Pope: Yes to condom to fight AIDS

[floresco]

Where is the Vicar of Christ who speaks with clear and authoritative teaching? Instead we apparently have a talking head giving his own personal opinions on issues of “Faith and Morals” while doing a book tour and which is throwing many Catholics into a state of confusion, not to mention sexual immoral sin.

JR explained to you what the Pope really said and yet you continue to misrepresent him. I suspect this last bit is why. It seems that you are looking for an excuse to criticize the Pope rather than wanting to understand him.

 

[JReducation]

I just read what Cardinal Burke has said about this quote. I am not getting the impression that the pope is denying anything that was said by previous popes on the issue of contraception.

He is looking at intent. Therefore, he is saying that it may be justifiable to say that the intent of the person who uses a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS is a moral intent. But he is not saying that the means is moral. If one reads the entire paragraph, he goes on to say that the issue is not condoms. He even says, “You can get condoms anywhere.” The issue is twofold. He explains that one cannot seriously believe that the use of condoms is going to resolve the AIDS epidemic. Second, the human person must grow to embrace chastity, whether you’re married or single. The use of condoms poses a danger to the reality of human sexuality, because it trivializes it, by suggesting that if one uses protection, then everything goes. However, he leaves the door open for possible moral growth. We don’t all get there at the same time.

Instead of judging what the man has said, based on a single paragraph, I suggest that people read the book. The entire explanation can be found from pages 117 to 119. The Pope has no need to explain anything, because it’s already been said. People need to read it.

This is rather interesting, because in another section of the book the interviewer asked him if the pope should explain this or that about the sexual abuse scandal. His answer to that question can be applied here. “The pope has given all the answers that he’s going to give. For those who are not satisfied, no further answers are necessary, because they will not be satisfied. We can only repeat what has been said.”

This is a man who has a very clear understanding that the more questions you answer, the more questions you generate. I believe that he has said enough on this point and none of it is contrary to what has been said by other popes. He’s using principles that other popes believed and supported, but rarely, if ever mentioned. He brings them up. That’s all that’s happening here.

Please, pick up a copy of the book and read it. It’s delightful. It’s interesting, informative, and very sound in its theology. It also allows us to see how he sees the Christian tradition and where he wants to lead us. The condom issue is the least significant of the issues that he discusses. More importantly is the one issue that has not been discussed on any thread, his worldview and his intent for the rest of his papacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BlueSapphire]

I just read what Cardinal Burke has said about this quote. I am not getting the impression that the pope is denying anything that was said by previous popes on the issue of contraception.

He is looking at intent. Therefore, he is saying that it may be justifiable to say that the intent of the person who uses a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS is a moral intent. But he is not saying that the means is moral. If one reads the entire paragraph, he goes on to say that the issue is not condoms. He even says, “You can get condoms anywhere.” The issue is twofold. He explains that one cannot seriously believe that the use of condoms is going to resolve the AIDS epidemic. Second, the human person must grow to embrace chastity, whether you’re married or single. The use of condoms poses a danger to the reality of human sexuality, because it trivializes it, by suggesting that if one uses protection, then everything goes. However, he leaves the door open for possible moral growth. We don’t all get there at the same time.

Instead of judging what the man has said, based on a single paragraph, I suggest that people read the book. The entire explanation can be found from pages 117 to 119. The Pope has no need to explain anything, because it’s already been said. People need to read it.

This is rather interesting, because in another section of the book the interviewer asked him if the pope should explain this or that about the sexual abuse scandal. His answer to that question can be applied here. “The pope has given all the answers that he’s going to give. For those who are not satisfied, no further answers are necessary, because they will not be satisfied. We can only repeat what has been said.”

This is a man who has a very clear understanding that the more questions you answer, the more questions you generate. I believe that he has said enough on this point and none of it is contrary to what has been said by other popes. He’s using principles that other popes believed and supported, but rarely, if ever mentioned. He brings them up. That’s all that’s happening here.

Please, pick up a copy of the book and read it. It’s delightful. It’s interesting, informative, and very sound in its theology. It also allows us to see how he sees the Christian tradition and where he wants to lead us. The condom issue is the least significant of the issues that he discusses. More importantly is the one issue that has not been discussed on any thread, his worldview and his intent for the rest of his papacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mangy_dog]

Have you heard the news about this?

Will you please tell more details about this and what’s your opinion?

The betrayal of the L’Oservatore Romano newspaper reporter in quoting the Pope out of context is shameful enough.

Shows how much you can trust the media to be “unbiased” and “impartial”.

How shameful.

 

[JReducation]

The betrayal of the L’Oservatore Romano newspaper reporter in quoting the Pope out of context is shameful enough.

Shows how much you can trust the media to be “unbiased” and “impartial”.

How shameful.

The O.R. did not quote the Holy Father out of context. His office issued a press release of the book with citations form sections of the book. Many Catholic ministries around the world received copies of it. It was worded like what you might find on the back jacket of a book. Journalists were free to pick and choose whatever part of the press release they wanted to use. They chose to use whatever they thought would get people’s attention. I saw the press release, because we received a copy. The Vatican did the same for Evangelium Vitae and Jesus of Nazareth.

As the Pope himself admits in the book. The Vatican’s Press Office has some weaknesses. They release information that other people will not understand the way they mean it to be understood. Journalists being journalists are not going to print an entire press release. They often edit and reduce the release, unless the person making the press release pays to have the whole thing printed.

There are times when journalists take advantage to push their agenda. There are times when they simply do not understand what is coming out of the Vatican Press Office and they do what they can with what they have.

The OR did what most newspapers do. They found the most interesting citation in the press release and printed it. Unfortunately, most people, including the journalists, had not seen the entire three pages on the subject.

They did no more wrong than the many posters on CAF who have drawn conclusions on the Holy Father’s statement, without the benefit of reading the entire book.

The best way to clarify the misunderstandings is to read the book, then ask questions of those who understand the content.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[onenow1]

The best way to clarify the misunderstandings is to read the book, then ask questions of those who understand the content. Br. JR, OSF

JRe

Something very much like reading parts of the bible you just do not understand or misunderstand.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

The best way to understand what the pope said and what the pope means is to understand the pope. The pope speaks to us and in our stead. But we jump when he speaks rather than listen. We are quick to believe that we understand and slow to think about what is said. We can’t go on this way.

The life of the Catholic cannot be wasted looking for every word, comma, period or citation that we believe to be out of place. God has other plans for our time, our energy and our lives.

Has anyone noticed that the happiest and holiest Catholics and greatest saints and blessed are the men and women who have lived in solidarity with their pope instead of constant questioning? Men and women such as: Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Calcutta, Ignatius of Loyola, Vincent de Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and many others were the most faithful sons and daughters of their pope.

Did they have perfect men in the Chair of Peter? Of course not. Did they care? Absolutely not. They were faithful to him, because he was the successor of the Prince of the Apostles and the Father of the Church. They took inspiration from whatever good came from him. Can we find nothing inspiring in our pope? Do we understand the man enough to question his thinking and speech? Can one be in true communion with a pope, any pope, while not trying to understand him?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Chris_Jackson]

For clarification purposes, my previous posts to this thread consisted of quotes from an article I linked to. They were not my words.

Thanks.

 

[catholicpublish]

I believe this article may aid in a better understanding of the topic: religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/?hpt=T2