantee of that occuring, as one in every hundred condom usage results in a pregnancy. I am unsure of the statistics concerning STDs.

So not to give you the impression that I think condom use is justified, but what if a couple who is open and not hostile to the possibility of pregnancy decides to use a condom in the same way that they would use natural family planning, namely, to postpone pregnancy (though not entirely eliminate its chances, since this couple would know that a pregnancy is still possible)?

It would seem that the only significant differences would be that one method of birth control would involve a piece of rubber, and the other would involve a time of the month (or maybe some other method). And it’s certainly perfectly reasonable to assume that each party would still have a mind to mutually give their selves to their spouse in the act of consummating their marriage.

So why is it that a condom invalidates this?

 

[mark_a]

So why is it that a condom invalidates this?

Because you are interfering with the way God designed the act. Why is it that one would choose a condom over nfp? A condom certainly does nothing to enhance the experience.

Here’s a good article that explains the Jewish roots of the Catholic teaching and how Protestantism has turned a blind eye:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

My signature links to an article about Luther’s and Calvin’s vehement opposition to contraception.

They must be spinning in their graves.

 

[Reuben_J]

What the condom does is so much the same in purpose as that of the sin of Onan. While Onan spilled the seed on the ground, one who uses the condom spills it on the condom. Here are quotes from Luther and Calvin about it (borrowed from the other thread). What strikes me is that both Luther and Calvin did not hold their language as they espoused the evil of this sexual act.

*Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21) – Martin Luther

**“the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” **– Martin Luther (Commentary on Genesis)

**It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born . . . Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. *(Commentary on Genesis [38])- John Calvin

touchstonemag.com/archive…id=20-04-020-f

 

[una_fides]

Well the purpose of a condom is certainly to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but there is still no guarantee of that occuring, as one in every hundred condom usage results in a pregnancy. I am unsure of the statistics concerning STDs.

So not to give you the impression that I think condom use is justified, but what if a couple who is open and not hostile to the possibility of pregnancy decides to use a condom in the same way that they would use natural family planning, namely, to postpone pregnancy (though not entirely eliminate its chances, since this couple would know that a pregnancy is still possible)?

It would seem that the only significant differences would be that one method of birth control would involve a piece of rubber, and the other would involve a time of the month (or maybe some other method). And it’s certainly perfectly reasonable to assume that each party would still have a mind to mutually give their selves to their spouse in the act of consummating their marriage.

So why is it that a condom invalidates this?

I was on a long discussion thread on this very topic with a Lutheran who was quite stuck in his ways of thought. The difference in the two is not merely intention but the act itself. NFP is natural. There is no alteration of the conjugal union between the spouses. It only involves abstinence, which itself can be a good thing as promoted by St. Paul if done with mutual consent for a time. Condoms, however, alter the marital act itself and insert an artificial barrier to prevent the purpose of the act. NFP by the way is only permitted in cases of grave necessity because to use the natural cycle with the intention of not getting pregnant one must have a grave cause to do so, but nothing can justify the actual altering of the physical act of marriage itself designed by God in order to cripple his creative abilities through artificial means.

 

[una_fides]

But, once again, it is the media that seeks to distort. Does anyone think that the Pope should keep silent about an important issue even if he knows the media will distort it and thereby confuse some people?

I’m sorry but I don’t think that this situation involving a prostitute using a rubber is really worth explaining. It’s a theological deduction that does not justify the act of using the rubber, which is evil just as the act of sex outside of marriage is evil. What practical reasons could possibly necessitate saying that such a prostitute could be demonstrating a beginning of responsibility to use a condom if they are going to continue having sex? They are still not being responsible or treating sex in the manner in which it should be treated, and seriously how many prostitutes do you think are going to read that and then say “hey I guess I should start out by using a condom so that I can then more greatly appreciate mankind and stop being a prostitute altogether”? It serves no real purpose except that now the media is lying and exaggerating and blowing this whole thing out of proportion as if the pope officially made an announcement to the whole Church that condoms are okay for certain circumstances, which he most certainly did not do!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well the purpose of a condom is certainly to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but there is still no guarantee of that occuring, as one in every hundred condom usage results in a pregnancy. I am unsure of the statistics concerning STDs.

So not to give you the impression that I think condom use is justified, but what if a couple who is open and not hostile to the possibility of pregnancy decides to use a condom in the same way that they would use natural family planning, namely, to postpone pregnancy (though not entirely eliminate its chances, since this couple would know that a pregnancy is still possible)?

It would seem that the only significant differences would be that one method of birth control would involve a piece of rubber, and the other would involve a time of the month (or maybe some other method). And it’s certainly perfectly reasonable to assume that each party would still have a mind to mutually give their selves to their spouse in the act of consummating their marriage.

So why is it that a condom invalidates this?

Not geting pregnant because you are not haveing sex equated with not getting pregnat because you use a condom. You honestly do not see a difference? The difference is that with a condom you put up an artifical barrier you have reduced yourself and your parnter to noting more that objects to be used by the other. Because if you place a barrier between you and your spouce you can not give yourself to one another as there is ( and this is the important word here) BARRIER.

 

[una_fides]

Not geting pregnant because you are not haveing sex equated with not getting pregnat because you use a condom. You honestly do not see a difference? The difference is that with a condom you put up an artifical barrier you have reduced yourself and your parnter to noting more that objects to be used by the other. Because if you place a barrier between you and your spouce you can not give yourself to one another as there is ( and this is the important word here) BARRIER.

Just to answer other possible objections before they are raised…
In the case of the pill, the “barrier” would be the unnecessary medication taken with the intention of not conceiving. The pill can also be an abortifacient. Abstaining from sex intentionally during fertile times is not sinful if done for a grave reason. Artificial contraception used for its own sake is always sinful.

 

[una_fides]

I found a good article that does a great job putting the pope’s comments in perspective.
And here is Sacred Heart Major Seminary professor Janet Smith’s illustration of the technical point the pope was actually making, which touches on the question of what philosophers and theologians call subjective intention: **If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would be better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it [for that] would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. **But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.
nationalreview.com/articles/253679/deflating-nyt-condom-scoop-george-weigel
Excellent analogy!

 

[Marlowann]

Because you are interfering with the way God designed the act. Why is it that one would choose a condom over nfp? A condom certainly does nothing to enhance the experience.

Enhancement of the experience aside, people use condoms to secure their chances of avoiding pregnancy more greatly.

Please understand, I am not necessarily in favor of condom usage. I ask questions because I am curious, not because I’m thinking about becoming a protestant.

Here’s a good article that explains the Jewish roots of the Catholic teaching and how Protestantism has turned a blind eye:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

My signature links to an article about Luther’s and Calvin’s vehement opposition to contraception.

They must be spinning in their graves.

Certainly very significant that the Protestant church’s founders were so vehemently opposed to contraception, and I shall probably use these links in argument with some protestants to see how they react.

However, even if I were protestant, that would not be thoroughly convincing. Luther and Calvin themselves probably would be frustrated with present protestants for reasons that have little to do with their own “Protestant authority,” which according to protestant doctrine seems to be no greater than any other believer.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Not geting pregnant because you are not haveing sex equated with not getting pregnat because you use a condom. You honestly do not see a difference?

Of course I do, please do not treat me like a fool. My question pertained to the significance and meaning of the difference.

oneGODoneCHURCH:

The difference is that with a condom you put up an artifical barrier you have reduced yourself and your parnter to noting more that objects to be used by the other.

That much is a slippery slope, because objects cannot emotionally and mentally give themselves to each other, while human beings in cases of condom usage still can. You might argue that it is an incomplete giving of oneself, but you cannot argue that condom usage automatically reduces the spouses’ behavior to pure selfishness. That’s an exaggeration

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Because if you place a barrier between you and your spouce you can not give yourself to one another as there is ( and this is the important word here) BARRIER.

But the barrier is physical, not an emotional one.
una fides:

NFP by the way is only permitted in cases of grave necessity because to use the natural cycle with the intention of not getting pregnant one must have a grave cause to do so, but nothing can justify the actual altering of the physical act of marriage itself designed by God in order to cripple his creative abilities through artificial means.

I find it very interesting that you mention how the Church requires a grave intention for NFP to be justified. Many protestants might need to hear this much more than the usual “it’s interfering with God’s design,” as they usually don’t even mention grave intentions for NFP when arguing against the Catholic perspective; most of them seem to be ignorant of that factor.

 

[Marlowann]

Excellent analogy!

Agreed.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The Pope did NOT say that condom use was acceptable as long as the intent was to avoid the spread of disease. His comments were less about the intent as about the use of the object (condom). He used an example of a male prostitute using a condom to prevent the spread of HIV. In that scenario, the condom would not have ANY contraceptive effect or action. It isn’t the latex that makes a condom immoral; it’s the fact that it’s a contraceptive that makes it immoral. A condom used by a male prostitute would not be a contraceptive.

Best analysis I have read so far:

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

Why do women not use male prostitutes?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

If this is the true statement of the pope, it is a dangerous one in my opinion. if he says it is ok for some, mostly likely it will be ok for everyone. the modernists can wait for something like that to happen so they can run with it. condoms is immoral in any circunstances and should be no exception. i hope that this was a distortion of what the pope really said for the sake of the Church.

I thought the whole idea of condoms being bad was that it prevented the possibility of the creation of life, which always must be affirmed. However, if two intrinsically disordered individuals are going at it like rabbits and using condoms what does it matter? Does the prohibition still stand since their union could never result in the possibility of creating life?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

i wish i knew what this means.
** As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”**

condoms are imoral because it facilitates and promotes free sex and that is what makes it imoral.

I disagree wisdomseeker. I think that is what is at issue. Whether one is using condoms or not, people are still having sex even with the risk of spreading disease. I think the moral choice becomes isn’t it better to preserve life rather than end a life since the act is going to take place whether the condom is present or not?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

What’s the purpose of condom? Its either for birth control, illicit sex, prevention from sexual disease as in homosexual activity. None of these are allowed by the Church; in fact on the contrary. If we understand the Church’s position on this there is no way that condom should be allowed.

So a condom can only be used in the prevention of sexual disease as in a homosexual activity, because only homosexuals have HIV? What if you have a married sero-discordant heterosexual couple? Should they not be allowed to use a condom? Or should they remain celibate for their married lives? Or should they not use a condom and risk the other person catching HIV? Or should HIV+ people only be allowed to marry other HIV+ people?