Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS

[NewEnglandPriest]

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

What’s being applied is the principle of double effect. This principle states that if an action has two effects (one good and one evil) it can be allowed as long as the evil one does not “outweigh” the good. However the good effect cannot be a direct result of the evil effect. We see the clearest example of the principle of double effect in end of life issues regarding pain killers. High doses of some pain killers may hasten death. However they also relieve the pain of the dying person. Since the pain killer has two effects and the individual’s death is near anyways, the high dose pain killer is permitted as long as the intention is to relieve pain and not help kill the patient.

In the case of the pill, there are multiple effects. One good effect is that it regulates the woman’s cycle. If this is necessary for a health reason then the evil effect (contraception) is tolerated for the sake of the good effect. But the good effect (health) is not a direct result of the contraceptive nature.

The case of a condom is more complicated. The debate is whether or not the good effect (prevention of a disease) is the direct result of the contraceptive effect. Some theologians argue its the very contraceptive act of harnessing the fluids that causes the good effect, thus condoms would not fall under the principle of double effect. Other theologians argue that since the HIV virus is a separate entity from the sperm that the condom is simply having the double effect of stopping the virus and the sperm and that if there were a way to stop the virus without stopping the sperm that it would be preferable.

The Church has been careful not to issue anything specific on these issues because they are still being studied/debated by theologians and scientists. The Church sees the ideal solution as putting an end to prostitution and promoting chastity.

 

[Annie39]

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

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

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

Condoms are not justified period. As the head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church he should have said that anything other than heterosexual between a married couple is evil. Using condoms does not make the act of prostitution, male or female less evil. Black is black adding a condom does not make it any shade of white. The Catholic Church does not believe in gray morality.

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

Please stay on the topic of the original post

Please always post charitably and show respect for the Pope at all times.

If you have questions, please send me a private note.

 

[Chukarrushe]

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

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

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

Hey Abyssinia,
The pope did not say what u have in number 3, which is that condom use is justified in certain cases. Simply not what the pope said. The Pope said the following:

Pope - She of course does not regard it(condom use) 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.”

HE DOES NOT SAY

She of course does not regard it(condom use) as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”
Shorter sentence right? Why? Because the subject in the first paragraph, “the intention of reducing infection” has been removed and therefore replaced by another subject, that of “condom use”

In the first paragraph of what the pope actually said, the subject of the sentence is the intention of reducing infection. In the second paragraph that i made up and that the news media has seemingly gotten it’s headlines from, the subject is condom use. SO WE HAVE TWO SUBJECTS - one says, that of the “intention to reduce infection” and the other subject says “condom use”. WHICH DOES THE POPE ACTUALLY SAY? He absolutely says the first paragraph, the subject of his sentence “is a first step in a movement toward a different way” is the “intention of reducing infection”
The news media unfortunately nterprets him with the second one.

So what is the Pope really saying - that the intention of reducing infection is the first step in a movement toward a different way

He is not saying that condom usage is the first step in a movement toward a different way.

Hope this helps. God Bless

 

[Elizabeth502]

From the NPR article:

some Vatican officials have said on background that they worry doing so would be seen publicly as a blanket endorsement of condoms. Yet Benedict’s comments to Seewald suggest that the pope himself is at least positively inclined to such a development.

Unfortunately (as other posters have said), I don’t think that this is what has been captured by the media, or will be, but rather that the Pope’s comments if not a blanket endorsement of male prostitution, are something of a neutral acknowledgement that male prostitution is here to stay.

And I have to say that even Allen’s article (and also the way other posters have described the ‘conversion’ angle) is way too subtle not only for the general public but even for much of the Catholic laity. Nuanced indeed. (Title of the NPR article.) The Pope is a man of many languages; perhaps this is a matter of things getting “lost in translation,” that he was searching for the words to adequately convey this concept of gradual conversion of male prostitutes?

It’s not the condom aspect that is shocking. If he had reiterated that condoms are fine for couples with an HIV-partner – and maybe added, “And other situations where the intent is only to spare the partner from disease, out of compassion and responsibility,” then I don’t think it would have made headlines.

But male prostitution? The act is itself is a great double-evil. Why is he even bringing it up? If the male prostitutes are non-practicing Catholics, then this seems to be confirming Catholics in their sin. Non-Catholic male prostitutes are irrelevant to statements from the papacy; it’s a secular matter, and such people don’t care whether the Pope, or any Catholic, thinks it’s good or bad to use condoms. The big elephant in the room is the male prostitution!

OTOH, the Church has made statements about condom distribution in Africa as a matter of public policy, and in that sense the papacy does often weigh in on public policy matters. But unless there was something omitted from his comments - like a critical discussion of a public policy about male prostitution in a particular country, then I’m semi-speechless.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

I think the Pope made a mistake in using this kind of language. Not only is this tremendously confusing no matter how many times I’ve had it explained, but I think he shouldn’t have mentioned an example if he wasn’t going to clarify that it was the ONLY time when condom use wasn’t an added evil.

The use of condoms between two men in a sexual act is not morally evil because it is not a contraceptive. But does it really matter when we’re talking about homosexual sex, male prostitution, and rampant spread of a deadly disease.

I think the Pope’s words will do FAR more harm than good.

 

[irishpatrick]

To say “always” is not accurate. As the US Bishops state:

And as the Vatican stated in response to the Bosnian crisis:

The U.S. Bishops have no authority to change formal Church teachings. Bishops can say any number of things.

 

[KenTreece]

But we would be wise not to interpret the Pope’s remarks as the mainstream media and other Church critics will. I believe Father Powell’s take on the Pope’s remarks is level-headed and puts those remarks into their proper context.

hancaquam.blogspot.com/

 

[irishpatrick]

Two blog responses to Pope comments:

He did not say that it was permissible in some cases; rather he said that in the case of someone already engaging in an objectively immoral act, which can in no way be justified either with or without condoms, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization.” Notice the crucial difference in what he actually said and what the media has portrayed him as saying. He is no more condoning the use of condoms than male prostitution.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/did-the-pope-condone-condoms-in-certain-cases/

So what does he say? He says that if your intention is to reduce the risk of infection then that can be a first step in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality.

It is as if the Pope said “beating your wife is never okay but if you decide to beat your wife less often then you are moving in the right direction” and the headline comes back “Pope condones wife beating”.

lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/pope-benedict-did-not-condone-condom-use.html

I disagree. The Pope was asked a question and he answered in the affirmative.

 

[irishpatrick]

There is nothing to retract because He didn’t say what you continue to insist He said. Hopefully He will make a clarification though.

It does seem as if he responded in the affirmative to a given question and I am not at all alone in thinking this.

 

[irishpatrick]

No matter how many times we go through this, millions now feel that the Pope has opened the door to condom use. Prior to this announcement everyone felt that the Church had an absolute position regarding condoms, now that perception has changed no matter what was intended.

That is why a clarification/retraction is called for and NOW!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 204:

Dear NewEnglandPries,
You know, I love conversing with you. I think you’re a great presence on CAF. And I totally get your post 204, but that’s partly, I maintain, because I’ve been trained in moral theology. But percentage-wise, most Catholics (world-wide) have not been, and particularly those Catholics that take to heart just about eveything the Pope says.

The concern I have for this entire episode is that the Pope was speaking Inside Baseball. "If, this, then… "
Yes, I get it. Double-effect and all. But again the big picture is itself the context, not the discussion within the context.

Why bring up the depraved commercialization of a sexually disordered behavior, in which at least 3 grave sins are being committed – to elucidate fine moral distinctions? Why not, for example, bring up merely homosexual partners not engaging in prostitution? Because there are probably far more of those than there are of male prostitutes?

 

[irishpatrick]

Post 204:

Dear NewEnglandPries,
You know, I love conversing with you. I think you’re a great presence on CAF. And I totally get your post 204, but that’s partly, I maintain, because I’ve been trained in moral theology. But percentage-wise, most Catholics (world-wide) have not been, and particularly those Catholics that take to heart just about eveything the Pope says.

The concern I have for this entire episode is that the Pope was speaking Inside Baseball. "If, this, then… "
Yes, I get it. Double-effect and all. But again the big picture is itself the context, not the discussion within the context.

Why bring up the depraved commercialization of a sexually disordered behavior, in which at least 3 grave sins are being committed – to elucidate fine moral distinctions? Why not, for example, bring up merely homosexual partners not engaging in prostitution? Because there are probably far more of those than there are of male prostitutes?

Yes indeed. We need to live in the real world and not in the world of academia. People her certain things and they make connections…period.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The U.S. Bishops have no authority to change formal Church teachings. Bishops can say any number of things.

Sorry but you clearly don’t understand the Church’s teachings on these issues. As has been pointed out, even Vatican Congregations have been involved in affirming that birth control is acceptable in cases of rape as long as there is no abortificient involved. I suggest you read up on what the Church has actually taught and approved of rather than insisting on your own interpretation…

 

[DawnInTexas]

What he actually said:

Pope Benedict on condoms in “Light of the World”

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know it hasn’t been all that many hours since this story ‘broke’ and that people need to take time to process things (IOW, to actually THINK about something instead of knee-jerk react on assumptions) but it is really sad to read some of the posts from people who don’t seem to want to let pesky facts affect them.

Whether they’ve decided that Pope Benedict (and therefore the Church) have done something ‘unforgivably sinful’. . .or whether they’ve decided that the Pope really has 'finally entered the 21st century and changed teaching", they totally ignore the fact the the Pope has not said, or done, or claimed, or permitted the use of condoms as something moral in certain situations.

Why people would allow some anonymous ‘reporters’ to mess with their faith and would just ‘assume’ the worst is beyond me.

 

[phil8888]

Yesterday news came out that Pope Benedict has changed the Church’s stance on condoms and that they are now allowed under certain circumstances. However, this assertion is false, and I will show you why.

The BBC has proclaimed the following:

"Some parishioners have welcomed Pope Benedict’s remarks over the acceptable use of condoms in exceptional cases, to prevent the spread of HIV.

The Vatican has long opposed condoms as an artificial form of contraception but the pontiff has suggested using condoms might not always be wrong."

The Guardian, another British paper wrote an article titled “Pope Benedict’s condom U-turn”

Others have gone even further stating Pope Benedict now allows condom use.

Is this accurate? I think it’s important to be objective to find out exactly what the pope said and meant. It’s not about what I want him to have said or what I think he should have said, but what he actually said. And the same goes for other groups as well.

The pope was, in a very rare event, being interviewed by reporter Peter Seewald, who asked him about his comments on condoms. Here is what was 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. 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.

Then later, the interviewer asks a follow-up question, and it goes as follows:

"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.

Of course, the media cannot detect nuance and make clear distinctions about what the pope is or is not saying. The pope is not talking about using condoms, but rather the intention behind it. He says the intention to reduce harm to another human being is a first step."

That would be no different than talking about the good intention of a man who is euthanizing his suffering wife as a first step toward compassion. The intention of the man is to reduce suffering which is a good intention, even if euthanasia is never permissible. So it’s not contradictory.

As a preeminent theologian, Pope Benedict realizes that a good intention is a good first step for any action, even if the action itself proves evil. A woman who prostitutes herself to make money to support her child is another example. The intention to help her child is a good first step.

The subtlety was sorely missed by the media who threw the baby out with the bathwater by declaring the Church is now in favour of condom use.

It’s also important to note that the pope’s comments do not constitute an official declaration by the Church. This may be a concept that’s hard for non-Catholics to understand, even some Catholics. The pope was not speaking in an official magesterial way when he was doing this interview, so it does not carry any legal force. It was not an encyclical, or papal bull. It’s similar to if President Obama made a comment on the weekend to a friend. It wouldn’t immediately become law in the United States.

This reminds me of the evolution debate with regards to the Catholic Church when blaring headlines asserted that Pope John Paul II believes in evolution or the Church officially accepts evolution, etc. But again, the subtlety was missed. All the pope at the time said was that evolution can be an acceptable theory on the physical development of the human body as long as it does not violate Catholic priniciples. However, he further clarified that the Church does not take any official stance on scientific issues so that is up to each individual. That does not mean that the Church officially endorses evolution, but that it does not forbid anyone from believing in certain scientific theories. The Church “accepts” evolution no more than it “accepts” Young Earth Creationism. The Vatican stays out of the business of science, unless it conflicts with faith and morals.

Beware any time you see a newspaper article declaring that the pope has reversed a decision or changed a teaching. It’s probably a misunderstanding on the part of the paper.

 

[irishpatrick]

Sorry but you clearly don’t understand the Church’s teachings on these issues. As has been pointed out, even Vatican Congregations have been involved in affirming that birth control is acceptable in cases of rape as long as there is no abortificient involved. I suggest you read up on what the Church has actually taught and approved of rather than insisting on your own interpretation…

Trust me, I have been very well formed and I know them well, but thanks for your concern.

 

[irishpatrick]

Pulling people out of debate mode, out of college mode, out of academia mode, all seems to be a wasted effort in places like this.

Living in the real world with real problems seems to be old-fashioned and out of date today, which is a major reason we are in such a mess.

Have a blessed Sunday to all.

 

[Rence]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Is this an ex cathedra statement or is it just Pope Benedict’s opinion? If it’s his opinion then it might be a step in the wrong direction although I can understand what he means.

But remember that someone who is living in sin is going to do what they want, when they want. To me, this statement from the Pope is saying, if you’re going to choose the wrong path and live in sin, at least ‘do no harm’ while doing it. That doesn’t mean that now condoms are allowed. He’s saying “do no harm”, or at the very least, “do the least harm”. And I think it’s a good teaching…if one is going to misinterpret it, they’ll misinterpret whatever teaching so that it conforms with their desire to not follow Church rules.

This is off-topic and I apologize, but I’d like to just mention it. If I were being raped I would hope the rapist would be wearing a condom. I think. No, now I’m not sure and it’s all so complicated. My concern is not that a child would be conceived via rape. If that happened to me I would accept my child and feel extremely blessed to be given such a gift, even if the gift didn’t come through normal channels.

The US Bishops agree with you. In their teaching, on their website, they allow the use of the morning after pill (only) after a rape, citing that the rape victim has the right to defend herself against the rapist, including a forced pregnancy. And I agree 100%. I wouldn’t want to conceive during a rape, and the first thing I’d do is head on over to the ER and take emergency contraception. It’s important to remember though, that after taking that morning after pill, a Catholic has no other recourse but to accept that pregnancy if she wants to be in communion with the Church. I think it’s a step in the right direction though, that the bishops agree that a rape victim has the right to defend herself in his way. However, this teaching does not in any way imply that contraception is in any way permissible (unless they are being taken for medical reasons) outside of these circumstances.

You know, after reading the posts in this thread I’m finding that I’m in agreement with everyone even though some posters disagree with other posters. This is a very, very confusing issue and I hope the Vatican gives us some more information.

I don’t think it’s confusing at all. He’s calling those who insist on sinning to at least not hurt others while doing it. He’s not saying that prostitution is right, because it’s not and it never will be. Nor is he giving the green light for condoms, and he never will. But if there is a way to protect others from harm, one should take that route. Yes, I do believe that sins have categories of seriousness. And to me, it’s much worse to engage in prostitution knowing fully well you will infect others with a serious disease, than to attempt to protect your “client”. The Church calls those who engage in sexual activity outside of the marital embrace to cease, but it doesn’t make sense to say they shouldn’t use condoms while doing so because it’s just adding a sin to a another sin. Infecting someone with HIV is also a sin. Picking the lesser of two evils makes sense, without giving permission to engage in either sin.