Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[maryceleste]

According to this German media coverage, the pope specifically chose the term referring to male prostitutes (which is how I’ve seen it reported in the US media).

They say that the reference to “female prostitutes” in Italian was a mistranslation.

tagesschau.de/ausland/papstkondome102.html

(run through Google translate to get the general idea)

 

[sidbrown]

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

Does anyone have the German original? Thanks

So condom use is justified in the case of a female prostitute?
This seems kind of wishy washy morality and not clear cut one way or the other.

 

[Ashurie]

I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I am so glad that the Pope has said this. In Africa, it is heterosexual sex that spreads HIV, especially in the poorest parts of the continent.

Found this out during my Anthropology subject a few weeks back, African men go off on business or for infidelity and then come back infected a have sex with their wives - then infecting them and any children she may have, hence spreading the HIV virus.

So with the allowance of condoms to stop this virus, I am all for it. I am all for saving people for a horrible sickness, in which we have no cure for.

I am hoping I can find the doco we watched during the lecture…which I can’t but the doco is called “Race against time: the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.” It is a huge wake up call watching this…so many orphaned children ):

 

[Geremia]

This seems kind of wishy washy morality and not clear cut one way or the other.

It all boils down to the Vatican II gobbledygook-esque escape clause “…but, in this or that case, there can be…” This is undoubtedly situational morality, viz., moral relativism, no?

 

[BusterMartin]

11 pages of replies…I can’t read them all because all I end up doing is just shaking my head in disgust (only got through 5 and a half of them). Now, I’m not shaking my head at what the Pope said; rather, I’m shaking my head at what people’s opinions of condom use are (Catholics especially) as well as how people spin whatever the Pope says.

He did not condone Condom use (at least not based on the excerpts I read - can’t wait to read the book, by the way), he just said that it is an indication that in a certain circumstance it is hopeful that the person using it has begun the process of moral thinking. Ugh. Stupid media. Why must they twist words around? Can’t they just report things properly once in a while?!? Sorry…just venting.

God bless Pope Benedict XVI.

And he is not condoning the use of condoms…

 

[illmatic]

I am really encouraged by this. I think that Pope Benedict is a really good role model and its very encouraging that he is willing to make controversial teachings.

 

[Geremia]

So condom use is justified in the case of a female prostitute?

Yes, hopefully the original does say male prostitute because condoms in homosexual acts are not contraceptives.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I am so glad that the Pope has said this. In Africa, it is heterosexual sex that spreads HIV, especially in the poorest parts of the continent.

Found this out during my Anthropology subject a few weeks back, African men go off on business or for infidelity and then come back infected a have sex with their wives - then infecting them and any children she may have, hence spreading the HIV virus.

So with the allowance of condoms to stop this virus, I am all for it. I am all for saving people for a horrible sickness, in which we have no cure for.

I am hoping I can find the doco we watched during the lecture…which I can’t but the doco is called “Race against time: the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.” It is a huge wake up call watching this…so many orphaned children ):

It’s not the Church’s place to weaken their own stance by following the secular way and supporting condom use. It’s the Church’s responsiblity to hold the most righteous position and teach it’s followers to remain on that path. The fact that these African men don’t follow the teachings does not make it the Church’s consern to weaken their own stance on contreceptives.

And the fact is; this is just one more tool for the enemies of the Church to use to make Catholics out as some backwards group and no better than any other religion. The moment this was in the news I got to hear the celebrations of my practically atheist step-dad about how the Church is finally moving down a progressive path and how the Church ‘caved in’ to modern morals. Now the only way his mind will change is if I take the emotional hit to print out wishy washy proof that the Pope didn’t mean to say it how he percieves and just cause drama all around…

With that in mind I am very angry that the Pope made such a foolish comment; and not even revoking it will change anyones mind because he’s a flipflopper in both the faithful and unfaithful…

 

[Geremia]

I am all for it.

I am optimistic that this will cause people to understand the reason why condoms as contraceptives are immoral, but the Pope will have to clarify: condoms in heterosexual sex are always immoral because only there are they contraceptive.

 

[Ashurie]

I am optimistic that this will cause people to understand the reason why condoms as contraceptives are immoral, but the Pope will have to clarify: condoms in heterosexual sex are always immoral because only there are they contraceptive.

True, condoms shouldn’t be around anyway. But if it would stop naughty people from spreading HIV cause they can’t be faithful, I am like yep - go for it.

Those who can not be faith to their wives/husbands and get infected … well that’s their punishment (as horrible as it is), I doesn’t give them the right to go home, decide to be faithful and infect their spouse - and HIV is carried from mother to child, the next generation shouldn’t suffer because one of their parents, couldn’t be faithful. Ah well…thats what I think anyway

 

[edward_george]

Everyone, just calm down, take a step back, and read this.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

He uses the example of prostitutes [actually, I believe the Germans of the interview speaks about male prostitutes, which changes the dynamic] who might use prophylactics as a first step toward moralization, that is, becoming moral. In such a case, condom use might be their first act of responsibility to redevelop their consciousness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do everything one wants. [The press will say a) that the Pope has endorsed condoms, b) has opened the way to endorsing condoms c) still has gone far enough to endorse condoms. What the press will not do is report accurately what the Pope said.]

 

[Annie39]

It’s not the Church’s place to weaken their own stance by following the secular way and supporting condom use. It’s the Church’s responsiblity to hold the most righteous position and teach it’s followers to remain on that path. The fact that these African men don’t follow the teachings does not make it the Church’s consern to weaken their own stance on contreceptives.

And the fact is; this is just one more tool for the enemies of the Church to use to make Catholics out as some backwards group and no better than any other religion. The moment this was in the news I got to hear the celebrations of my practically atheist step-dad about how the Church is finally moving down a progressive path and how the Church ‘caved in’ to modern morals. Now the only way his mind will change is if I take the emotional hit to print out wishy washy proof that the Pope didn’t mean to say it how he percieves and just cause drama all around…

With that in mind I am very angry that the Pope made such a foolish comment; and not even revoking it will change anyones mind because he’s a flipflopper in both the faithful and unfaithful…

Amen. His statement has done much damage in so many lives including mine.

 

[Annie39]

Everyone, just calm down, take a step back, and read this.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

Once again verbal gymnastics. If I am cheating on my husband is it more moral if I take care to fix him a good meal? Am I moving toward a more moral life if I clean the house before I go?

 

[BlueSprite]

Hmmm…this is quite the conundrum. I had to comment on this further as it lead me to a few thoughts.

Ok so basically we have two camps or two possibilities here - we can all agree that condoms serve a dual purpose…that is to prevent pregnancy, and to decrease (I won’t say stop) but to decrease the possibility of spreading a disease. Now, as it has dual use, we can posit that those uses can be independent of each other…or not. In the Pope’s case we now know he meant the latter use (prevention of disease) to be considered in isolation, hence his referencing the male prostitute scenario.

And I realize that in that case, he meant to say that the use of a condom, as a tool to be used in the prevention of disease, can be beneficial.

But here’s what people who are upset are upset about…it’s that yes, when viewed in isolation…that is…when viewing the act of using a condom during the act of homosexual intercourse, a condom is or can be a useful tool in preventing the spread of disease.

But see…it’s the homosexual act (in this example) that is what leads to the spread of the disease in the first place. Therefore, (in this example), the analogy some are trying to draw between condoms and another forms of medical treatment to prevent the spread of disease fails…because those methods are used independently from the act which would cause the disease.

Simply put, one can’t use a condom to prevent the spread of a disease during homosexual sex unless one first engages in homosexual sex.

Therefore one must engage in homosexual sex and risk getting an STD, in order to prevent getting an STD.

And this logic seems extremely, well…odd to me. Of course I understand that the act of using a condom (when viewed in isolation and independent of the events which lead to its use), isn’t bad or immoral in and of itself…but unfortunately, in the real world and not in theory, it’s impossible for that to take place without also indulging in immoral behavior.

 

[Ashurie]

Hmmm…this is quite the conundrum. I had to comment on this further as it lead me to a few thoughts.

Ok so basically we have two camps or two possibilities here - we can all agree that condoms serve a dual purpose…that is to prevent pregnancy, and to decrease (I won’t say stop) but to decrease the possibility of spreading a disease. Now, as it has dual use, we can posit that those uses can be independent of each other…or not. In the Pope’s case we now know he meant the latter use (prevention of disease) to be considered in isolation, hence his referencing the male prostitute scenario.

And I realize that in that case, he meant to say that the use of a condom, as a tool to be used in the prevention of disease, can be beneficial.

But here’s what people who are upset are upset about…it’s that yes, when viewed in isolation…that is…when viewing the act of using a condom during the act of homosexual intercourse, a condom is or can be a useful tool in preventing the spread of disease.

But see…it’s the homosexual act (in this example) that is what leads to the spread of the disease in the first place. Therefore, (in this example), the analogy some are trying to draw between condoms and another forms of medical treatment to prevent the spread of disease fails…because those methods are used independently from the act which would cause the disease.

Simply put, one can’t use a condom to prevent the spread of a disease during homosexual sex unless one first engages in homosexual sex.

Therefore one must engage in homosexual sex and risk getting an STD, in order to prevent getting an STD.

And this logic seems extremely, well…odd to me. Of course I understand that the act of using a condom (when viewed in isolation and independent of the events which lead to its use), isn’t bad or immoral in and of itself…but unfortunately, in the real world and not in theory, it’s impossible for that to take place without also indulging in immoral behavior.

 

[Annie39]

Hmmm…this is quite the conundrum. I had to comment on this further as it lead me to a few thoughts.

Ok so basically we have two camps or two possibilities here - we can all agree that condoms serve a dual purpose…that is to prevent pregnancy, and to decrease (I won’t say stop) but to decrease the possibility of spreading a disease. Now, as it has dual use, we can posit that those uses can be independent of each other…or not. In the Pope’s case we now know he meant the latter use (prevention of disease) to be considered in isolation, hence his referencing the male prostitute scenario.

And I realize that in that case, he meant to say that the use of a condom, as a tool to be used in the prevention of disease, can be beneficial.

But here’s what people who are upset are upset about…it’s that yes, when viewed in isolation…that is…when viewing the act of using a condom during the act of homosexual intercourse, a condom is or can be a useful tool in preventing the spread of disease.

But see…it’s the homosexual act (in this example) that is what leads to the spread of the disease in the first place. Therefore, (in this example), the analogy some are trying to draw between condoms and another forms of medical treatment to prevent the spread of disease fails…because those methods are used independently from the act which would cause the disease.

Simply put, one can’t use a condom to prevent the spread of a disease during homosexual sex unless one first engages in homosexual sex.

Therefore one must engage in homosexual sex and risk getting an STD, in order to prevent getting an STD.

And this logic seems extremely, well…odd to me. Of course I understand that the act of using a condom (when viewed in isolation and independent of the events which lead to its use), isn’t bad or immoral in and of itself…but unfortunately, in the real world and not in theory, it’s impossible for that to take place without also indulging in immoral behavior.

Bingo

 

[Chukarrushe]

Once again verbal gymnastics. If I am cheating on my husband is it more moral if I take care to fix him a good meal? Am I moving toward a more moral life if I clean the house before I go?

And from earlier

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

No Annie, it isnt right. The acts are not leading to a more moral life. What is being said is this - the appearance of contradiction in the person who does evil is a sign of hope of to full conversion. The person who sterilizes an axe before chopping off someone’s head is a walking contradiction, is he not? He is trying to protect the health of someone while doing an action which detriments health - this fact that their is an intention to protect the health is a sign that maybe the person is being converted and making headway into complete righteousness. Whereas before, he only cared about taking life away, he now has another intention which says to protect life. Again, we are not judging whether it is good - we are discovering in the act an implicit intention which contradicts the act’s greater evils. The pope is simply stating this intention might grow as a seed into the full conversion into the catholic faith.

 

[Chukarrushe]

Hmmm…this is quite the conundrum. I had to comment on this further as it lead me to a few thoughts.

Ok so basically we have two camps or two possibilities here - we can all agree that condoms serve a dual purpose…that is to prevent pregnancy, and to decrease (I won’t say stop) but to decrease the possibility of spreading a disease. Now, as it has dual use, we can posit that those uses can be independent of each other…or not. In the Pope’s case we now know he meant the latter use (prevention of disease) to be considered in isolation, hence his referencing the male prostitute scenario.

And I realize that in that case, he meant to say that the use of a condom, as a tool to be used in the prevention of disease, can be beneficial.

But here’s what people who are upset are upset about…it’s that yes, when viewed in isolation…that is…when viewing the act of using a condom during the act of homosexual intercourse, a condom is or can be a useful tool in preventing the spread of disease.

But see…it’s the homosexual act (in this example) that is what leads to the spread of the disease in the first place. Therefore, (in this example), the analogy some are trying to draw between condoms and another forms of medical treatment to prevent the spread of disease fails…because those methods are used independently from the act which would cause the disease.

Simply put, one can’t use a condom to prevent the spread of a disease during homosexual sex unless one first engages in homosexual sex.

Therefore one must engage in homosexual sex and risk getting an STD, in order to prevent getting an STD.

And this logic seems extremely, well…odd to me. Of course I understand that the act of using a condom (when viewed in isolation and independent of the events which lead to its use), isn’t bad or immoral in and of itself…but unfortunately, in the real world and not in theory, it’s impossible for that to take place without also indulging in immoral behavior.

Hey BlueSprite, just a few things which I believe you might have mistaken about the popes remarks. The pope simply says this - that what might be found in some of these people using condoms is a desire to prevent harm to other individuals. The action they do is clearly not conducive to this goal - in fact it is contradictory - but the fact that their is a contradicting force to the evil in a person is for the pope a sign of hope of the possible conversion of that person. HE DID NOT SAY THAT THE USE OF A CONDOM IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF DISEASE WAS RIGHT NOR BENEFICIAL. He simply states that it is the concern of preventing disease, a good, which could be a first step to greater awareness of morality and good and a leaving behind of evil acts.

 

[Annie39]

And from earlier

No Annie, it isnt right. The acts are not leading to a more moral life. What is being said is this - the appearance of contradiction in the person who does evil is a sign of hope of to full conversion. The person who sterilizes an axe before chopping off someone’s head is a walking contradiction, is he not? He is trying to protect the health of someone while doing an action which detriments health - this fact that their is an intention to protect the health is a sign that maybe the person is being converted and making headway into complete righteousness. Whereas before, he only cared about taking life away, he now has another intention which says to protect life. Again, we are not judging whether it is good - we are discovering in the act an implicit intention which contradicts the act’s greater evils. The pope is simply stating this intention might grow as a seed into the full conversion into the catholic faith.

Bizarre.

Also, the pope has a bully pulpit of a sort. He could do much to help those of us struggling to live in a world that is, to say the least, unfriendly to the Church simply by remaining silent on a subject rather than cause us pain. Which I assure you, he has.
If nothing else, IMHO it showed a lack of wisdom here.

Annie

 

[JaredR]

He has caused pain or the media twisting his words have caused pain? If you read the text of the interview, you will find that the pope has said nothing to the effect of what the media have claimed. I see people here slandering the pope by claiming he has made foolish or thoughtless comments, but that is not true. If you will only read the text of the interview, you will see that it is the media who have been foolish and thoughtless, not the pope. The pope has done nothing wrong and has said nothing wrong.