Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[Chukarrushe]

I’ve read 3/9 pages so forgive me if this has come up.
But what the Pope said was an example that might be morally good, is that a GAY PROSTITUTE uses condoms to prevent his spreading AIDS to an unknowing public.

In other words, a condom in itself is not intrinsically evil. It can be used for evil if it’s used between a man and a women to prevent pregnancy, for the whole reason being that it preventing a sperm from reaching an egg.
In male-male sex, there is no possibility of pregnancy, therefore, the use of a condom is not evil, as a matter of fact, it can be used to prevent a symptom of evil(disease) from spreading to a good person along the chain who had no idea someone 20 times removed had sex with a male prostitute.
This is a good thing is it not. Taking it exactly for what it is.
We are all here good thinkers, if we dumbed down dogma so that everyone would understand right off the bat we wouldn’t have anything good written down.
Yes, it is being blown out of proportion and the common laity won’t get it, but that is their fault, not that of the Church.

I understand what you are saying but i would slightly modify what your saying. The pope is simply saying that he recognizes the fact that there is a good intention of preventing disease found among these people. The pope wants to say that the good intention is there, but that the means to it(condom use) is immoral and must be changed. Nothing further than that. To conclude that “condom use is good sometimes” from his words is a stretch and what has caused this controversy in the first place.

 

[Student09]

It’s too late. No clarification will be sufficient to get the genie back in the bottle now. I am beyond furious that Holy Father was so incredibly careless.


~Liza

I understand your sentiments, but I think it’s incredibly important for us to support the Holy Father and clarify his statement whenever we get the opportunity. Getting angry at him will not do anything except further the image the media is trying to create of a Church that is divided, unstable and inconsistent.

 

[Student09]

To conclude that “condom use is good sometimes” from his words is a stretch and what has caused this controversy in the first place.

Exactly.

 

[Chukarrushe]

It’s too late. No clarification will be sufficient to get the genie back in the bottle now. I am beyond furious that Holy Father was so incredibly careless.


~Liza

Liza you should beyond furious that news media throughout the world carelessly misinterpreted the Pope. They layed this snare, they were the people trying to be sophists - they developed a specious argument for the sole intention of decieving people. I hope this wasn’t the case - I hope it was careless journalism. Either way, we as a community should demand an apology from these news agencies for delivering confusion to the masses.

 

[maryceleste]

I’ve read 3/9 pages so forgive me if this has come up.
But what the Pope said was an example that might be morally good, is that a GAY PROSTITUTE uses condoms to prevent his spreading AIDS to an unknowing public.

In other words, a condom in itself is not intrinsically evil. It can be used for evil if it’s used between a man and a women to prevent pregnancy, for the whole reason being that it preventing a sperm from reaching an egg.
In male-male sex, there is no possibility of pregnancy, therefore, the use of a condom is not evil, as a matter of fact, it can be used to prevent a symptom of evil(disease) from spreading to a good person along the chain who had no idea someone 20 times removed had sex with a male prostitute.
This is a good thing is it not. Taking it exactly for what it is.
We are all here good thinkers, if we dumbed down dogma so that everyone would understand right off the bat we wouldn’t have anything good written down.
Yes, it is being blown out of proportion and the common laity won’t get it, but that is their fault, not that of the Church.

Thank you for being a voice of sanity.

There seem to be a lot of people who are just reading the headlines and getting all in a kerfuffle. Everyone, don’t panic, the Church will still be standing tomorrow. It’s not the first time the media has jumped on a few words from the Holy Father on a controversial issue and blown them out of proportion, and it won’t be the last.

 

[mjs1987]

Given the media of today, his words are misguided. He should know that the media will twist anything they can. You need to be firm and clear. Anything the media will use, they will. The Pope needs to be more media savvy. Whoever is his media handler and book editor needs to be fired. This thing has the potential to lose souls and to get people to think that the church has changed its teaching, when it hasnt.

 

[RACJ]

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?

I think that it was foolish for the Pope to have made such a statement. Is there a person anywhere in the world who already has been engaging in dangerous homosexual practices, but has been waiting, waiting for the Pope to give permission before he slipped on a condom? :blush: The proclamation displays an embarrassing dearth of common sense. Rob

 

[mlund]

Wow, what a completely convoluted media rationalization.

That circumstance is very specific and in keeping with the rational explanation of the moral implications of contraception as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, there is no prohibition against preventing / treating sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive acts are prohibited because they are contraceptive. If something is acting as both disease preventative AND contraceptive it is illicit. In the case of gay sex a condom is not a contraceptive, though the sexual act itself is already illicit unto itself. Likewise antibiotics aren’t contraceptive, and though the sexual act was illicit curing or preventing the STD is not.

• Marty Lund

 

[coco2]

(Edited off topic response)

Now, to the topic, I think the Pope just opened a can of worms with this comment. Oh my goodness. This makes it sound like a male prostitution( I’m assuming homosexuality) wearing a condom is ok because he is trying to kindly keep his clients safe from HIV. But what if this male prostitute services women? Would it then be ok or not because it would also prevent pregnancy. If it is ok to wear a condom to stop a person from getting HIV which could lead to their death, then how about a husband who wears one to prevent his wife (who has been told by doctors to not have any more children) due to a medical condition that could kill her and perhaps almost did kill her during another pregnancy? He is also trying to prevent his wife from dying.

I’m sure the media will have a field day with this comment.

Pray!

 

[Chukarrushe]

Given the media of today, his words are misguided. He should know that the media will twist anything they can. You need to be firm and clear. Anything the media will use, they will. The Pope needs to be more media savvy. Whoever is his media handler and book editor needs to be fired. This thing has the potential to lose souls and to get people to think that the church has changed its teaching, when it hasnt.

I completely understand your outrage but again, if you look at a textual analysis by people like Jimmy Akin or the one done by me earlier, you will see that the Pope was clear in what he was saying. The pope didn’t misinterpret himself nor did he create the headlines. The news agencies decided to create a headline which would cause a big fuss. If you recall the case of Shirley Sherrod, it’s exactly like that all over again, Everything misinterpreted.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Do I hear a bugle call? I do!! It’s the cavalry in the person of Jimmy Akin, who is one of the most knowledgeable apologists I have had the pleasure of conversing with.

Thanks for the link. I haven’t read it all but I will and I hope everyone here does, too. Jimmy knows what he is talking about.

Gah!! Gotta love it!!

 

[FirstCalled]

I understand what you are saying but i would slightly modify what your saying. The pope is simply saying that he recognizes the fact that there is a good intention of preventing disease found among these people. The pope wants to say that the good intention is there, but that the means to it(condom use) is immoral and must be changed. Nothing further than that. To conclude that “condom use is good sometimes” from his words is a stretch and what has caused this controversy in the first place.

I would argue though that condom use is not always immoral. I think it is important to take under consideration the different applications here.
Between a fertile man and woman, it prevents life in the sexual/marital act from taking place because it naturally would if the condom were not there.
Between a man and man, there is no possibility of life ever taking place, hence, no immoral action can take place because of the use of a condom, if you remove the condom, there will be no possibility of life being prevented.

I think people have demonized condoms to the point that they believe that condoms IN THEMSELVES are EVIL, which clearly, they are not. If I decided to get a bunch from the health office at college and blow them up for a party, that would not be an immoral action (but in ill-taste). I think we all have to take a look at the context in which things are applied, there is a logic here which I implore you all to understand, this makes your faith richer.
As another poster has stated it is morally acceptable for the pill to be used for purposes other than preventing pregnancy (I don’t want to defend that but it is what it is).
The same can be said of alcohol. An occasional drink is ok, turn it into a habit and it is a problem. The alcohol is never evil, but our addiction to it is.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s too late. No clarification will be sufficient to get the genie back in the bottle now. I am beyond furious that Holy Father was so incredibly careless.


~Liza

I don’t think that Benedict, even at 83, was ‘incredibly careless.’ While obviously I haven’t been able to read the entire book I have seen later posts which give much more detail and from what I read (although it is still not the complete book), what the MSN is reporting is a ‘spin’. From what I have read (incomplete as it is) there is nothing that the Pope said which contradicts Catholic teaching on the subject of contraception. Nothing whatsoever. The one ‘case’ which he mentions only as a ‘possibility’ is that of a male prostitute (obviously the condom is not used in contraception here!!!) who thinks to use the condom rather than spread disease. . .IOW, even though the condom use itself is not stated as morally licit, and the Pope is very careful to state that the action of the condom use itself is not moral, the idea that the person is thinking of the welfare of another is a step in the direction of thinking morally.

A step in the right direction of THINKING. Note that he does not say the step itself is right, but that the consideration of others CAN BE a step toward right thinking.

Let’s give a comparison. Let’s say there is a drug addict. Let’s say that rather than share his needle with his friend, he gives his friend a ‘clean’ needle.

Benedict would say that giving the friend a ‘clean needle’ is a step in the direction of rigiht thinking, because the person ‘cares’ enough not to want to give a dirty needle.

But Benedict would certainly NOT be considered to be sanctioning IV drug abuse, would he? Would you say, “Pope gives approval to addicts who use clean needles?” Or “Obviously the Holy Father is going to reverse the Church teaching that drug addiction is morally wrong, and this is a first step?”

 

[Chukarrushe]

I would argue though that condom use is not always immoral. I think it is important to take under consideration the different applications here.
Between a fertile man and woman, it prevents life in the sexual/marital act from taking place because it naturally would if the condom were not there.
Between a man and man, there is no possibility of life ever taking place, hence, no immoral action can take place because of the use of a condom, if you remove the condom, there will be no possibility of life being prevented.

I think people have demonized condoms to the point that they believe that condoms IN THEMSELVES are EVIL, which clearly, they are not. If I decided to get a bunch from the health office at college and blow them up for a party, that would not be an immoral action (but in ill-taste). I think we all have to take a look at the context in which things are applied, there is a logic here which I implore you all to understand, this makes your faith richer.
As another poster has stated it is morally acceptable for the pill to be used for purposes other than preventing pregnancy (I don’t want to defend that but it is what it is).
The same can be said of alcohol. An occasional drink is ok, turn it into a habit and it is a problem. The alcohol is never evil, but our addiction to it is.

Firstcalled, I’m not talking about condoms in themselves. All they are is plastic.(I THINK I was simply talking about condom use which can easily take up a whole new discussion. I personally am trying to deal with what was said by the Pope and the misinterpretations that have happened so that Catholics coming onto this forum could find the correct information to deal with this fuss that has been created by the news media.

 

[kleary]

ABSURD!

Comdoms are 95% effective in preventing conception or the spread of HIV. Therefore for every 100 sexual encounters 5 people will contract HIV!

This has been the argument apologists were using, now it has to be changed? Church teaching has to change? Humanae Vitae is slapped in the face?

No, no, no. No book or interview giving a personal opinion even if it be from the Pope can change Church teaching. The Pope will need to issue an encyclical on this one to clarify things…or in a few days we MUST hear a strong official word from The Vatican or the Pope himself as to this effect.

Ken

 

[Robert_Bay]

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Biedrik]

As usual, the secular media shamelessly twists the Pope’s words. May God bring the truth to the surface.

 

[maryceleste]

Thank you for being a voice of clarity.

Everyone, don’t panic, the Church will still be standing tomorrow. It’s not the first time the media has jumped on a few words from the Holy Father on a controversial issue and blown them out of proportion, and it won’t be the last.

 

[Geremia]

This has, as with his Regensberg Address, been blown way out of proportion. And it boils down to semantics and mistranslation. My comments are in red; this text comes from Catholic World Report.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when [Could perhaps be “if” in the German original.] a male prostitute [really “female prostitute” in the Italian translation; see below] 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. [Viz., if a prostitute uses a condom, then she is on her way to thinking of her sexual partner as a human. He does not say that condoms of themselves can make contraceptive or homosexual sex less dehumanizing.] But it [condoms in general, not specifically condoms used to prevent disease] 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 [Note: He does not say this “first step” means using condoms.] in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The Italian translation from L’Osservatore Romano seems better, but it lacks the last ¶ above; my literal translation is in red. An important difference is the feminine article una in una prostituta; he refers to a “female prostitute,” not a “male prostitute.”

Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati “There can be single justified cases”]*, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico “for example when a (female) prostitute utilizes a prophylactic (‘a medicine or course of action used to prevent disease’ (New Oxford American Dictionary); also: ‘condom’)”], e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione “and this can be the first step toward a moralization”], un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole “a first act of responsibility to redevelop the awareness of the fact that not all is permitted and that one cannot do all that one wants”]. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l’infezione dell’Hiv. “Yet, this is not the true and proper way to overcome the contraction of HIV.”] È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità. *“A humanization of sexuality is truly needed.”]

Notice how the Italian is much clearer than the vague, weasel-word-filled English translation.

Does anyone have the German original? Thanks

 

[captainmike]

this is horrible. in arguments with protestant friends over the years, i have always been able to hold up the catholic church’s consistent opposition to contraception as proof of its fidelity to the gospel. now, no matter what clarifications the church makes, protestants and other non-catholics will be able to claim that at least one pope at one time had a softer stance on condoms than the church has always purported to have. politically speaking, this is a most unfortunate occurrence.