Pope's Comments Apply to Females & Transexuals too

[cathgal]

This is not good, not good at all.

Whatever happens to data that proves that using condom will increase HIV whereas abstaining will not?? Remember Africa and U.S.A

The Pope should not said anything about condom being acceptable, AT ALL ! The Catholic view up til now is to stop HIV, one must abstain. Period. Leave it at that. Was this not the message to the world from the Church?

Now, the world thinks the Church has shift their thinking on condom. Think everyone will read the article on what the Pope said exactly? Like who cares about ex Cathedral or not. What the heck is it anyway, so people think. Anything comes out from the Pope is ‘‘law’’ to these ignorants. His words will be twisted and misrepresented. See, there is so much confusion over this already!

A sin is a sin and a soul lasts for eternity. What good is a body if the soul will be damned. Focus on the soul, not the body. The Church should encourage people to stop sinning and stop transmitting HIV to others. But using a condom will definitely not do that. This is a BIG mistake. I’m very disappointed in the Pope.

 

[Milliardo]

This is not good, not good at all.

Whatever happens to data that proves that using condom will increase HIV whereas abstaining will not?? Remember Africa and U.S.A

The Pope should not said anything about condom being acceptable, at all. The Catholic view up til now is to stop HIV, one must abstain. Period. Leave it at that. Was this not the message to the world from the Church?

Now, the world thinks the Church has shift their thinking on condom. Think everyone will read the article on what the Pope said exactly? His words will be twisted and misrepresented? There is so much confusion over this.

A sin is a sin and a soul lasts for eternity. What good is a body if the soul will be damned. Focus on the soul, not the body. The Church should encourage people to stop sinning and stop transmitting HIV to others. But using a condom will definitely not do that. This is a big mistake. I’m very disappointed in the Pope.

I agree with this; as I have again said, when I was Catholic the message was fairly simple: homosexual acts are sinful, period. And condom use is not allowed, period. Abstinence was the key word then–if you want to live a good, Christian life if you’re a homosexual, then abstain from those acts and offer your life up for God as an example of how a Christian life is to be lived. Now the message is, to simplify it: "Well, homosexual acts are still disordered, but then again if they’d do it then at least do it with condoms."To put something of an analogy to what is now being said, remember the debate about legalizing marijuana? The premise there is that since marijuana use can’t be stopped, then why not simply legalize it? The Pope is practically saying the same thing, although not directly; instead, it goes to “the homosexual act is still disordered, but then if one is to do it, then at least condom should be used”. Again, no amount of spin will cover that.

 

[cathgal]

Sorry, but the Pope Benedict did NOT condone, authorize, or advocate for the use of condoms. Not no how, not no way, which is INCREDIBLY evident if you read the direct quote.

“In the book, a long interview with German Catholic journalist Peter Seewald, the pope made clear he was not changing the Catholic ban on contraception, but, using the example of a male prostitute, said there were cases where using a condom to avoid transmitting the HIV virus could be justified.”

Like what the heck is that supposed to mean if not condone or advocate?

We all know there is no such thing as 100% HIV free in using a condom.

 

[mlund]

“In the book, a long interview with German Catholic journalist Peter Seewald, the pope made clear he was not changing the Catholic ban on contraception, but, using the example of a male prostitute, said there were cases where using a condom to avoid transmitting the HIV virus could be justified.”

Like what the heck is that supposed to mean if not condone or advocate?

We all know there is no such thing as 100% HIV free in using a condom.

It means the person in question didn’t read what the Pope said very carefully. He never said it was justified. That’s wishful thinking on the part of the pro-condom crowd.

• Marty Lund

 

[gakroeger]

Several of those posting contend that the teaching of the Church on the use of condoms has not changed with the Pope’s comments. I agree, but for a very different reason. Conservatives assumed that the ban on condoms was an absolute, black and white prohibition with no exceptions. The Pope’s comments reflect the more general, more nuanced brand of moral theology in which principles admit of a variety of applications depending on the circumstances. There is a gray zone after all. No huge surprise, except to those who want absolutes in moral theology.

Emphasis mine. Not true right is still right and wrong is still wrong, no gray areas here at all. As has been stated over and over here. The Pope is not changing anything; he is merely expressing that if someone is going to sin by having illicit sex, they may lessen their sin if they make an effort to protect the other individual from more serious harm. The Church’s teaching on condoms has been that they are not to be used as a contraceptive. If Church teaching was followed by everyone, there would be no such thing as STD. Since they don’t and AIDS is a reality, the Pope is expressing his concern about infecting other individuals by having illicit sex and a condom may lessen the individuals culpability, not eliminate it (first step toward morality).

 

[mlund]

There is not “lessening” of sins mentioned in the Pope’s reply to the question poses to him. Robbery is no less a moral sin just because one refrained from murdering one’s victims. The sin is not “lessened” by such a choice. Refusing to commit murder when convenient could,perhaps, indicate the robber harbors some spark of moral concern for the lives of others. If that moral concern could be developed into true respect for the human dignity of others then he would no longer rob and victimize others. In that respect drawing a line in the sand against doing certain harms to others can be the first step on a long road to reforming ourselves morally.

Nowhere does the Pope instruct, praise, or condone anyone employing a condom in illicit sexual acts.

• Marty Lund

 

[cathgal]

I diddnt say he had condoned it!
He has said that under specific circumstances,as a protection against specific disease, It is an exceptional case.

This is a change from previous messages. We should be happy that we are living through times where God is working through the Holy Father to reveal his plan to us.

I don’t know of any plan but using a condom in some circumstance is justifiable, nooo way. God can’t have anything to do with the Pope’s view on this because condom is not 100% foolproof and saving a soul is more important to Him than a body where it will be eaten by maggots one day. This reminds me of the reason why the Church of England allowed contraception decades ago because of some acceptable circumstances. Well, we all know what happens to that slippery slope.

 

[cathgal]

It means the person in question didn’t read what the Pope said very carefully. He never said it was justified. That’s wishful thinking on the part of the pro-condom crowd.

• Marty Lund

I surely hope so but the Pope surely must have said something like it for these fools to misrepresented him. If the Pope in any way said it’s acceptable, he’s still quilty.

 

[mlund]

I surely hope so but the Pope surely must have said something like it for these fools to misrepresented him. If the Pope in any way said it’s acceptable, he’s still quilty.

Read up for yourself. He never says it is acceptable.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

He does say that there “may” be speculative circumstances where someone’s choice to employ a condom represents a first step away from a completely degenerate, self-gratifying sexuality by expressing concern for giving someone else a deadly disease.

In that context, when Seewald pressed him on the question of whether condom use might ever be advisable, the Pope replied:

“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.”

When Seewald asked for a clarification, the Pope quickly added that the Church can never regard condom use as “a real or moral solution.”

And by “humanization of sexuality” the Pope means the Catholic teaching on sexuality such as laid down in Evangelium Vitae.

Basically, it might be a case where someone using a condom to help protect another from infection is the first sign they are coming to realize the Evil of their sexual practices are the moral need for reforming their ways to a truly human sexuality.

• Marty Lund

 

[buffalo]

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant

 

[Milliardo]

Again, the Pope is not directly saying that homosexual acts are acceptable; nowhere can we read he explicitly says so. Like I said though, the clarification by Fr. Lombardi isn’t any help since it still goes down to “homosexual acts are still disordered; but if they have to do it, then at least they should do it with condoms”. It’s sending an implicit message here, and again no amount of spin can hid that, but it goes down to that such acts are okay as long as they’re done with condoms. That’s the bottomline of it, and you can spin it all you want, but there’s no hiding that. Again, Pope Benedict does not say it directly, but implicitly it’s a whole different ballgame.

 

[mlund]

Again, the Pope is not directly saying that homosexual acts are acceptable; nowhere can we read he explicitly says so. Like I said though, the clarification by Fr. Lombardi isn’t any help since it still goes down to “homosexual acts are still disordered; but if they have to do it, then at least they should do it with condoms”. It’s sending an implicit message here, and again no amount of spin can hid that, but it goes down to that such acts are okay as long as they’re done with condoms. That’s the bottomline of it, and you can spin it all you want, but there’s no hiding that. Again, Pope Benedict does not say it directly, but implicitly it’s a whole different ballgame.

In no place is there implicit message of approval of engaging in illicit sexual acts, with or without a condom. The only thing in this passage is a small bit of charitable hope that by actually being concerned with the health of one’s sexual partner one might realize the Evil of one’s ways and reform to a mature human sexuality.

What the Church-bashers in the media may want to incorrectly infer and pass onto you as fact, however, is beyond the Vatican’s control.

Again, Robbery is never endorsed as an alternative to Murder. Both are Mortal Sins. Murder does greater harm, though, and a refusal to commit murder may indicate a the beginning of moralization to realize the worth of human lives and the Evil involved in victimizing them though acts like Robbery.

But if some nut with a printing press wants to take that an as implicit endorsement of Robbery …

• Marty Lund

 

[cathgal]

Emphasis mine. Not true right is still right and wrong is still wrong, no gray areas here at all. As has been stated over and over here. The Pope is not changing anything; he is merely expressing that if someone is going to sin by having illicit sex, they may lessen their sin if they make an effort to protect the other individual from more serious harm. The Church’s teaching on condoms has been that they are not to be used as a contraceptive. If Church teaching was followed by everyone, there would be no such thing as STD. Since they don’t and AIDS is a reality, the Pope is expressing his concern about infecting other individuals by having illicit sex and a condom may lessen the individuals culpability, not eliminate it (first step toward morality).

Abstain from sex, 0 infected people. Using condom, 2/10 will be infected. The 2 people will not be thankful that the infected person uses a condom. Having illicit sex already put a person in grave danger of hell, why bother lessening the sin by using condom. Might as well enjoy the full blown pleasure before heading there. Protecting the other person from serious harm is a hypocrisy.

 

[cathgal]

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant

I still don’t think the Pope should said anything ‘positive’ about condoms. The world already done that on its own by encouraging people to use condom all the time anyway.

 

[TarkanAttila]

NOTE: This is not official Church teaching or a Papal encyclical or anything official or binding to the Church. These are the Pope’s personal musings to a German interviewer. Be not afraid! This is no landmark or revolution or evolution or change. This is not an outrageous distortion of what it means to be Catholic. It’s merely the ideas of a man, who happens to be the Holy Father. It would carry about as much weight as if Pope Benny said “2+2=9,001”.

Besides, he did NOT mean that condoms are condonable. Condoms are still evil, but when a whore (the correct, archaic word for it) uses a condom, or a sexually diseased person uses a condom, it’s a sign that they are taking personal responsibility because they realise what they are doing could indeed be harmful. It’s not right, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Because condoms DO work. But they are immoral. Just as population control MAY help our poverty problems. But it is incredibly immoral and sick.

 

[Abyssinia]

I’ve been holding my fire on this issue here on CAF, but I think I should speak out now (just as everyone seems to have practically said something about it):

The issue is very big, especially for Catholics. As a former Catholic, as I remember the Catholic Church has stood for these two (in connection with this issue):

1. The Catholic Church is against any homosexual act, period.
2. The Catholic Church is against the use of condoms, period.

Now Pope Benedict XVI says that in certain cases, and using certain homosexual acts as an example, the use of condom is fine.

Let us study this issue more closely. The first is fairly straight, that the Catholic Church is against any homosexual act. The Catholic Church’s stance regarding the issue of homosexuality is that they should abstain from any homosexual act and lead upright lives. The clarification issued does not help, and in fact raises more questions:​

The Holy See Press Office has issued a clarification on the Pope’s comments on condoms and AIDS, according to Vatican Radio:

The head of the Holy See Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ,  has issued a statement clarifying passages of the book Light of the  World, in which Pope Benedict discusses AIDS and condom use.

The statement says Pope Benedict states that AIDs cannot be solved  only by the distribution of condoms, and, in fact, concentrating on  condoms just trivializes sexuality, which loses its meaning as an  expression of love and becomes like a drug.

At the same time, the Pope considered an exceptional situation in  which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of  others. In this case, the Pope does not morally justify the exercise of  disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the  risk of infection is a “first step on the road to a more human  sexuality”, rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others.

Father Lombardi’s statement clarifies Pope Benedict XVI has not  reformed or changed the Church’s teaching, but by putting it in  perspective reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an  expression of love and responsibility.

---

Now, that’s confusing. Although the statement said that the Pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, in the next one it seems he does when it says “the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a first step on the road to a more human sexuality”–or simply put, I am confused by this. He is saying he does not morally justify it, but then why would he even say that the use of condoms is a first step to a more human sexuality? Shouldn’t the stance be, “just say, ‘no’”? That has always been the stance of Rome; why change it now?

The second issue is that the use of condoms is against Catholic teaching, period. Although mainly the point here is about contraception and between heterosexual couples, it is implied that if it is not allowed between heterosexual couples, then it is not allowed for homosexuals as well, since homosexual acts are deemed disordered sexuality and should not be done at all. So the question again is, why change it now? The issue raises more questions and even the clarification raises still more questions. I think the only way Pope Benedict can get out of this is to totally retract what he said.

I think the Pope was referring to male, female and transsexual prostitutes. We know that male was translated wrong from the German and Fr Lombardi has said the Pope meant women as well. But ‘prostitute’ was the hypothetical that was used in the interview. I assume the Pope meant HIV positive prostitute who has no respect for themselves or anyone else around them that that they maybe having sex with. But condoms do have a 15% failure rate. The Pope mentioned nothing of HIV discordant married couples using condoms. He said nothing about changing Catholic teaching. Why are the mainstream media acting as if an assumed hypothetical situation for a prostitute means Catholics can use condoms whenever?

 

[cathgal]

condoms DO work.

You know this statement is misleading right?

The correct way to state it is X% of time.

 

[Abyssinia]

NOTE: This is not official Church teaching or a Papal encyclical or anything official or binding to the Church. These are the Pope’s personal musings to a German interviewer. Be not afraid! This is no landmark or revolution or evolution or change. This is not an outrageous distortion of what it means to be Catholic. It’s merely the ideas of a man, who happens to be the Holy Father. It would carry about as much weight as if Pope Benny said “2+2=9,001”.

Besides, he did NOT mean that condoms are condonable. Condoms are still evil, but when a whore (the correct, archaic word for it) uses a condom, or a sexually diseased person uses a condom, it’s a sign that they are taking personal responsibility because they realise what they are doing could indeed be harmful. It’s not right, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Because condoms DO work. But they are immoral. Just as population control MAY help our poverty problems. But it is incredibly immoral and sick.

The hypothetical was prostitutes. Condoms have a 15% failure rate. You seem to be referring to HIV discordant married couples? Are you? The Pope never mentioned HIV discordant couples using condoms.

 

[cathgal]

I think the Pope was referring to male, female and transsexual prostitutes. We know that male was translated wrong from the German and Fr Lombardi has said the Pope meant women as well. But ‘prostitute’ was the hypothetical that was used in the interview. I assume the Pope meant HIV positive prostitute who has no respect for themselves or anyone else around them that that they maybe having sex with. But condoms do have a 15% failure rate. The Pope mentioned nothing of HIV discordant married couples using condoms. He said nothing about changing Catholic teaching. Why are the mainstream media acting as if an assumed hypothetical situation for a prostitute means Catholics can use condoms whenever?

So many words, who got time to read what the Pope said exactly. There are still many Church teachings concerning morality that Catholics are still ignorant of. They are better off without more confusion on the prohibition of condoms. They are simple minded people and they need a simple answer…yay or nay on condoms. Don’t be surprised if some of them now think it’s a yay, thanks to the media!

 

[Abyssinia]

So many words, who got time to read what the Pope said exactly. There are still many Church teachings concerning morality that Catholics are still ignorant of. They are better off without more confusion on the prohibition of condoms. They are simple minded people and they need a simple answer…yay or nay on condoms. Don’t be surprised if some of them now think it’s a yay, thanks to the media!

I do not think it is wrong to want simple answers. This has been ambiguous. The mainstream media are misrepresenting the Pope by having such misleading stories. I hope Catholics do not beleive them.