Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[BlueSprite]

Of course, there is still mortal sin involved. But it wouldn’t make much sense for us to condemn this person’s use of a condom per se.

Exactly…which is why people are wondering whether or not it made sense for the Pope to condone it per se. Ya know? It seems very confusing to people. He probably should have made no comment on it…for how do you isolate a behavior from the whole?

 

[Chukarrushe]

For the fullest excerpt i have found, thanks to Abbysinia, here is the link. If anyone can find more, please post.

catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221ope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

After talking about the evils of AIDS and the situation about condoms and an explanation of his being against condoms(read if you like), here is an excerpt where the controversy and perhaps intentional sophistry comes from.

“” "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 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.
But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. "

“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” “”

The first paragraph it seems is one point of contention. What is he really saying here?

Is the pope really saying that condom use is “the first step” or an “assumption of responsibility” towards moralization? Can condom use be good or allowable? The interviewer seems to interpret him this way and immediately asks him a question that will reiterate what he think the pope means.

QUOTE
“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

Pope Benedict seemingly catches this and clarifies.

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution” - This response eliminates the possibility of having the interpretation of condom use being valid to the church.

So what does Pope Benedict mean then? His next sentence is this.

“but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the*** intention of reducing the risk of infection***, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Pope Benedict does NOT say that "there can be nonetheless, in “the use of condoms”, a first step in a movement toward a different way. Pope Benedict says nstead that “there can be nontheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

MY POINT - “The use of condoms” and “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” are two separate and distinct acts. The intention of reducing the risk of infection is the motivating principle of many other things such as medicine and the Catholic church; it does not belong exclusively to condoms.

That is the proof.

He is basically saying this - that in people who use condoms, one can find the good intention of preventing the spread of infection. THAT IS ALL.

It is this desire to prevent infection, not the use of condoms themselves that Pope Benedict describes as a “first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I believe the pope is wrong on this because the same logic can be used to justify condom use for teenagers and female prostitutes. In all cases there is a desire or intent to not spread diseases and or conceive a child-which is good if in the end prevents abortions.

 

[poker10]

Here’s apologist Jimmy Akin’s take on the whole thing.

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

 

[quotidianum]

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.

Yeah, I’m sorry to say that I get the same impression. Fortunately, I know what defined Catholic teaching is, and I know that even if the pope outright says “Condoms are okay!” that it does not change anything. If I were to say such a thing, I would be gravely sinning. If a pope were to say such a thing, he would be gravely sinning as well. Popes can sin. The Holy Ghost will prevent Benedict XVI or any pope from contradicting the dogmatic teaching of Holy Mother Church, which is why infallibility is limited to ex cathedra statements on faith and morals, and certainly doesn’t apply to a popes statements during interviews with journalists.

But of course, this is going to be thrown in our face by anti-Catholic types who mock the papacy and mock the Church’s teaching, because they will say, “See, now your pope says its okay, so you must too!” And for the record, I don’t think that Benedict XVI was saying that condoms are okay for everyone, which would be obviously wrong: apparently, he is saying that it is the “less of two evils” for acts of sodomy, which is, I will say, also obviously wrong. Popes can make mistakes too, and hopefully he retracts this statement, though if it has ended up in a book, perhaps its too late. Maybe he’ll see the error of this statement, though, and say, “Oh no, forgive me Lord…I have made a horrible misstatement here, and now I will humbly correct my error…”

The most worrisome aspect of this, in my opinion, is that we are even walking anywhere near this, “oh, the ends justify the means” or “oh, its the lesser of two evils” ideas, which are both false/illogical arguments when discussing anything, nevertheless morality. Sodomy is a very serious, a mortal sin, and is specifically listed as one of the four “Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance” on page 34 of my '62 Missal, along with "willful murder, “oppression of the poor,” and “defrauding labourers of their wages.” There can be no justification of sodomy, and there is nothing in sodomy or any other mortal sin (or venial sin) that will lead a person to “moralization,” as Benedict suggests: only repentance and forgiveness and grace from God leads to “moralization.”

Condom or not, the male prostitute and his “partner” are jeopardizing their souls. That should be our first concern—not a mere sickness or disease that results. HIV is just another earthly sickness: we are talking about the eternal safety of a person’s soul here! We are all going to die, and some of us will die from diseases like, or including, AIDS. Earthly diseases are nothing compared to the tortures of hell. We, and the Pope, need to tell these people, male prostitutes or whoever else who is jeopardizing his/her soul, that you’d better get your act together and get right with God and His Church, because the last thing you have to worry about is HIV if this is the life your living, rejecting God and mortally sinning.

Also, I would like to state that while I don’t think the pope actually was insinuating what I am about to write, I know that people are going to say that he was. In one quote, the pope just said, “prostitutes” and in the other quote, he said “male prostitutes.” I read the first quote, without the word “male” before I saw the second, and I honestly thought, “What on earth is he saying?!” Then I searched for and found the second quote, and, giving the pope the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that he meant “male prostitutes” in the first quote as well (though he didn’t say so exactly, but perhaps it was the context). The pope did not specifically say that he was talking about sodomy, either, but I have to assume that he was. Given this, I admit that reading the second “male” quote outright the first time, I honestly thought he was just talking about male prostitutes who are with women, in which case use of a condom is contraceptive. Obviously, a male cannot impregnate another male, so I then must assume that the pope is indeed talking about sodomy, which then meant that he was saying that since the use of a condom in sodomy in not contraceptive, the Church doesn’t condemn it as contraceptive and thus unilaterally wrong. But, people are going to say that since he didn’t use the word “sodomy,” that he opened the door for male prostitutes with women (contraceptive), as well as from the first quote, where he didn’t even use the word “male,” for women prostitutes with men (also contraceptive). Either way, this is all a mess. The pope should have just said that all of this immorality is wrong and sending souls to hell, and that the only way to stop HIV infection is to submit to the teachings of the Church that sex outside of marriage is a horrible mortal sin, as is sodomy. If they were using prostitutes and having sex with so many partners, HIV would not be spreading sexually as it is. (And yes, I understand that HIV contamination in donated blood and re-used syringes in African nations is another way it spreads, but the most common way is sexually). As for those with HIV who are married, they should not contracept God’s creative will either, with condoms or any other means, but rather leave their love and drive for each other in God’s hands, and if they are meant to have a baby, God will decide. Even if they have a baby who has HIV upon birth, they can baptize that little baby and love him, and grant him a place in Heaven if he doesn’t survive childhood. God doesn’t make mistakes, and He wants us to trust Him, and so we ought to do that!

 

[Annie39]

In the case of homosexual acts, the use of a condom is not contraceptive; thus, it does not add to the sin. (See my previous post, or the Janet Smith link that was posted earlier.)

Of course, there is still mortal sin involved. But it wouldn’t make much sense for us to condemn this person’s use of a condom per se.

So we applaud him for using a condom? Oh please!!!

 

[quotidianum]

The Church is finally entering the 21st century and this announcement by our Pope Benedict can only be a good start and a good thing. Good for him, good for all Catholics.

What on earth do you mean? You’re obviously misinterpreting the pope’s statement, but what from it pleases you so much that you are wrongly extrapolating: that condoms are good, or that sodomy is good, or that extramartial sex is good?

Which one is so necessary for the “21st century,” and which one of those is going to bring us closer to God?

 

[Chukarrushe]

Annie39, i think maryceleste makes a good point here to answer your past question, as well as Jimmy Akins(read later, good suppliment). ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/

1. If an individual male homosexual prostitute chooses to use a condom, with the intent of preventing infection in others, this might be a positive sign, i.e. that he is starting to develop a faint glimmer of conscience by caring more about the well-being of others. It might be a first step on the journey toward conversion.

 

[BlueSprite]

For the fullest excerpt i have found, thanks to Abbysinia, here is the link. If anyone can find more, please post.

catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221ope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

After talking about the evils of AIDS and the situation about condoms and an explanation of his being against condoms(read if you like), here is an excerpt where the controversy and perhaps intentional sophistry comes from.

“” "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 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.
But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. "

“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” “”

The first paragraph it seems is one point of contention. What is he really saying here?

Is the pope really saying that condom use is “the first step” or an “assumption of responsibility” towards moralization? Can condom use be good or allowable? The interviewer seems to interpret him this way and immediately asks him a question that will reiterate what he think the pope means.

QUOTE
“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

Pope Benedict seemingly catches this and clarifies.

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution” - This response eliminates the possibility of having the interpretation of condom use being valid to the church.

So what does Pope Benedict mean then? His next sentence is this.

“but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the*** intention of reducing the risk of infection***, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Pope Benedict does NOT say that "there can be nonetheless, in “the use of condoms”, a first step in a movement toward a different way. Pope Benedict says nstead that “there can be nontheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

MY POINT - “The use of condoms” and “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” are two separate and distinct acts. The intention of reducing the risk of infection is the motivating principle of many other things such as medicine and the Catholic church; it does not belong exclusively to condoms.

That is the proof.

He is basically saying this - that in people who use condoms, one can find the good intention of preventing the spread of infection. THAT IS ALL.

It is this desire to prevent infection, not the use of condoms themselves that Pope Benedict describes as a “first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Ahhh…I see…so in essence he’s not actually discussing or commenting on condoms at all - rather he’s simply commenting on a means of preventing infection.

I think I understand where he was coming from now…thanks for the excerpt. This is a key point!!!

 

[Annie39]

Annie39, i think maryceleste makes a good point here to answer your past question, as well as Jimmy Akins(read later, good suppliment). ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/

And if an axe murder sterilizes his axe before chopping off someone’s head it is a good start, right.? Sad

 

[Abyssinia]

1. Is the Pope saying that condoms are fine for use in all circumstances where there is risk for HIV?
2. Why focus on male prostitutes?
3. Is the Pope saying male prostitution is okay as long as the person uses a condom?
4. Is the pope saying using a condom is morally acceptable?

 

[irishpatrick]

Yeah, I’m sorry to say that I get the same impression. Fortunately, I know what defined Catholic teaching is, and I know that even if the pope outright says “Condoms are okay!” that it does not change anything. If I were to say such a thing, I would be gravely sinning. If a pope were to say such a thing, he would be gravely sinning as well. Popes can sin. The Holy Ghost will prevent Benedict XVI or any pope from contradicting the dogmatic teaching of Holy Mother Church, which is why infallibility is limited to ex cathedra statements on faith and morals, and certainly doesn’t apply to a popes statements during interviews with journalists.

But of course, this is going to be thrown in our face by anti-Catholic types who mock the papacy and mock the Church’s teaching, because they will say, “See, now your pope says its okay, so you must too!” And for the record, I don’t think that Benedict XVI was saying that condoms are okay for everyone, which would be obviously wrong: apparently, he is saying that it is the “less of two evils” for acts of sodomy, which is, I will say, also obviously wrong. Popes can make mistakes too, and hopefully he retracts this statement, though if it has ended up in a book, perhaps its too late. Maybe he’ll see the error of this statement, though, and say, “Oh no, forgive me Lord…I have made a horrible misstatement here, and now I will humbly correct my error…”

The most worrisome aspect of this, in my opinion, is that we are even walking anywhere near this, “oh, the ends justify the means” or “oh, its the lesser of two evils” ideas, which are both false/illogical arguments when discussing anything, nevertheless morality. Sodomy is a very serious, a mortal sin, and is specifically listed as one of the four “Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance” on page 34 of my '62 Missal, along with "willful murder, “oppression of the poor,” and “defrauding labourers of their wages.” There can be no justification of sodomy, and there is nothing in sodomy or any other mortal sin (or venial sin) that will lead a person to “moralization,” as Benedict suggests: only repentance and forgiveness and grace from God leads to “moralization.”

Condom or not, the male prostitute and his “partner” are jeopardizing their souls. That should be our first concern—not a mere sickness or disease that results. HIV is just another earthly sickness: we are talking about the eternal safety of a person’s soul here! We are all going to die, and some of us will die from diseases like, or including, AIDS. Earthly diseases are nothing compared to the tortures of hell. We, and the Pope, need to tell these people, male prostitutes or whoever else who is jeopardizing his/her soul, that you’d better get your act together and get right with God and His Church, because the last thing you have to worry about is HIV if this is the life your living, rejecting God and mortally sinning.

Also, I would like to state that while I don’t think the pope actually was insinuating what I am about to write, I know that people are going to say that he was. In one quote, the pope just said, “prostitutes” and in the other quote, he said “male prostitutes.” I read the first quote, without the word “male” before I saw the second, and I honestly thought, “What on earth is he saying?!” Then I searched for and found the second quote, and, giving the pope the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that he meant “male prostitutes” in the first quote as well (though he didn’t say so exactly, but perhaps it was the context). The pope did not specifically say that he was talking about sodomy, either, but I have to assume that he was. Given this, I admit that reading the second “male” quote outright the first time, I honestly thought he was just talking about male prostitutes who are with women, in which case use of a condom is contraceptive. Obviously, a male cannot impregnate another male, so I then must assume that the pope is indeed talking about sodomy, which then meant that he was saying that since the use of a condom in sodomy in not contraceptive, the Church doesn’t condemn it as contraceptive and thus unilaterally wrong. But, people are going to say that since he didn’t use the word “sodomy,” that he opened the door for male prostitutes with women (contraceptive), as well as from the first quote, where he didn’t even use the word “male,” for women prostitutes with men (also contraceptive). Either way, this is all a mess. The pope should have just said that all of this immorality is wrong and sending souls to hell, and that the only way to stop HIV infection is to submit to the teachings of the Church that sex outside of marriage is a horrible mortal sin, as is sodomy. If they were using prostitutes and having sex with so many partners, HIV would not be spreading sexually as it is. (And yes, I understand that HIV contamination in donated blood and re-used syringes in African nations is another way it spreads, but the most common way is sexually). As for those with HIV who are married, they should not contracept God’s creative will either, with condoms or any other means, but rather leave their love and drive for each other in God’s hands, and if they are meant to have a baby, God will decide. Even if they have a baby who has HIV upon birth, they can baptize that little baby and love him, and grant him a place in Heaven if he doesn’t survive childhood. God doesn’t make mistakes, and He wants us to trust Him, and so we ought to do that!

You sum it up well. We would be in very deep trouble if the Pope made an infallible statement that using condoms was acceptable. That would indeed throw the faith into an authentic turmoil and problem. Popes are human and fallible, and this appears to me to be a very fallible OPINION.

 

[Annie39]

You sum it up well. We would be in very deep trouble if the Pope made an infallible statement that using condoms was acceptable. That would indeed throw the faith into an authentic turmoil and problem. Popes are human and fallible, and this appears to me to be a very fallible OPINION.

Amen

 

[maryceleste]

So we applaud him for using a condom? Oh please!!!

Well, nobody asked you to applaud.

The pope was just saying that if this was done with the intent of preventing harm to others, it might show the faint beginnings of a moral sense, and be a first step toward conversion.

Are we not to try to look for the good in all people? Even prostitutes?

 

[Apollos]

I think of Africa and the scourge that AIDS is on that continent and I think about Church resistance to the use of condoms as a prevention against that affliction, and can only say that the Pope is doing right by confrontng the realities of some of the horrors so many Africans must cope with. That is good news, IMO, for all Catholics.

If I’m understanding your way of thinking, Rich, don’t you think the Church should ban fornication and adultery, which are the very things that are causing the spread of the disease in the first place?

 

[Annie39]

Well, nobody asked you to applaud.

The pope was just saying that if this was done with the intent of preventing harm to others, it might show the faint beginnings of a moral sense, and be a first step toward conversion.

Are we not to try to look for the good in all people? Even prostitutes?

verbal gymnastics

 

[irishpatrick]

The Church is finally entering the 21st century and this announcement by our Pope Benedict can only be a good start and a good thing. Good for him, good for all Catholics.

It won’t stand. My personal prediction.

 

[baylee]

I’m sure there is more to this than meets th eeye. However, my first reaction was “How is this different than using birth control pills for medical reasons?” If this is allowed by the Church, why wouldn’t the use of a condom for medical reasons (preventing a disease) not be allowed?

 

[quotidianum]

And if an axe murder sterilizes his axe before chopping off someone’s head it is a good start, right.? Sad

Yes! You have it, Annie39—that is what I was thinking, but I couldn’t come up with an analogy to express it like you did. But it is even worse than this, isn’t it? Because by participating in the sodomy with another, you are jeopardizing your soul for so doing so, and likewise contributing to the sins of another! At least the with ax murdered, the person who’s head he’s chopping off is not sinning also!

Here is the deal: if you are male prostitute who has HIV, then you KNOW you can give it to someone else, because someone gave it to you. Also, it is quite possible to transmit HIV and other STD’s even with the use of a condom, and condoms break and fail like anything else, and many of the condoms using in African are substandard and actually cannot be sold in the USA for this reason (which is a whole other topic). So, therefore, If you’re a prostitute and you’re STILL doing these horrible things despite the fact that you have HIV and you know it, then this is even WORSE! It is not something admirable, and I don’t see at all how this is in any way conducive to bringing people closer to God. The most admirable thing a person must do is listen to the desperate calls God is giving him, and cease immediately his horrible sinning.

Also, let’s say that you’re a male prostitute who doesn’t have HIV, and you use a condom. Well, some here on this board (and at the Vatican?) would call that condemnable in some way, but isn’t it more your own concern for protecting yourself than for protecting others that motivates you? Either way, it doesn’t matter, because it will not grant you any favor before God, as you are both sinning terribly, and in such an obviously illogical and disordered way. The central and absolutely most capital and important issue here is that these people are committing mortal sin! Mortal sin sends people to hell—forever! Oh, they are surrendering their souls for sex, or money, or drugs, or whatever–we mustn’t encourage them in any at all!

 

[Abyssinia]

Jimmy Akin comments about the Popes’ comments on condoms

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

Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times, isn’t even officially out yet but is already at the center of an online media controversy.

ORDER THE BOOK

The controversy erupted Saturday morning when L’Osservatore Romano unilaterally violated the embargo on the book by publishing Italian-language extracts of various papal statements, much to the chagrin of publishers around the world, who had been working on a carefully orchestrated launch for the book on Tuesday.

Among the extracts was one dealing with the use of condoms in trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and the press immediately seized on this (e.g., Reuters, Associated Press , BBC online).

And so we were treated to headlines like:

• Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS
• Pope: condoms can be justified in some cases
• Pope says condoms can be used in the fight against Aids

Particularly egregious is this statement by William Crawley of the BBC:

Pope Benedict appears to have changed the Vatican’s official stance on the use of condoms to a moral position that many Catholic theologians have been recommending for quite some time.

GAH!

Okay, first of all, this is an interview book. The pope is being interviewed. He is not engaging his official teaching capacity. This book is not an encyclical, an apostolic constitution, a papal bull, or anything of the kind. It is not published by the Church. It is an interview conducted by a German-language journalist. Consequently, the book does not represent an act of the Church’s Magisterium and does not have the capacity to “change] the Vatican’s official stance” on anything. It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force. The book (which is fascinating and unprecedented, though that’s a subject for another post) constitutes the Pope’s personal opinions on the questions he is asked by interviewer Peter Seewald.

And, as Pope Benedict himself notes in the book:

It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong.

I don’t point this out to suggest that what Pope Benedict says regarding condoms is wrong (we’ll get to that in a moment) but to point out the status of private papal opinions. They are just that: private opinions. Not official Church teaching. So let’s get that straight.

Among the disservices L’Osservatore Romano performed by breaking the book’s embargo in the way it did was the fact that it only published a small part of the section in which Pope Benedict discussed condoms. As a result, the reader could not see the context of his remarks, giving the reader no way to see the context and guaranteeing that the secular press would take the Pope’s remarks out of context (which they would have anyway, but perhaps not this much). Especially egregious is the fact that L’Osservatore Romano omits material in which Benedict clarified his statement on condoms in a follow-up question.

So L’Osservatore Romano has performed a great disservice to both the Catholic and non-Catholic communities.

Fortunately, now you can read the full text of the Pope’s remarks.

Next: