Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[irishpatrick]

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

The more I have thought about this, I have come to feel that one of two possible things will result:

1. The Pope will make a retracting clarification.
2. Even if he does not, his statement will not stand a theological test when put against the Church’s formal teachings regarding sexuality. The Church has literally always maintain that any form of artificial borth control is always wrong.

My opinions only, I am likely wrong. Yet, we must consider the following very clear statements in the Catechism:

*

2399 “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes . . . to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. 2370

​

*

 

[kildare]

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?

Well said Mary!

 

[Abyssinia]

Part two of Jimmy Akins comments on Popes’ comments on condoms

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

Also, in anticipation of the controversy that these statement would produce, Dr. Janet Smith has prepared a helpful guide to what the Pope did and did not say.

Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.

*Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.*

Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that **we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.** [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:

1. People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.
2. The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.
3. The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.

So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:

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.** [EMPHASIS ADDED]

There are several things to not here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”

In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,

The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.  He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them.  If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).

Next:

 

[Abyssinia]

Part three of Jimmy Akin comments on Popes’ comments on condoms:

Second, note that the Pope immediately follows his statement regarding homosexual prostitutes using condoms with the statement, “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.”

By “a humanization of sexuality,” the Pope means recognizing the truth about human sexuality—that it must be exercised in a loving, faithful way between a man and a woman united in matrimony. That is the real solution, not putting on a condom and engaging in promiscuous sex with those infected with a deadly virus.

At this point in the interview, Seewald asks a follow-up question, and it is truly criminal that L’Osservatore Romano did not print this part:

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

• Benedict: 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.

So Benedict reiterates that this is not a real (practical) solution to the AIDS crisis, nor is it a moral solution. Nevertheless, in some cases the use of a condom displays “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” which is “a first step in a movement toward . . . a more human way of living sexuality.”

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

Next:

 

[Abyssinia]

Part four of Jimmy Akins comments on Popes’ comments on condoms:

He thus isn’t saying that the use of condoms is justified but that they can display a particular intent and that this intent is a step in the right direction.

Janet Smith provides a helpful analogy:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it.  It 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 the 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.

There is more that can be said about all this, but what we’ve already seen makes it clear that the Pope’s remarks must be read carefully and that they do not constitute the kind of license for condom use that the media would wish.

More to come.

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

 

[irishpatrick]

Part two of Jimmy Akins comments on Pope’s comments on condoms:

Also, in anticipation of the controversy that these statement would produce, Dr. Janet Smith has prepared a helpful guide to what the Pope did and did not say.

Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.

*Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.*

Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that **we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.** [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:

1. People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.
2. The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.
3. The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.

So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:

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.** [EMPHASIS ADDED]

There are several things to not here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”

In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,

The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.  He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them.  If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).

Next:

Jimmy’s views are no more concise or clear than ours regarding this matter. The truth is the Pope was asked this question:

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

The Pope gave the following seemingly affirmative response (which I believe will be retracted soon):

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.​

 

[AugustV]

Unfortunately, the media has begun an unwarranted spin on what the Pope reportedly said. We need time to consider what this brilliant scholar actually said and what his thinkingactually is. In no way have I read that condoms, sodomy, homosexuality are “fine.” What I am hearing is a thoughtful man trained in philosophy and theology considering, with very little time to prepare an argument, any situations where the use of a condom may be justified. That being said, I suspect he regrets being pulled into this. This will be widely misunderstood by traditionalists and liberals alike.

 

[quotidianum]

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?

The idea that one can use birth control pills for “medical reasons” is another extrapolation that is not solidly based in Church teaching, but rather another corruption, and it is not defined teaching. Therefore, even if some “official” like a Commission or bishops says it is okay, it must be tested against the infallible teachings of the Church. Because we know scientifically, as a matter of absolute fact, that the “pill”, IUD’s, and the newer contraceptives pharmaceuticals of Norplant and Depo-Provera are not just contraceptives (like condoms), but are actually abortifacients–meaning they prevent the implantation of or KILL the fertilized eggs (unique human being)—the use of them specifically contradicts the Church’s infallible teaching on abortion. Catholics cannot engage in, or support in away, abortion. There can be no combination of these treatments with sex. Couples who do this are committing grave sin, and absolutely should abstain from sex while the woman’s body is under the influence of these abortifacients. How could you even enjoy sex if the thought was your mind that you might be making a baby, only for these drugs to kill him/her? No way you could—so faithfully abstain. God will reward the faith and love and charity of these couples, and they can express themselves to each other in other ways that please each other and God, and that don’t involve risking the lives of little ones to abortifacients.

 

[irishpatrick]

Unfortunately, the media has begun an unwarranted spin on what the Pope reportedly said. We need time to consider what this brilliant scholar actually said and what his thinkingactually is. In no way have I read that condoms, sodomy, homosexuality are “fine.” What I am hearing is a thoughtful man trained in philosophy and theology considering, with very little time to prepare an argument, any situations where the use of a condom may be justified. That being said, I suspect he regrets being pulled into this. This will be widely misunderstood by traditionalists and liberals alike.

I agree, which is why there will either be a retraction or a very detailed clarification. IMO, something needs to happen to make this very clear. Even incrediblly brilliant men can misspeak at times…we shall see.

 

[Adam1986]

Well, this is VERY GOOD NEWS!

The truth of the matter is comdoms DO PREVENT HIV/AIDS. They don’t eliminate it; but they work extremely well. If they didn’t we would have the same amount of gay men with AIDS that there were 25 yrs. ago.

I’m just ecstatic that the Pope has finally said the truth that condoms can prevent AIDS.

Great job Pope Benedict!
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[didymus]

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.

Certainly the Pope’s personal opinions are fallible but why would an infallible teaching that condoms are acceptable throw us into “deep trouble”? Wouldn’t that silent any doubt?

Now in reality I think His Holiness was looking for ways to deal with reality without contravening Church teaching. E.g., I doubt many people actually choose prostitution as their chosen profession, they are forced into it by poverty. The Pope knows that and I think it is a credit to his compassion that he is wrestling with the problem.

 

[canadianguy1143]

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

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

I don’t like some of the things that he says about it. For instance he says the following:

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.

This is ****. The Pope may have been interviewed but he is always the Pope and as such has a moral responsibility to publicly support Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is scandalous to the least.

However he did say something that I found very interesting

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 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.

Does the Pope have the authority to fire those at L’Osservatore Romano

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Well, this is VERY GOOD NEWS!

The truth of the matter is comdoms DO PREVENT HIV/AIDS. They don’t eliminate it; but they work extremely well. If they didn’t we would have the same amount of gay men with AIDS that there were 25 yrs. ago.

I’m just ecstatic that the Pope has finally said the truth that condoms can prevent AIDS.

Great job Pope Benedict!

And all it cost was Moral backbone of the Catholic Church! Though I’m sure that’s just killing two birds with one stone huh?

 

[irishpatrick]

Certainly the Pope’s personal opinions are fallible but why would an infallible teaching that condoms are acceptable throw us into “deep trouble”? Wouldn’t that silent any doubt?

Now in reality I think His Holiness was looking for ways to deal with reality without contravening Church teaching. E.g., I doubt many people actually choose prostitution as their chosen profession, they are forced into it by poverty. The Pope knows that and I think it is a credit to his compassion that he is wrestling with the problem.

Because the Church has already stated that artificial contraceptives are sinful to use…always.

 

[Adam1986]

And all it cost was Moral backbone of the Catholic Church! Though I’m sure that’s just killing two birds with one stone huh?

How is lying about condoms, which has led to DEATH the moral backbone of the Church.

If that’s the Church’s moral background that is utterly terrifying. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

 

[Annie39]

And all it cost was Moral backbone of the Catholic Church! Though I’m sure that’s just killing two birds with one stone huh?

Flavius, the pope made no excathedra statements. If you know much of Church History then you know that many popes have made statements against the moral teaching of the Church, some even acted immoral but the Church goes on. I stated that I would no longer trust this pope if what is reported that he said is accurate. But I still have the sacraments. I wonder if this is the last straw for you, if there is anything in your life that was waiting for an excuse to leave the Church.

Annie

 

[quotidianum]

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.

Archbishop Lefebvre still recognized the post-Vatican Council 2 popes, and if he were alive, he’d recognize Benedict XVI as pope, but would disagree with him like you and me. But the Archbishop and his Society, the SSPX, took on many schismatic positions, including the rejection of canonizations. So Archbishop Lefebvre had a lot of good things mixed with some illogical and schismatic things, the biggest one of which is the SSPX’s contention that the popes since Vatican Council 2 are legitimate popes, but that for some reason, the SSPX is not bound to recognize their canonizations. This is not true: canonizations are infallible papal actions, and all Catholics must recognize them. It is the teaching of the Church that canonizations are infallible, so you cannot logically reject canonizations without rejecting the infallibility of the papacy over canonization, and thus rejecting a specific Church teaching (Vatican Council 1’s teaching on papal infallibility). So the SSPX has a lot of really good things going for them, and so did Archbishop Lefebvre, but they at least also have one serious contradiction. Also, of course, he disobeyed a pope by consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, which was why he was excommunicated (not for doctrinal errors, but for disobedience), but that is really another discussion for another board.

 

[quotidianum]

How is lying about condoms, which has led to DEATH the moral backbone of the Church.

If that’s the Church’s moral background that is utterly terrifying. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

What are you talking about?

 

[Adam1986]

What are you talking about?

I was responding to what someone said above in which they were very against what the Pope said.

It wasn’t directed to you.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Flavius, the pope made no excathedra statements. If you know much of Church History then you know that many popes have made statements against the moral teaching of the Church, some even acted immoral but the Church goes on. I stated that I would no longer trust this pope if what is reported that he said is accurate. But I still have the sacraments. I wonder if this is the last straw for you, if there is anything in your life that was waiting for an excuse to leave the Church.

Annie

This has been the last straw, and there was other issues that were leading up to this; theologically about the Church and God, and personally.

How is lying about condoms, which has led to DEATH the moral backbone of the Church.

If that’s the Church’s moral background that is utterly terrifying.

The moral backbone was abstinence, and now that has been thrown out for a material solution. Guess what? If people don’t have sex they don’t get STD’s crazy idea huh?! It wasn’t the Church’s job to teach the path that allowed fornication and rejection to life, it was it’s job to show the most righteous path for others to follow.