Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apollos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve just seen this article too, on the BBC News website. I think the problem is that people will take any statement that the Pope or the Magisterium will make and try to make it sound like a much bigger deal than it is. Did Pope Benedict XVI say that “condoms are fine, everyone can start using condoms” now? Or, did he say that yes, sometimes it is permissable to use one to stop AIDS? Obviously, he said the latter example, which would be in extreme circumstances. And I have just found a quote from the Pope that further demonstrates this reasoning:

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes."

And as demonstrated in the above quote, assuming that the male prostitute is homosexual, then the condom stops being contraceptive, therefore continuing to exemplify that the Catholic Church is against contraception. Sadly, there will be those who could try to use this against the Church, but it will be folly.

😃
 
NCR:

by John Allen, who is an excellent reporter even though he works for the Reporter. This article is more comprehensive than I’ve seen in the press.
The comments from Benedict come in a book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald titled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, published in English by Ignatius Press.
Excerpts from the Seewald interview were published today by L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.
Click to expand...
[so these quotes come from a pro-Benedict biography]
Click to expand...
The question of condoms arises in chapter eleven, in the context of Benedict’s March 2009 journey to Africa. That trip was largely overshadowed by controversy over comments the pontiff made to reporters aboard the papal plane, to the effect that condoms actually make the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.
Click to expand...
Benedict is clearly still annoyed by that reaction, saying he felt he was being “provoked” by the question about condoms. The suggestion was that the church is indifferent to HIV/AIDS, when in reality “the church does more than anyone else,” Benedict says.
Click to expand...
Benedict goes on to say that his point was simply that one cannot solve the problem of HIV/AIDS merely by distributing condoms, something that even secular AIDS experts would concede.
Click to expand...
While broadly defending traditional Catholic teaching against artificial birth control, Benedict also suggests that in some limited instances the use of a condom might be morally defensible.
“In this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” the pope says.
Click to expand...
Benedict offers the example of a male prostitute. In that situation, he says, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of 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.”
Click to expand...
Beyond the question of prostitution, many mainstream Catholic moral theologians have also argued for the moral acceptability of condoms in the case of a married heterosexual couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other is not. In that set of circumstances, theologians have argued, condoms would be acceptable since the aim is not to prevent new life, but to prevent infection.
Click to expand...
 
If it’s a matter of homosexual spreading of AIDS, this is a ridiculous. The homosexual act itself is “disordered.” It’s not accepted by the Church, period, condoms or not.

On the other hand, if it’s a matter of heterosexual marriage, then this decree allows the couple to use condoms if for those reasons. However, this seems to contradict Humanae Vitae, albeit for different reasons.
 
Seriously, condoms are now okay, and it would seem so is male prostitution.
 
I ask this in all seriousness with no note of cynicism…am I the only one who sees this as a step in the wrong direction? Doesn’t this sort of undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church?
 
irishpatrick said:
Seriously, condoms are now okay, and it would seem so is male prostitution.
Click to expand...
The Pope didn’t say that at all. The Pope simply said that male prostitutes will do what they do, and people will still be their customers. But by using a condom, at least the spread of AIDS will be contained. If a sin is going to be committed no matter what, why not at least try to contain its effects?

The Pope never said condoms are OK. He never said dumping tons of condoms onto African nations will stop AIDS. He simply said that the use of a condom would contain the effects of a wanton sinner upon others who didn’t partake in the sin.

Others (not the Pope) say condoms are OK if used to stop the spread of AIDS in a marriage. By definition, a married couple must plan to have sex or else the marriage is invalid. But if one partner has AIDS, then how could they have sex without a condom? So I like this, but the Pope wasn’t talking about this.
 
MarianD said:
The Pope didn’t say that at all. The Pope simply said that male prostitutes will do what they do, and people will still be their customers. But by using a condom, at least the spread of AIDS will be contained. If a sin is going to be committed no matter what, why not at least try to contain its effects?

Others (not the Pope) say condoms are OK if used to stop the spread of AIDS in a marriage. By definition, a married couple must plan to have sex or else the marriage is invalid. But if one partner has AIDS, then how could they have sex without a condom? So I like this, but the Pope wasn’t talking about this.
Click to expand...
Should the logic not go: Male prostitution is immoral? Period.

It reminds of the situation in which parents tell kids, “do not have sex,” but them tell them if they do, “here are some condoms just in case.” The parents are giving indirect permission in those cases.
 
HCC said:
I ask this in all seriousness with no note of cynicism…am I the only one who sees this as a step in the wrong direction? Doesn’t this sort of undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
That is how I am seeing it as well. It is sort of like saying, " we know you are going to sin, so be as careful as you can when you choose to do those sins."

I would think the more strong statement of love would be something like, “we know you will sin, and we rrefuse to affirm you in that sin because we care about your soul and we care about your earthly life as well.”
 
My hope is that somehow the Pope’s words have been misrrepresented…again.
 
I cannot believe this…I really feel like I am dreaming this and I’ll wake up and go, “Oh thank God that was just a dream.” I’d really like clarification on this, it is almost unbelievable. I am very sad right now after reading this. The consequences on so many levels could be disastrous and the danger to souls that is involved. These are the times where I start to think, perhaps Archbishop Lefebvre had a point.
 
irishpatrick said:
Should the logic not go: Male prostitution is immoral? Period.

It reminds of the situation in which parents tell kids, “do not have sex,” but them tell them if they do, “here are some condoms just in case.” The parents are giving indirect permission in those cases.
Click to expand...
There should always be a “backup plan”. People will sin, and it’s naive to think otherwise. The least that can be done is to try to contain the effects of such a sin so that innocent people won’t be infected, such as if a man goes to a male prostitute and then to his wife. What has she done to deserve to be infected?
 
MarianD said:
There should always be a “backup plan”. People will sin, and it’s naive to think otherwise. The least that can be done is to try to contain the effects of such a sin so that innocent people won’t be infected, such as if a man goes to a male prostitute and then to his wife. What has she done to deserve to be infected?
Click to expand...
So, your logic than says, “do not sin, but if you do, than go ahead and sin on top of that sin.”
 
HCC said:
I cannot believe this…I really feel like I am dreaming this and I’ll wake up and go, “Oh thank God that was just a dream.” I’d really like clarification on this, it is almost unbelievable. I am very sad right now after reading this. The consequences on so many levels could be disastrous and the danger to souls that is involved. These are the times where I start to think, perhaps Archbishop Lefebvre had a point.
Click to expand...
Popes have done things a lot worse than say that condoms could be used to stop a sinner from forcing others to feel the effects of his sin.

Even then, the Pope is always entitled to his own opinion and what he said in an interview isn’t an ex cathedra statement.
 
irishpatrick said:
My hope is that somehow the Pope’s words have been misrrepresented…again.
Click to expand...
Maybe but the effect would be the same.

I still remember the “conscience” clause in Progressio Populorum. They used that to trump anything else that would come out of the Vatican, including Humanae Vitae.
 
MarianD said:
Popes have done things a lot worse than say that condoms could be used to stop a sinner from forcing others to feel the effects of his sin.

Even then, the Pope is always entitled to his own opinion and what he said in an interview isn’t an ex cathedra statement.
Click to expand...
Very good points. However, the global media will take this to the fullest extreme and soon many Catholics will believe that the Pope said it is okay to use condoms (and in a way, he did).
 
^ Yeah, that’s true. Unfortunately, it’s already happened. I was watching CNN report it and the anchorwoman said that it means a change in Catholic beliefs. Not too many people understand exactly how doctrine works in the Church.
irishpatrick said:
So, your logic than says, “do not sin, but if you do, than go ahead and sin on top of that sin.”
Click to expand...
No, the logic is “Do not sin, but do not make others permanently suffer from your sin if you do”
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe but the effect would be the same.

I still remember the “conscience” clause in Progressio Populorum. They used that to trump anything else that would come out of the Vatican, including Humanae Vitae.
Click to expand...
Sadly, very good point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top