S
Semandreu
Guest
Have you heard the news about this?
Will you please tell more details about this and what’s your opinion?
Will you please tell more details about this and what’s your opinion?
- Status
A
anjoh66
Guest
Yes i have heard it and it is nothing special about it, it is what the church always has been teaching.
You can see it from two different angles, one is that if you are breaking the commandments to not have multiple sex partners it is quite irrelevant wether you are using condoms or not.
It is not a legalization for having multiple sex partners or using it as a contraception.
The other refers to extreme cases such as if somebody already married should be contaminated by HIV by for example blood transfusion or likewise, to prevent contamination of the spouse.
A
At_Trent
Guest
I think everyone needs to get off this kick of casting doubts.
The pope has not said one may use condoms without fear of committing a sin. To say it’s best to use a condom if one is going to sin anyway, is not condoning the sin.
Some of us need to get off the pope’s back and get a life, perhaps one of prayer
T
thomfra
Guest
Hmm…not so fast….
Maybe it’s the time of posting, but when I saw the general lack of response to this topic I thought to myself “the silence speaks volumes”
Had someone posted this same “case” …i.e. avoiding HIV/using condoms a couple of weeks ago, there would have been no end of responses containing varying degrees of philosophical acrobatics an eventual conclusion somewhere along the lines of abstinence and prayer being the only way forward……
The Pope’s statement IS significant as it signals some level of pragmatism, and humanity which has been severely lacking from the “in an ideal world” type thinking which seems to be the basic pillar for most, if not all moral pondering on this forum.
P
phoenixrrt62
Guest
Mind, I’m not Catholic, however, yes, I’d agree with your thought process. I think he seems to understand the gravity of the AIDS problem and…well, if you are stemming the spread of infection, makes all kinds of sense to me anyhow.
As to how people see it on this forum-I suppose I have no opinion one way or the other, being non-Catholic, ain’t none of my business, I don’t think…
T
thomfra
Guest
yeah, and this “extreme case” happends to effect tens of millions of people in africa and asia.
anyway…weren’t “we” all saying that condoms don’t protect aginst HIV/AIDS… seems to be the line people were sprouting on here a few months ago…
Are you implying that contraction of HIV via a “blood transfusion”…opens for condoms within marriage, but not contraction via a previous partner…?
C
centurionguard
Guest
Thank You for writing this. What is it with people who misconstrue or take out of context of what our beloved Pope says. No where does our Pope condone the use of condoms to prevent pregnancy or contract HIV. Acts of Sin are always Sin.I think everyone needs to get off this kick of casting doubts.
The pope has not said one may use condoms without fear of committing a sin. To say it’s best to use a condom if one is going to sin anyway, is not condoning the sin.
Some of us need to get off the pope’s back and get a life, perhaps one of prayer
Peace
Chris
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Respectfully, no it does not. Here is a link to an article:
dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/11/21/pope-benedict-it-is-acceptable-for-male-prostitutes-to-wear-condoms-86908-22729348/
What the Pope said is "There may be justified cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first bit of responsibility. “But it’s not the proper way to deal with the horror of the HIV infection.”
The Pope was speaking only about the use of a condom to prevent HIV transmission for male prostitutes. It does not indicate a change in the Church’s position that condom use as a contraceptive is morally wrong. Nor does it imply that a male prostitute using a condom for HIV disease prevention is morally right.
At this point I would want to see the book so I can take the comments in full context.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Vatican has issued a clarification. No Change.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325
Peace,
Ed
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325
Peace,
Ed
A
At_Trent
Guest
Exactly. The media twist it into whatever gives them something that sells, and before you know it, the pope’s own buy it. Or at best show doubts.
One either has faith in Christ’s promise or not.
God bless
A
ausculta
Guest
I find it interesting how even the secular world holds its breath in anticipation of a pronouncement from the Holy Father on a matter of morals (inspite of being out-of-context), even when said world openly denies his office and the faith he hands on to us. I think it is a sign of implicit acknowledgment of Peter’s Office and the truth of our faith. Can there really be an authentic case of invincible ignorance when our subconscious admits what our conscience denies? Why would the world give a flip about what the Pope has to say on this or that, here or there?
Just curious.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Pope’s comments is similar to the InSite we have here in Vancouver. InSite is basically a safe injection site by the government for drug addicts to consume their drugs. Its not that the government is endorsing drug use, but what InSite seeks to accomplish is to limit the transmission of diseases among addicts by providing them safe needles. Because there’s two issues in drug addiction, the drug addiction itself and the spread of disease through the needles. InSite seeks to solve one of the two problems.
The Pope’s comments were the same. He gave a situation where a male prostitute engaged in same-sex activity. Since there is no procreation that can possibly happen, then condoms do not really prevent anything, thus the moral evil of condoms is not present in that act. But the sexual act itself is a different sin and also must be addressed, but its a separate issue. In this case condoms can be used to prevent the spread of disease because there is no harm done in the prevention of procreation because there was no possibility of that by the nature of the act itself. The short way to say this is, condoms are wrong because if they prevent God’s Will with regards to procreation. If there is no possibility of procreation, then condoms are not morally wrong.
The Pope’s comments were the same. He gave a situation where a male prostitute engaged in same-sex activity. Since there is no procreation that can possibly happen, then condoms do not really prevent anything, thus the moral evil of condoms is not present in that act. But the sexual act itself is a different sin and also must be addressed, but its a separate issue. In this case condoms can be used to prevent the spread of disease because there is no harm done in the prevention of procreation because there was no possibility of that by the nature of the act itself. The short way to say this is, condoms are wrong because if they prevent God’s Will with regards to procreation. If there is no possibility of procreation, then condoms are not morally wrong.
E
edwest2
Guest
The secular world only looks at power and who holds it. They are also most interested in manipulating people and guiding their views in the wrong direction. The Catholic Church, in their mind, is a billion person voting block. It stands in the way of what they want, so they study their opponent carefully. Like a knight about to challenge his opponent to combat, he looks for any chink, any weak spot in his armor that he can exploit.
And they care tremendously about what this and previous Popes have said about evolution, a pillar of their worldview.
Peace,
Ed
B
bilop
Guest
Using a condom in homosexual sex, or any anal sex is not contraception, b/c the act is inherently non-procreative.
The prohibition on condoms is in their use as contraception. In a non-procreative act, the use of condoms would not be sinful.
The acts themselves would remain gravely sinful, but there is no additional sin through contraception, b/c non-contraception is taking place.
God Bless
The prohibition on condoms is in their use as contraception. In a non-procreative act, the use of condoms would not be sinful.
The acts themselves would remain gravely sinful, but there is no additional sin through contraception, b/c non-contraception is taking place.
God Bless
C
Corki
Guest
uh, no. It the fact that this is about the fifteenth thread on this topic posted in the last 48 hours. There is no silence, it’s just not possible to keep so many discussions going on the exact same thing without getting redundant.
R
retrovert
Guest
Bilop, Thanks for your succinct explanation that even I can understand. And you did it in a few short words…
A
At_Trent
Guest
T
thomfra
Guest
So you’re going around to all 15 threads then?
J
JReducation
Guest
I have not read the book, yet. But the citation given does not mention same-sex activity. He mentions male prostitution. He said that in male prostitution condoms are not being used for birthcontrol. They are being used to present the spread of HIV. He said such a behavior may be a step toward a more human sexuality. In other words, it may be the first step toward some kind of moral responsibility. A step toward moral responsibility does not equate morally justifiable. I don 't see how people are getting from A to Z without going through the alphabet.
A step toward moral responsibility may be shifting from premarital sex with a minor to premarital sex with a consenting adult. It still remains immoral, but it’s getting closer to what it should be or sex with the person to whom you’re engaged to be married is closer to the moral good than sex with a random person. “Closer to” is different from “the same as”
There is an important point here that has nothing to do with philosophical gymnastics as someone said. Condoms as contraceptives have one end. Codoms to prevent HIV infection have another end. In the former, it is immoral. In the latter, it can be a good. That does not mean that everyone who wear a condom to present AIDS can now go out and have sex without moral culpability. That’s not what he said. What he said is that the question of contraception is not a question, because that’s not why a male prostitute wears a condom. He wears it to prevent passing on or being infecting. There is some kind of conscience invovled.
What we’re seeing here is that he’s thinking this through at a subjective level. Most moral laws are stated objectively. “X is wrong”. That’s objective. When you throw in other factors, then X may not be an issue at all. In this case, artificail birth control is wrong. That has not changed. Using a condom for something else, as a party favor or to prevent an infection is not artifcial birth control. The condom becomes neutral. However, the promiscuity remains promiscuity. He did not say tthat the rules have changed in that department. He also added a note of caution. The use of condoms still gives a false sense of secuirty. Anyone who has been throuh health classes or sex-ed knows that condoms reduce, they do not guarantee freedom from infection. Let’s face it, that like a Kleenex. Sneezing into one reduces the spread of the common cold. It has not stopped it yet.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Corki
Guest
No, I am not and neither are most other posters. That’s why this one appeared to have a “general lack of response”.So you’re going around to all 15 threads then?
The first few threads on the topic seemed to get the most response.
- Status