Pope: Yes to condom to fight AIDS

[centurionguard]

Have you heard the news about this?

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

The News is False.

The Pope NEVER said the use of the condom was OK to be used to fight HIV/AIDS.

Condoning the use of a condom would be condoning illicit sexual relations even amongst married couples.

No where has the Pope made this declaration.

 

[Seamus_L]

Regardless of what the Pope ultimately meant, he has still confused alot of people, including Catholics.

 

[Crusader90]

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

Brother, but I am sorry, you are mistaken. The intention does not change whether or not it is moral because the nature of the marital act does not allow the use of a condom. It is unnatural and is also sinful because the seed of life is lost. The Holy Father said that that using a condom was not a moral solution:

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution…

Here is a response by Fr. Stephen Torraco:

As for the use of condoms either for contraceptive purposes or for protection against disease, there are two points – a moral point and a technical point – to be made. First, there are some who argue that the use of a condom, either by married or unmarried people, for protection against disease (AIDS, for example) is the “lesser evil” than the contraction of AIDS.

In the case of married people, even if the use of a condom were without contraceptive intent, or even if one partner were sterile and thus there would be no contraceptive effect, it is important to note that the intrinsic disorder (moral malice) of condomistic intercourse in marriage derives not only from a contraceptive intention but likewise from the fact that condomistic intercourse is simply not marital intercourse. The act itself is gravely disordered and merely a sinful simulation of a marital act. As such, even without any contraceptive intention, it is seriously and intrinsically wrong, and thus can not be justified for any purpose, however good or in any circumstances, however mitigating they might seem to be. The same would apply, of course, to any other prophylactic use of a condom; for example, to prevent the contagion of a venereal infection even within marriage.

On two counts, the argument for the moral justification of the use of a condom (as the “lesser evil”) by unmarried people as protection against AIDS does not hold. First, note that the so-called “lesser evil” is a moral evil, that is, marital intercourse between unmarried partners that is further distorted by condomistic intercourse as described above, which is a further violation of marital intercourse. The so-called “greater evil” is the contraction of AIDS, which is a physical evil. It is worse for one’s soul to commit a moral evil than to suffer a physical evil. Secondly, the moral justification of choosing a “lesser evil” is possible only if the criteria of the principle of double effect are met. The very first criterion is that there be no alternative action to the one in question, or that there be a genuine dilemma. In the case at hand, there is no genuine dilemma.

 

[JReducation]

The News is False.

The Pope NEVER said the use of the condom was OK to be used to fight HIV/AIDS.

Condoning the use of a condom would be condoning illicit sexual relations even amongst married couples.

No where has the Pope made this declaration.

Did you read the statement that he made? I’m holding my copy of the book in my hand. It’s the actual quote that Zenit provided. By the way, in the introduction, the Holy Father authorizes the book. He’s accepting responsibility for his answers to the questions.

The actual quote can be broken down into several principles involving moral theology, the Church’s social teaching, Augustinian theology and canon philosophy. In a nutshell he says the following:

the use of the condom by (he uses male prostitutes as an example) by some people, may be a sign of some kind of moral awakening, because at the very least, the person is taking responsibility for one of the many wrongs involved in sex outside of marriage. In other words, it’s a step toward morality.

He does not say that the person who uses the condom to have sex outside of marriage is doing a good thing. He’s simply saying, “at least they have some kind of conscience.” Some kind of conscience is a beginning.

He is also saying that in such cases, the condom is not being used as birth control. Therefore, the question about artificial birth control does not apply.

He is says that the use of the condom is very dangerous, because it gives a false sense of security. This false sense of security encourages promiscuity, instead of discouraging it.

He holds on to his previous position that the proponents of the condom have failed to tell the world, that it’s not fool proof. People who believe that it is, have become ill.

He does not speak about the condom in marriage. He’s talking about it outside of marriage for the purpose of liberating promiscuity.

Regardless of what the Pope ultimately meant, he has still confused alot of people, including Catholics.

If one reads the book, one will come away without confusion. He talks about hundreds of things. I just picked it up last night. Could not put it down. I’ve read about 50 pages. A word of warning, if you don’t have a strong background in Augustinian and Bonaventurian theology, the wording and the organization of his thoughts can be a little confusing. Don’t read it using Thomistic Methodology. It does not work here.

The Holy Father goes the other way around to drive his point home. He begins with the heart and goes to the head. So far, from what I’ve read, every answer begins with love and he goes from love to doing the loving thing.

If you did not like John Paul II, you will not like his answers to many questions. He quotes him extensively and he argues that what he’s doing is expanding what John Paul started. He agrees that it will take years to get all of John Paul’s richness unpacked.

I picked up that he actually enjoys this. This seems to be the old Joseph Ratzinger, answering the questions of students in a candid manner, almost thinking out loud. I never had him as a teacher. But when I was a student in Rome, he did lecture for us a few times. He always accepted invitations to speak at the different pontifical schools. He really enjoyed that. I remember that someone once told us that he enjoyed it, because he did not have to simplify or clarify his answers, since he was talking to doctoral students. As I read this book, so far, his answers sound just like the few times that I heard him at the universities. They are not explained or clarified, because he assumes that the “student” will take the time to read the background, meaning read Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas, John Paul, Vatican II, and pull it all together for himself.

But most of the questions that I have read, thus far, are pretty simple questions and the answers are not confusing at all. They are very logical. But read them remembering that you’re going from the heart to the head, meaning that you begin with “I believe” and now “I want to understand”. He’s not a Thomist like John Paul, we began with “I want to understand, if I’m to believe.”

I’m going to respectfully disagree that he has confused people. The only people confused are going to be the ones who do not read the book. It’s like hsi books on Jesus. He says things in them that people don’t like. But when you read the books, you come away realizing that a lot of what we believed about Jesus is from our heads, because we “know”. Pope Benedict tells you that what he beleives about Jesus is from the heart. He feels it. Then his heart guides his head. His experience of Jesus enlightens his reason. He uses the same approach in answering quesstions.

I just had to get the book. So I had someone pick up a copy for me as soon as it hit the stockrooms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Crusader90]

JReducation: He does not speak about the condom in marriage.

You are correct, he does not, but the use of condoms during intercourse inside and outside of marriage is immoral. I quote again (emphasis mine):

On two counts, the argument for the moral justification of the use of a condom (as the “lesser evil”) by unmarried people as protection against AIDS does not hold. First, note that the so-called “lesser evil” is a moral evil, that is, marital intercourse between unmarried partners that is further distorted by condomistic intercourse as described above, which is a further violation of marital intercourse. The so-called “greater evil” is the contraction of AIDS, which is a physical evil. It is worse for one’s soul to commit a moral evil than to suffer a physical evil. Secondly, the moral justification of choosing a “lesser evil” is possible only if the criteria of the principle of double effect are met. The very first criterion is that there be no alternative action to the one in question, or that there be a genuine dilemma. In the case at hand, there is no genuine dilemma.

Here is a quote from a article written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ:

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

No. And there was absolutely no change in Church teaching either. Not only because an interview by the Pope does not constitute Church teaching, but because nothing that he said differs from previous Church teaching.

Then why all the headlines saying that he “approves” or “permits” or “justifies” condom use in certain cases?

…]Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete”, and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] 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”.

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified”. That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said.

Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging.

The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

 

[TimothyH]

Have you heard the news about this?

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

At Trent has it exactly correct, you either have faith in Jesus Christ and the magesterial teaching of the Church which he established or not.

**Remider to Catholics - Humanae Vitae and Genesis 38:8-10 have not been repealed. **

The Pope has not confused anyone. The media, screwtape’s mouthpiece, is causing the confusion by misquoting the Holy Father.

The Holy Father said use of condom’s to prevent the spread of disease might be the first step for a prostitute who was starting to come to the realizatino that what they are doing is wrong. It’s like a bank robber switching from guns to knives or an obese person switching from five bacon cheesburgers to five chicken sandwiches… ultimately not acceptable but a step in the right direction, that’s all.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Brother, but I am sorry, you are mistaken. The intention does not change whether or not it is moral because the nature of the marital act does not allow the use of a condom. It is unnatural and is also sinful because the seed of life is lost. The Holy Father said that that using a condom was not a moral solution:

Here is a response by Fr. Stephen Torraco:

I never said that it was a moral solution and neither did Pope Benedict. Father Torraco is responding to one statement, made by the press and I’m responding to another statement made by Catholics. Our responses are different, but we’re not disagreeing. We talking two different points.

The lesser of two evils, is still an evil. I’m not challenging that at all or even addressing that. I’m clarifying what the Holy Father means when he says that in the case of a male prostitute it may be some kind of movement toward a more humane sexuality. In other words, it is still morally wrong, but at least there is some sign of a conscience. He’s really speaking about the sign of conscience, not the condom itself. He’s explaining how there is some sign of hope that the person may move toward the right direction. No one has said that the person is there or that this is a good thing.

Father is speaking to the misinterpretation of the word “justified”. The way that the pope used it and the way that it got translated by the English speaking media are not the same. We’re speaking about the same statement, but different parts of the statement.

You are correct, he does not, but the use of condoms during intercourse inside and outside of marriage is immoral. I quote again (emphasis mine):

Here is a quote from a article written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ:

If you don’t have the book, yet, as soon as you get your hands on it, you’ll see what he’s talking about. The question was about the use of condoms to prevent aids and whether it was justifiable. He said, “It may be the case that . . . the person is moving toward a more humane sexuality.” He’s looking at the behavior with some hope that such a person has some moral principles. He is not saying, “Yes, it is justifiable.” What he is identifying is the possible moral reasoning in the middle of this chaotic thinking. When you can find even a glimpse of moral reasoning, it’s a sign of hope that people can move away from the chaos.

He used the word justifiable to mean that it is justifiable to believe that the person has some moral sense. It’s not the use of the condom that is justifiable. That’s not how he uses the term. He certainly did not say that prostitution is justifiable either.

There are talking points. Father is on one and I’m on another. We’re not disagreeing. We talking about two different parts of this misunderstanding by the media. If you ask me if one can or should use a condom at any time, I’ll give you the same answer as Father does. If you ask me whether the person who shows concern for his health or that of another, is doing something good, I’ll tell you that anytime that you show such concern, it’s a good sign. The concern is a good sign. Unfortunately, your way of showing concern is not good. But that was not what you asked me. You just asked if such concern was a good sign. I answered that question. That’s what Pope Benedict did. He answered that question. He limited his response to that single point, the show of concern. It is this show of concern that he says MAY be a movement toward a more humane sexuality. It may not be. But in an interview type of work, such as this, His Holiness, did not have the time or the opportunity to expound on all the ifs, ands and buts.

Let’s face it, he’s better than we are on CAF. At least he answes the question without going all over the place. God knows that we don’t do that here. We tend to get too broad.

He does not do that in this work. Heck, he never does that, not that I have ever seen. I hope this helps. I’m sorry if I confused someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

At Trent has it exactly correct, you either have faith in Jesus Christ and the magesterial teaching of the Church which he established or not.

**Remider to Catholics - Humanae Vitae and Genesis 38:8-10 have not been repealed. **

The Pope has not confused anyone. The media, screwtape’s mouthpiece, is causing the confusion by misquoting the Holy Father.

The Holy Father said use of condom’s to prevent the spread of disease might be the first step for a prostitute who was starting to come to the realizatino that what they are doing is wrong. It’s like a bank robber switching from guns to knives or an obese person switching from five bacon cheesburgers to five chicken sandwiches… ultimately not acceptable but a step in the right direction, that’s all.

-Tim-

Tim is correct. That’s all that he’s saying. One may be justified to believe that a person may be moving in the right direction.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Crusader90]

JReducation, thank you for your clarification.

This statement still confuses me somewhat:

Using a condom for something else, as a party favor or to prevent an infection is not artifcial birth control. The condom becomes neutral.

It is my understanding from everything that I have studied regarding the Church’s teaching on sexuality, that the use of a condom is always evil no matter the intent (contraception, the prevention of stds, etc. Well, except when used as a water balloon according to Fr. Fessio ). Therefore, the condom used during sex is an evil.

 

[Student09]

Brother JR, I always enjoy and appreciate your posts, but I have to comment on this:

He’s not a Thomist like John Paul, who began with “I want to understand, if I’m to believe.”

I can’t speak to what John Paul II thought, but as a student of Thomas Aquinas I can tell you that that is NOT the Thomistic approach.

St. Thomas says that basing our faith on reasoning lessens the merit of faith:

ST II-II, Q.2 Art. 10: “For just as a man ought to perform acts of moral virtue because of the judgment of his reason, and not because of a passion, so he ought to believe matters of faith, not because of human reasoning, but because of the divine authority.”

But if one already believes, then it is good to find reasons, as instructed in the first epistle of Peter:

Same article: “When a man has a will ready to believe, he loves the truth he believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons he can find in support thereof; and in this way, human reasoning does not exclude the merit of faith, but is a sign of greater merit.”

The dichotomy you set up between Augustine and Thomas is inaccurate, unless you want to get into a LOT more subtlety and detail. They agree (as does Anselm and, I think, any genuine Catholic theologian) that one should believe first.

(Sorry this is off topic. Carry on.)

 

[JReducation]

JReducation, thank you for your clarification.

This statement still confuses me somewhat:

It is my understanding from everything that I have studied regarding the Church’s teaching on sexuality, that the use of a condom is always evil no matter the intent (contraception, the prevention of stds, etc. Well, except when used as a water balloon according to Fr. Fessio ). Therefore, the condom used during sex is an evil.

Unfortunately, what often happens with these statements is that they can’t always be explained at great length in a homily, class or even an interview. One would need several hours or write several pages. The condom has to be looked at in two contexts, for the purpose of this discussion: contraception or protection against STDs. They are not the same ends. The condom is a thing. It’s neutral. It’s not good or bad. Father refers to their use as water balloons and I say party-favors, we’re on the same wave-length, he and I. It’s an object that’s it.

I hope that the teaching on artificial contraception is clear for most Catholics. It has been discussed, broken open and dissected for 40-years. What else can one ask about it? Seriously.

STDs have always been around, but we are much more aware of them today and we understand them better. The medical community has said that condoms help reduce the incidence of infection. Notice, they say reduce, not eliminate. There goes my Kleenex example again. The common cold has not disappeared. People should not get a false sense of security with condoms, anymore than one should get from Kleenex.

The moral issue in the use of condoms to prevent infection has to do with sexual integrity, not with the thing itself. Sexuality is not a game. It has a place in the plan of salvation. When you take it outside of that place, objectively you’re committing a grave sin.

What theologians do is dialogue with philosophers and psychologists and pose the question. Why would someone use a condom? There are two answers. A) As contraception. B) To avoid infection. This begs the next question. Why would a healthy person need to protect him or herself from infection? The answer is, because he or she does not know what his sexual partner’s health status may be.

At this point, philosophy takes over and says. If you do not know your sexual partner’s health status, then we can conclude that your sexual partner is not your mate or that your relationship is not monogamous. This sends red flags waving and lights blinking and alarms off for the theologian. Sexual intercourse is the marital act; therefore, your relationship must be monogamous. Now we have a serious moral problem. Your sexual behavior is disordered.

Let’s say that we’re talking about a married couple where one party is infected. That raises other moral concerns. The marriage should be open to the possibility of life. You may not always conceive. Some couples never conceive, through no fault of their own. Nevertheless, they are properly disposed, if God sends a child. The condom blocks that end. One of the two ends of marriage is obstructed: love and procreation. Procreation is deliberately obstructed. One can argue that it’s obstructed to prevent infecting the spouse. The moral coiunter-argument there is that you cannot to evil to achieve a good. Obstructing conception in order to prevent infection is doing just that. Obstructing conception is never morally justifiable. Even when you use NFP, it has to be regulated by moral judgment.

If you want to do a good, such as avoiding infection, then you must find a means that is either good or at least neutral. So far, the only one that we can think of is abstinence. Abstinence is not evil.

That’s how the use of the condom in intercourse ends up getting banned. It interferes with a natural good, even if it is for another good. There are discussions on the table about the case of married people where one party is infected. The Church is still listening to the discussions… She has not said, “That position works.” My belief, don’t take it to the bank, is that we’re not going to find a moral justification for using condoms in intercourse. However, I’m not a philosopher. I deal in spiritual theology. Those arguments are for medical ethicists and moral theologians. I just sit back and wait for them to say something that the Church can agree with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, I always enjoy and appreciate your posts, but I have to comment on this:

I can’t speak to what John Paul II thought, but as a student of Thomas Aquinas I can tell you that that is NOT the Thomistic approach.

St. Thomas says that basing our faith on reasoning lessens the merit of faith:

But if one already believes, then it is good to find reasons, as instructed in the first epistle of Peter:

The dichotomy you set up between Augustine and Thomas is inaccurate, unless you want to get into a LOT more subtlety and detail. They agree (as does Anselm and, I think, any genuine Catholic theologian) that one should believe first.

(Sorry this is off topic. Carry on.)

You are correct in that they believe. There is no dichotomy. There is a difference in method. I agree with you, that I have over simplified it. There are many subtleties that make the methods very different. My choice of wording was not the best. I apologize for that.

If you have studied Thomas, Augustine and Bonaventure, you’ll understand what I mean when I say that the approach is different. The end is the same place.

John Paul II is much more the Thomis or Scholastic than is Benedict. Benedict is quasi Franciscan in his approach. It’s the old thing from the heart to the head vs from the head to the heart. That’s what I tried to expalin in a rather awkward manner, as you have correclty pointed out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Faith3Faith]

Pope Benedict XVI’s comments about condom use being a lesser evil than transmitting HIV also apply to women, the Vatican said Tuesday.

 

[Faith3Faith]

The person who told reporters Tuesday that the Pope’s condom comments also apply to women is the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi.

The question of a woman’s contraception is always relevant when we’re discussing heterosexual sex, even within the context of AIDS and of that supposed “first step” towards moralisation. One of the first arguments in defense of the Pope was that he was talking of a “male prostitute” and that pressuposed homosexual sex alone who is already contraceptive in nature. By broadening the example to heterosexual sex, the question of contraception becomes relevant.

Therefore, the Pope’s statement is not consistent with Catholic teaching

 

[edwest2]

The media has been quite skillful in saying various things, often at odds with Church teaching. The headline for this topic is inaccurate both grammatically and in a practical way. It should not be regarded as a quote.

parra.catholic.org.au/news—events/latest-news/latest-news.aspx/no-change-to-church-teaching-on-condom-use.aspx

Until we, meaning Catholics, hear from the Pope himself, I suggest caution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faith3Faith]

We have heard from the Pope. His quotes from that interview and from his new book are on the News and the Internet. So we know what position he holds.

The position that the Pope holds on condom use is contrary to Catholic teaching

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We have heard from the Pope. His quotes from that interview and from his new book are on the News and the Internet. So we know what position he holds.

The position that the Pope holds on condom use is contrary to Catholic teaching

Oh really?

Then show us (link to the catechism) what the Catholic teaching is.

Then show us exactly what the Pope said (in context; the full paragraphs are out there).

Then show us, point by point, exactly what the Pope says that is ‘contrary to Catholic teaching.’

You make the claim, you show the proof.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Oh really?

Then show us (link to the catechism) what the Catholic teaching is.

Then show us exactly what the Pope said (in context; the full paragraphs are out there).

Then show us, point by point, exactly what the Pope says that is ‘contrary to Catholic teaching.’

You make the claim, you show the proof.

Nov 23, 2010 - “VATICAN CITY – Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments”

Castī Connūbiī by Pope Pius XI 1930 - “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”
(note: Casti connubii was written in part as a response to the decision of the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930 that taught the legitimacy of the use of contraception in some circumstances)

Our Lord Jesus said, "And fear ye not them(HIV and AIDS for example) that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nov 23, 2010 - “VATICAN CITY – Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments”

Castī Connūbiī by Pope Pius XI 1930 - “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”
(note: Casti connubii was written in part as a response to the decision of the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930 that taught the legitimacy of the use of contraception in some circumstances)

Our Lord Jesus said, "And fear ye not them(HIV and AIDS for example) that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28.)

Epic fail.

Your first ‘paragraph’ was not what Pope Benedict actually said. Instead, it was an ‘uncredited’ report simply headed ‘Vatican City’.

Second: You can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church on line. It’s a little easier and the teachings haven’t ‘changed’.

So you haven’t shown the Pope’s words. Allow me to do just that, and then YOU can use even what you said here and show how the Pope’s words teach something new- IF he does. of course, if his words don’t show any ‘change’ you can simply apologize for being misled into thinking something that claims to be ‘the Vatican’ but doesn’t even bother to quote what it ‘interprets’ is an authority. Honest mistakes are nothing to be ashamed of.

Here is what the Pope actually said in “The Light of the World.”
From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/stories/cover2.jpgOn the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. 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.
The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The
Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. 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.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute 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. But it 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 in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Yes, we must not forget that the condom is primarily a contraceptive devise. The modern ones were devised in the 19th century to curb the high death rate among prostitutes who got pregnant. So in the broad sense, it was a medical devise. But in the social context where pregnancy is unwanted even in affluent families, it becomes an instrument of spiritual death. I have always wondered about the legal proscription of prostitution in a society which actively encourages young girls to behave like whores.