Pope's Comments Apply to Females & Transexuals too

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socio_Momma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Socio_Momma

Guest
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that the use of condoms is sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS is valid not only for gay male prostitutes but for heterosexuals and transsexuals too, the Vatican said on Tuesday. (quoted from the above link).

Thought this might be of interest given the discussions over the last few days, Lombardi is who gave the clarification.
 
I just heard reported on the radio that the Vatican/Pope has just made a major doctrinal change regarding condoms.
 
I am deeply troubled by the statements Benedict has made. I understand the theoretical argument that the individual prostitute (male, female, other) is exhibitnig a kernel of morality in considering the health of the other, but even this consideration, in my estimation, is perverted.

I think the more appropriate analogy is this:

***Gangster A puts a mob hit on Gangster B, but in commission of the crime, he shoots him in the back of the head instead of the front, so his mother can have an open casket funeral. ***

Can we now say that Gangster A has a moral bone in his body?

***Or, Pregnant Woman X decided to abort her spina bifida child because she did not want it to suffer after birth. ***

Can we now say that this abortion has a moral component?

I understand this is the Pope’s personal opinion on the matter, and subject to error. But the media will present it as an infallible truth being passed down. This is an incredibly slippery slope.
 
tm30 said:
I am deeply troubled by the statements Benedict has made. I understand the theoretical argument that the individual prostitute (male, female, other) is exhibitnig a kernel of morality in considering the health of the other, but even this consideration, in my estimation, is perverted.

I think the more appropriate analogy is this:

***Gangster A puts a mob hit on Gangster B, but in commission of the crime, he shoots him in the back of the head instead of the front, so his mother can have an open casket funeral. ***

Can we now say that Gangster A has a moral bone in his body?

***Or, Pregnant Woman X decided to abort her spina bifida child because she did not want it to suffer after birth. ***

Can we now say that this abortion has a moral component?

I understand this is the Pope’s personal opinion on the matter, and subject to error. But the media will present it as an infallible truth being passed down. This is an incredibly slippery slope.
Click to expand...
It seems though, that with each defense that comes from the Vatican, the matter becomes less and less just a Papal opinion.
 
I guess we just have to trust Benedict is bringing the church in the right direction, and might end up saving millions of lives. Although nobody is sure.

I’ll be praying for him.
 
Which is the greater evil, in the case of a female prostitute?

A) Allowing the possible transmission of HIV?

B) Preventing the transmission of life?

I submit that it’s “B”, otherwise, Humana Vitae gets turned on its head.
 
tm30 said:
Which is the greater evil, in the case of a female prostitute?

A) Allowing the possible transmission of HIV?

B) Preventing the transmission of life?

I submit that it’s “B”, otherwise, Humana Vitae gets turned on its head.
Click to expand...
Preventing transmission of life is not always immoral. Afterall, rape victims have Church permission to receive nonabortificient contraception.
 
irishpatrick said:
I just heard reported on the radio that the Vatican/Pope has just made a major doctrinal change regarding condoms.
Click to expand...
What has he changed?

Does the Pope not mean female and transsexual prostitutes? He has not mentioned HIV discordant couples, he has not mentioned married couples in general.
 
:confused: Not sure what to think about this condom issue.

I joined the Catholic Church because of Pope Paul’s Humanae Vita written in the 1960s… Now it seems, if you are infected with HIV you may use condoms??

Am I missing something??

The teaching used to be, if one partner had HIV (husband or wife) the practice was to abstain out of love, not wanting to give your virus to your spouse.

Or… If Pope Benedict talking about relations outside of marriage, which is a sin already. In this case, if you sin do it in such a way not to cause more damage then sin already causes… This could be the justification of sex outside of marriage :confused:

Am I missing something ?? :confused:
 
The Popes comments in an interview are not infallible and thus do not affect church doctrine. It is my opinion that the gist of Pope Benedict’s comments are that the act of sexual engagement without the openness to life is wrong, but if you are HIV positive and are determined to act against God’s teachings, then by all means protect your partner from transmittable disease. On the grounds of morality, it is wrong no matter how you view it. The question is that which does greater damage. Having unprotected sex has the potential to affect the innocent while protected sex does a better job of constraining the evil to those who are engaged in it.
 
I saw this comment o Dmaian Thompson’s blog and it makes sense:

Right, when Lombardi refers to “masculine and feminine” and then later refers to “a woman, a man, or a transsexual” is he still referring to prostitutes?

I rather think he is.

Therefore the original point still stands.

The Pope is suggesting that morality can be awakened even in the most sinful scenarios. That’s the top and bottom of his contemplation.

That there “may” be a “basis” to even consider that a person - blind to sin on so many levels - might start their moral re-awakening in such ironic (my word) circumstances.

All we now know is that the Pope wasn’t talking exclusively about male prostitution.

He was clearly talking about prostitution, though.

And only prostitution.

Nowhere did the Pope or Fr Lombardi mention condoms being acceptable for HIV discordant couples. Condoms have a 15% failure rate. I can not beleive that the Pope is actually saying to prostitutes of all sexes it is okay to use condoms, or HIV discordant couples. He is talking about the intention. He is not talking about a morality of a condom. This is only mine and this other person’s opinion, we need further clarification.
 
Jim_Gnadinger said:
The Popes comments in an interview are not infallible and thus do not affect church doctrine. It is my opinion that the gist of Pope Benedict’s comments are that the act of sexual engagement without the openness to life is wrong, but if you are HIV positive and are determined to act against God’s teachings, then by all means protect your partner from transmittable disease. On the grounds of morality, it is wrong no matter how you view it. The question is that which does greater damage. Having unprotected sex has the potential to affect the innocent while protected sex does a better job of constraining the evil to those who are engaged in it.
Click to expand...
In a case of prostitution, who is innocent?

And if you are married to an HIV positive spouse, perhaps instead of looking for ways around moral guidelines for the sake of physical pleasure, that couple could offer up their enormous cross and abstain.

In this day and age, given that most people will simply ignore the fact that these are not infallible statements, and don’t care to know the definition, the media will present it as ex cathedra, nonetheless. With that in mind, perhaps our Holy Father (and future Pontiffs) should not place themselves in situation where personal candor can become distorted. This is why they have apostolic letters and encylicals. Talking with lay authors or anyone that can manipulate his views at a personal level is too dangerous in this screwed up media universe.
 
Socio_Momma said:
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that the use of condoms is sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS is valid not only for gay male prostitutes but for heterosexuals and transsexuals too, the Vatican said on Tuesday. (quoted from the above link).

Thought this might be of interest given the discussions over the last few days, Lombardi is who gave the clarification.
Click to expand...
Lots of media analysis of this topic.

Two very important things to keep in mind.

#1 The Pope never said “justifiable”. This was the result of a mistranslation from the original German to Italian.

#2 The Pope said the intent to prevent infection might sometimes have basis but the act of using a condom was still not moral.

So, yes, the **intent **of anyone, homosexual or heterosexual to prevent infection can sometimes have merit but this does not change the immorality of using a condom.
 
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averting a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it further explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments.

hosted2.ap.org/txdam/f02866e54f4149c297ea6f51ff09935f/Article_2010-11-23-EU-Pope-Condoms/id-e19dafb2f00c446c814a66980f6af266

I have learned not to trust the AP. I can not find any source of where Fr Lombardi makes this claim.

Look at the AP article title: Vatican: Everyone can use condoms to prevent HIV

I am going to cry… :frighten:
 
pnewton said:
*This *is the only kernel of truth I can find in the recent reporting of the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
This has made me really sad. I do not know what you can trust from these news sources. If the Vatican or the Pope changed the teaching on condoms I do not think I could take it.
 
Socio_Momma said:
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that the use of condoms is sometimes morally justifiable to stop AIDS is valid not only for gay male prostitutes but for heterosexuals and transsexuals too, the Vatican said on Tuesday. (quoted from the above link).

Thought this might be of interest given the discussions over the last few days, Lombardi is who gave the clarification.
Click to expand...
Gah, thats NOT WHAT HE SAID!!!
irishpatrick said:
I just heard reported on the radio that the Vatican/Pope has just made a major doctrinal change regarding condoms.
Click to expand...
GAHHHH!!!
pnewton said:
*This *is the only kernel of truth I can find in the recent reporting of the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
I agree. Does anyone else feel like their head is going to explode from the ridiculousness surrounding this solitary, out of context, quote? I honestly feel like I am going to blow up…
 
My take on the whole issue is that Catholic agencies should not be criticized for giving out condoms for the purpose of preventing HIV transmission in areas severely affected by HIV. This is particularly true in the case of male prostitutes who are concerned about the problem. It is not a commentary about the morality of male prostitution, but about the humanity of male prostitutes.
 
LongJourney said:
My take on the whole issue is that Catholic agencies should not be criticized for giving out condoms for the purpose of preventing HIV transmission in areas severely affected by HIV. This is particularly true in the case of male prostitutes who are concerned about the problem. It is not a commentary about the morality of male prostitution, but about the humanity of male prostitutes.
Click to expand...
That is not what the Pope was saying at all. He actually said
“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” The Pope answers, “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.”
Click to expand...
Explained by Cardinal Burke
What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that a person who is given to prostitution, at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
Condoms, while not intrinsically evil, have no “good” purpose. They can be used for nothing good. Good can never come from evil, the moral can never proceed from the immoral.
 
LongJourney said:
My take on the whole issue is that Catholic agencies should not be criticized for giving out condoms for the purpose of preventing HIV transmission in areas severely affected by HIV. This is particularly true in the case of male prostitutes who are concerned about the problem. It is not a commentary about the morality of male prostitution, but about the humanity of male prostitutes.
Click to expand...
No offense but I hope your interpretation is wrong. This would undermine decades of Catholic social teaching. In Africa, the countries which have thrown out condoms have far higher HIV/AIDS rates than those countries that have promoted abstinence and fidelity. Why would you change what is working? Even Edward C Green of Harvard said condoms where not the answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top