Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[Flavius_Aetius]

Are you aware of what you are implying? If a rape-baby is “a gift from God” then a rapist is doing God’s will. You agree with that?

Please shut it already! The life that is the child is a gift from God like all children are, a rapist is following their own will of forcing themselves into power over another individual.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Are you aware of what you are implying? If a rape-baby is “a gift from God” then a rapist is doing God’s will. You agree with that?

“RAPE-BABY”? What are you doing? Why are you using such a nasty term to describe a human being? That term is almost as bad as “womb-squatter.”

Oh yes, that is what I’m implying. Absolutely. Rapists are doing God’s will. So are murderers, robbers, and everyone else who goes against God’s Law.

Please note: Sarcasm filter has been disabled.

---

OK, the Sarcasm filter has been turned on again.

What don’t you understand about the conception of a child via rape? Is that child worth less than one who is conceived in the love of her parents? Or is that child worth the same? Your use of the term “rape-baby” is not only extremely offensive, but indicates that you believe a child conceived via rape is indeed worth less than one conceived in her parents’ love.

And I do believe you are quite confused about Church teaching. I’m also beginning to wonder if this particular subject is hurtful to you because of some experience you or someone you love has gone through.

Tell ya what. Why don’t you start a new thread about this subject and let the rest of us get back to the topic of this thread? The moderator has already posted one warning.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Two links for everyone to read…
Pope Benedict advocates right sexuality, not condom use, in fight against HIV
tinyurl.com/2dkbfxx
Pope Benedict XVI discusses condoms and the spread of HIV
tinyurl.com/27xs2qs

I would tend to trust the Catholic Sources, instead of Secular Sources. since we’re talking about something Pope Benedict said, and Catholic Doctrine and Morals don’t change just because we whine and complain and cry like a bunch of two-year olds demanding our candy…

In Christ, Michael

 

[LittleSoldier]

Two links for everyone to read…
Pope Benedict advocates right sexuality, not condom use, in fight against HIV
tinyurl.com/2dkbfxx
Pope Benedict XVI discusses condoms and the spread of HIV
tinyurl.com/27xs2qs

I would tend to trust the Catholic Sources, instead of Secular Sources. since we’re talking about something Pope Benedict said, and Catholic Doctrine and Morals don’t change just because we whine and complain and cry like a bunch of two-year olds demanding our candy…

In Christ, Michael

Well said!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please shut it already! The life that is the child is a gift from God like all children are, a rapist is following their own will of forcing themselves into power over another individual.

I guess his post means we can’t return to the topic of this thread.

 

[jerryson]

“RAPE-BABY”? What are you doing? Why are you using such a nasty term to describe a human being?

Oh yes, that is what I’m implying. Absolutely. Rapists are doing God’s will. So are murderers, robbers, and everyone else who goes against God’s Law.

Please note: Sarcasm filter has been disabled.

What don’t you understand about the conception of a child via rape? Is that child worth less than one who is conceived in the love of her parents? Or is that child worth the same? Your use of the term “rape-baby” is not only extremely offensive, but indicates that you believe a child conceived via rape is indeed worth less than one conceived in her parents’ love.

And I do believe you are quite confused about Church teaching. I’m also beginning to wonder if this particular subject is hurtful to you because of some experience you or someone you love has gone through.

First off, how is “rape-baby” offensive? It is accurate, is it not? And in my very first response to you I said very clearly that any child is a human being with rights, so don’t you dare start putting words in my mouth and claim I said otherwise. And yes, there are some rapists who do what they do with the intention of impregnation, and if they read what you have been writing so far they will be smiling and patting themselves on the back.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Could you not argue now, that a couple where one is HIV positive, that using a condom would be okay because you are preventing the other from getting HIV, therefore saving that person death?

I know that using a condom is not 100%, but now the gray area has appeared.

I understand what you’re saying but heterosexual couples must always be open to the possibility of life. Condom use can prevent conception. So condoms cannot be used by heterosexual couples, even if one is HIV positive.

It’s a sad situation. I know it sounds trite to say that it’s a cross to bear but I have to say it’s a cross to bear.

 

[LittleSoldier]

First off, how is “rape-baby” offensive? It is accurate, is it not? And in my very first response to you I said very clearly that any child is a human being with rights, so don’t you dare start putting words in my mouth and claim I said otherwise. And yes, there are some rapists who do what they do with the intention of impregnation, and if they read what you have been writing so far they will be smiling and patting themselves on the back.

WILL YOU PUHLEEZE EITHER SHUT UP OR START A NEW THREAD? Some of us want to discuss the topic of this thread. OK?

Note: Charity filter has gone haywire and is now broken.

 

[jerryson]

WILL YOU PUHLEEZE EITHER SHUT UP OR START A NEW THREAD? Some of us want to discuss the topic of this thread. OK?

Note: Charity filter has gone haywire and is now broken.

Never mind the fact you started it, and never mind the fact you are avoiding my questions, but whatever…

 

[Abyssinia]

I understand what you’re saying but heterosexual couples must always be open to the possibility of life. Condom use can prevent conception. So condoms cannot be used by heterosexual couples, even if one is HIV positive.

It’s a sad situation. I know it sounds trite to say that it’s a cross to bear but I have to say it’s a cross to bear.

And nothing that the Pope has said has changed this?

 

[European2010]

Viva Il Papa Benedetto!

My thoughts:

If I read it correctly, the Pope basically says condoms are not a real or moral solution and if a male prostitute has used a condom, this may be an awakening in the morals of the prostitute that his behaviour is not good and not everything is permitted.

Ergo, there is no change in teaching of course and it’s all a much ado about nothing in the media. The problem is the media of course which has run with this to try and discredit the Church (again!) as with Regensberg.

Do you remember a few years ago after the Papal Christmas Address to the Curia, the media printed lies that the Pope (2008) had called “for a defense of heterosexuality, which he suggested was as endangered as the rainforest” And he said nothing of the sort!

e.g The BBC website has headlines such as this:

“Pope’s condom comments welcomed”
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804943

Of course, one wonders if the Pope should not have been prudent and said little, but when when do we let ourselves be dictated to by worries over what the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian media will do?

I always new something like this would happen - the Pope has the courage to say what he thinks and not nuance or dissemble like our godless politicians.

From other news sites

*
  NEWS.com.au Pope says condoms may reduce infection 52 mins ago
*
  Jakarta Post Pope says some condom use 'first step' of morality 7 hrs ago
*
  The Independent Pope signals historic leap in fight against Aids: Condoms can be justified 9 hrs ago
*
  Daily Express Pope approves use of condoms 9 hrs ago
*
  CBC Pope says condom use justifiable at times 13 hrs ago

 

[Abyssinia]

What the Pope Really Said About Condoms

The headline around the world was that the Pope was finally allowing the use of condoms in certain circumstances. The news came after an Italian newspaper broke an embargo on a book-length interview with Benedict XVI by the German journalist Peter Seewald, perhaps the only popular interlocutor whom the Pontiff, in his previous role as a Cardinal, has cooperated with on such a scale.

Benedict’s so-called condom concession was not a huge one. He still proscribes the use of condoms as contraception (as he does the birth control pill). His specific example, that of a male prostitute choosing to use a condom in a conscious choice to prevent HIV infection, is couched as “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.” Benedict seems to imply a scale of good and bad intentions — from the indiscriminate use of condoms and other contraceptives to the idea of preventing the spread of AIDS to following the teachings of the Catholic Church. Condoms are not the ultimate solution or the prescribed Catholic way, he reiterates, though Benedict allows that there is little the church can do to prevent anyone from acquiring condoms. Still, he insists that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality… the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love.”

Read more: time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2032433,00.html#ixzz15uTcgONU

Another simple explanation I found was:

I won’t do it justice- but from an NFP standpoint, all I can say is: if a homosexual (with or without AIDS) is having **** sex, isn’t he already in grave sin? For that matter, is the condom even contraception?

If he had AIDS, what would make it worse would be infecting his partner. This would be a grave evil.

theologyofthebody.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-did-not-say-condoms-were-ok.html

The Pope seems to have been very intellectual about it, the intention etc. It seems to me that Pope Benedict is against contraception in any circumstance where it could be used as a contraceptive. But regarding the male prostitute example, what about if the male prostitute had sex with a woman? Should he use a condom then?

 

[inocente]

But regarding the male prostitute example, what about if the male prostitute had sex with a woman? Should he use a condom then?

According to the following interpretation a condom is morally preferable to spreading disease for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

*Although Pope Benedict reiterated the Church’s fundamental opposition to contraception, and repeated his view that condoms were not the answer to curbing HIV, he added that there was much in the area of sexual ethics that needed to be pondered and expressed in new ways.

Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of the Catholic Voices group, said that while this was the first time the Pope had voiced such an opinion on condoms, it was in line with what Catholic moral theologians have been saying for many years.

“The Church’s teaching on contraception predates the discovery of Aids,” Mr Ivereigh told the BBC news website.

"The prevalence of HIV raised the question of whether condoms could be used to prevent the transmission of the virus.

“If the intention is to prevent transmission of the virus, rather than prevent contraception, moral theologians would say that was of a different moral order.” - BBC

 

[antoniont1]

I think I’m already seeing misrepresentations of our Pope’s words everywhere in the media (like NYT - not that I read it, but the headlines which appear in my Google News)

 

[Thyme]

I read these statements before. Whoever made them clearly doesn’t understand Catholicism.

Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of the Catholic Voices group, said that while this was the first time the Pope had voiced such an opinion on condoms, it was in line with what Catholic moral theologians have been saying for many years.

It’s hard to believe that a “Catholic” moral theologian wouldn’t know about Papal infallibility.

“The Church’s teaching on contraception predates the discovery of Aids,” Mr Ivereigh told the BBC news website.

Seing God doesn’t change His opinion on anything, the Church never will.

"The prevalence of HIV raised the question of whether condoms could be used to prevent the transmission of the virus.

“If the intention is to prevent transmission of the virus, rather than prevent contraception, moral theologians would say that was of a different moral order.” - BBC

Of course it’s a different moral order. If someone has sex without the intent of pro-creation, then they’re not a practicing Catholic.

 

[Santi2]

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, 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. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.”

I think the Holy Father’s message is not nuanced at all but, continues to stress that the most effective means of reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS are calls to abstinence, sexual morality and fidelity. He merely stressed that the onus is on the person to seriously consider the risks.

 

[baylee]

Of course it’s a different moral order. If someone has sex without the intent of pro-creation, then they’re not a practicing Catholic.

So, I ask again: How is this different from a heterosexual couple who has sex but the woman uses birth control pills for medical reasons? This couple still intends on procreation, but the reality is that the pill could prevent that from happening. The Church allows for the use of the pill for medical reasons.

Instead, here we have a heterosexual couple and the man has HIV. He wears a condom with the intent of preventing the transmission of his disease (medical reason again) to his wife. They still intend to procreate, but the condom could prevent that from happening.

The only real difference I see there is that the pill is more likely to prevent contraception than the condom.

 

[sharmin]

No, that’s not it either because in the act, BOTH partners are sinning…the person contracting AIDS from an infected person is already sinning…the AIDS is a consequence of that sin.

That said, I agree with the pope, that sometimes condoms can be used.

 

[K-McD]

While I’m not going to read all 14 pages, (sorry, I don’t have the time), has anyone here brought up the point that condoms don’t help in the prevention of AIDS. As I understand it, the HIV virus is smaller than the sperm and could go through the walls of the condom. If my assumptions are correct, (and I’m asking those closest to this topic to support or refute my statement), then B16’s statement is based on faulty science and it would seem he was caving to pressure. I don’t have resources to back up my statement, it is based on the different Life Sites that I’ve heard on the radio over the years.

 

[Abyssinia]

So, in summary, the important things to note here are:

1. The Pope did not actually say that condoms are the answer to the fight against HIV
2. The Pope DID say that condoms are NOT the right response to HIV
3. The Pope said that there CAN be SINGLE cases in which condom use MAY be justified (this is nothing new by the way, moral theologians have been making such assertions for years)
4. Some major international news outlets are reporting that the Pope used the example of MALE prostitutes (as opposed to prostitutes of all genders), and they referred to him making reference to conception not being an issue for these male prostitutes, which indicates that he is referring to gay male prostitutes.
5. In the example of the male prostitutes, the Pope makes references about intention, which alludes to the fact that the intention behind the condom use is vitally important when judging whether their use is justified or not (which, once again, is Catholic moral theology 101 folks)
6. When talking of these male prostitutes using condoms, the Pope talks about this condoms use as being a ‘first step TOWARDS moralization’, in other words it is an exception that is merely the first part of a movement away from the ‘condoms, condoms, condoms’ approach to human sexuality, rather than the ONLY step that a male prostitute should be making if they want to make their behavior moral. His statements clearly indicate that these male prostitutes would eventually move away from condom use and prostitution altogether in the future stages of this progression. This seems to indicate that the Pope has in mind that this exception should only be a short term thing, rather than a general moral principle that one could live by for ever and a day.

familylifenz.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/despite-what-the-secular-media-is-saying-the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/