Pope's Comments Apply to Females & Transexuals too

[TarkanAttila]

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.

15%? I’ve heard it was 3% (for contraception, anyway. shrugs). I was speaking generally. Condoms are evil no matter who uses them.By “whore”, I meant in archaic and correct terms, a prostitute. Not an infidelitous spouse. I said whore because it… just seems right.

You know this statement is misleading right?

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

Point taken. Condoms aren’t 100% “effective”. Although their “failure” rate is rather low (only about 3% as I’ve heard it).

Do not get me wrong. I do* not* condone condoms. While they are useful against HIV and AIDS, it’s only in the way that a nuclear warhead is useful for bringing peace. Instead of curing the cause of the problem, they try to reduce the symptoms and make it look like there is no problem.

That is the media spin and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. The Pope was talking about the development of a sense of right and wrong. That the difference between a prostitute that uses a condom and one who doesn’t, shows that they are making a small step toward acknowledging that what they are doing is wrong. That condom use, in some situations, is an outward sign of an individual’s developing moral conscience.

Developing a moral conscience is a good thing, don’t you think?

For the Pope to say that condom use is OK is a mainstream media wet dream and they will stretch that in any way, shape, or form they can get it into. So no, the Pope isn’t saying anything radical in relation to Church teachings on human sexuality.

Bopped it! Bopped it!! Right on the nose!! If anything that is what he meant!

Even if he didn’t, it is not an encyclical letter or a constitution or any kind of doctrine or dogma yet. Nor should it be. And hopefully, he would understand that IF he were wrong.

 

[Abyssinia]

15%? I’ve heard it was 3% (for contraception, anyway. shrugs). I was speaking generally. Condoms are evil no matter who uses them.By “whore”, I meant in archaic and correct terms, a prostitute. Not an infidelitous spouse. I said whore because it… just seems right.

Point taken. Condoms aren’t 100% “effective”. Although their “failure” rate is rather low (only about 3% as I’ve heard it).

 

[Adeodatus]

Keep in mind that these are personal comments by the Pope as Josef Ratzinger. They have not been published as an ‘official’ teaching of the Church. We’re still doing better than in the Renaissance. Nobody needs to go sedevacantist just yet.

 

[Kingbear]

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.

What is more likely?
God would allow the Holy Father, who he has chosen to lead Mother Church to tell a lie?
Or Gods Plan is being fullfilled in ways that Of COURSE you dont know!
I understand and accept that up till his Holiness announced it that condom use was in all circumstances a terrible and immoral act.
I also accept and know now that as part of our Lords plan, something has changed.
We cannot know of the battles that are being fought in a world we cannot perceive. There must indeed be a sound and rational reason for it. Our role is to support Mother Church and her teachings. All this arguement is just satans work, trying to divide us.
200, 2000 years or 6000 years, it makes no difference how long condoms have been sinful in those circumstances specified. There are things we cannot compute and we wuld be well advised not to argue or ask questions about this, but just to prayerfully acknowlage and rejoice in God working in the world today.

It dosnt matter one jot that the apostates accepted condom use many yaers ago. They were wrong to do so then. They did not have the authority of the church to accept it. All condom use up till a few days ago was indeed a sin.

 

[Adeodatus]

What is more likely?
God would allow the Holy Father, who he has chosen to lead Mother Church to tell a lie?
Or Gods Plan is being fullfilled in ways that Of COURSE you dont know!
I understand and accept that up till his Holiness announced it that condom use was in all circumstances a terrible and immoral act.
I also accept and know now that as part of our Lords plan, something has changed.
We cannot know of the battles that are being fought in a world we cannot perceive. There must indeed be a sound and rational reason for it. Our role is to support Mother Church and her teachings. All this arguement is just satans work, trying to divide us.
200, 2000 years or 6000 years, it makes no difference how long condoms have been sinful in those circumstances specified. There are things we cannot compute and we wuld be well advised not to argue or ask questions about this, but just to prayerfully acknowlage and rejoice in God working in the world today.

It dosnt matter one jot that the apostates accepted condom use many yaers ago. They were wrong to do so then. They did not have the authority of the church to accept it. All condom use up till a few days ago was indeed a sin.

That’s untrue. The Church’s infallible moral teaching cannot change. If the Pope actually formally taught, as Pope, a contrary moral position then it would represent a formal defection and he wouldn’t be Pope any more. But these are just his private opinions, not official Church teaching.

We don’t worship the Pope. We worship Jesus Christ.

 

[BlackBeard54]

—snip— All condom use up till a few days ago was indeed a sin.

Sorry, what was a sin a few days ago is still a sin. Nothing has changed.

 

[Kingbear]

That’s untrue. The Church’s infallible moral teaching cannot change. If the Pope actually formally taught, as Pope, a contrary moral position then it would represent a formal defection and he wouldn’t be Pope any more. But these are just his private opinions, not official Church teaching.

We don’t worship the Pope. We worship Jesus Christ.

Of course we worship Our Lord Jesus and not an ordinary man.
You fail however to take into account that The Church is our Lords one Catholic Church, and the Pope was chosen by him to lead us.

Our worship goes only to Lord Jesus, but what sense would a “private opinion” to the world make.

This is not a contrary moral position is it? The Moral issue before the revalation was clear and correct. Now, God has spoken through his chosen leader of our Church and the values have changed. There were many secular critics previously quoting false statistics over “Tens of Millions” of africans dying through the Churches opposition to condoms. What they failed to see was that although people were dying, their souls were being raised in a glorious way. They died free of that sin they would have been dirtied with.

What is the alternative! Come now? You are trying to say here that Our Lord was misguided in his choice! Ridiculous!

We should see this in exactly the same way as Limbo. Limbo served a purpose for a certain time according to our Lords Plan. When Limbo was revealed as insubstantiated, the reality of Limbo was not affected one little bit. It was just rendered unnceccessery according to the Plan. Otherwise, this would not have been revealed.

 

[Adeodatus]

Of course we worship Our Lord Jesus and not an ordinary man.
You fail however to take into account that The Church is our Lords one Catholic Church, and the Pope was chosen by him to lead us.

Our worship goes only to Lord Jesus, but what sense would a “private opinion” to the world make.

This is not a contrary moral position is it? The Moral issue before the revalation was clear and correct. Now, God has spoken through his chosen leader of our Church and the values have changed. There were many secular critics previously quoting false statistics over “Tens of Millions” of africans dying through the Churches opposition to condoms. What they failed to see was that although people were dying, their souls were being raised in a glorious way. They died free of that sin they would have been dirtied with.

What is the alternative! Come now? You are trying to say here that Our Lord was misguided in his choice! Ridiculous!

We should see this in exactly the same way as Limbo. Limbo served a purpose for a certain time according to our Lords Plan. When Limbo was revealed as insubstantiated, the reality of Limbo was not affected one little bit. It was just rendered unnceccessery according to the Plan. Otherwise, this would not have been revealed.

Brother, not everything the Pope says is inspired by God! Only the official teaching of the Pope on moral and theologically matters, promulgated according to the correct form (i.e. taught ex cathedra) is infallible. Other things are quite fallible.

The Catholic Church cannot declare that which is sin to not be sin. If you teach that, you essentially teach that the moral teaching authority of the Church is not rooted in the Divine and Natural law. The Church declares things to be sin because they are sin… they are not sin simply and only if they are so declared.

 

[cathgal]

You are the one that keeps spinning just like them mainstream media. There are no spin doctors, we are only people that are trying to understand what the Pope meant. And the best way to do that is to look at the interview, not the mainstream media’s interpretations.

Why are we even **trying **to understand what the Pope meant? Was his message that confusing?? Heck yeah! Just look at the number of threads about this supposedly minor statement from the Pope that has become a havoc to the Catholic world.

Before, it was pretty easy. NO CONDOMS under any circumstances… and no one challenge its meaning. Yeah, it was a peaceful world then.

Now, we are falling over ourselves trying to discern if condoms are allowed or not and under what circumstances and who gets to use it.

Tell me the Pope didn’t create a mountain when he thought he was only creating a molehill.

He should never, never, never, never ( I can’t stress it enough) have said anything ‘positive’ about using condoms.

I know exactly where the Church’s stand on condoms is but there are just too many ignorant people out there that this will only confuse them more.

 

[IVDAE]

Pax!

First and foremost, the Holy Father did not give any statement as Ex Cathedra,

Second, the Stupid media misleads us!

Third, what the Church teaches is always the same it does not sway from its former doctrines especially when it come to morality.

read this:

Pope Benedict and the Condom Question
By Fr. Joel O. Jason, SThL
(Fr Joel is a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. He is currently Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe Makati and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics. He also heads the Commission on Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila)

This article seeks to clarify the perceived confusion and surprise that greeted the whole Catholic as well as non-Catholic world. International as well as local journal headlines read:

“Pope says condoms are justified in fight against HIV”

“Pope says condoms are acceptable in some cases”

“Pope softens on teaching on Condoms, Aids and Contraception”

“Pope: Condom use OK for fight against AIDs”

The whole controversy started from a supposed “leaked” German interview the Pope granted to journalist Peter Seewald in an upcoming book yet to be released entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. For the sake of intellectual integrity, let us see what the Pope really said from this excerpt of the transcript of the interview connected with the condom question: Here is that portion in it’s entirety:

From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

Peter Seewald:

On 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.

Pope Benedict:

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 **(emphasis mine). 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 **(emphasis mine). 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 **(Emphasis mine). 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, (The preceding is the only sentence the secular media focused on to reach their conclusions) 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 (Emphasis mine).

(The next question and answer was totally ignored by the secular media)

Peter Seewald:

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict:

**She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution (Emphasis mine), 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 **(Emphasis mine).

 

[IVDAE]

Part 2:

So with the full text in question now presented, what conclusions can we derive?

First things first. There is a principle in Biblical interpretation that goes:

“A text, out of context, is pretext.”

It means that every text of the Bible should be understood in its integral context: in the unity of the whole message of a chapter, of a series of books, of the theology of the writer, and even the unity of the whole Biblical message. Taken in isolation, a text in the Bible can be reduced to a pretext, i.e., a half-truth or at worst, a misleading misinterpretation.

The headlines we read above, regarding the supposed change Benedict proposes on the consistent sexual ethics of the Church connected with condoms and HIV, are clear examples of a text taken out of context. As you can see, Pope Benedict gave a long answer to a rather short question. I highlighted the parts that spell out clearly Benedict’s convictions as well as that of the Church’s. What some interpreters took out in isolation was that part where it says, “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…”. They did not even finish the whole sentence.

With these laid out, so what now did Pope Benedict NOT say?

First of all, this is a personal interview. Pope Benedict is not speaking here in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. What you find in the book is not proposed as official teaching nor pronouncement being sent out to the Catholic faithful. Some of the things we can read here can even fall in the category of personal opinions and therefore do not and cannot present themselves as official Magisterial teachings. If the Pope wants to hold out a new teaching based on his reasoned discernment as the Successor of Peter, a personal interview is not the place to do it. Everyone who knows basic Catechism understands this, much more the Pope. And so headlines claiming, “Pope changes teaching on Condoms, Contraception and HIV”, or “Pope: Condoms OK in fight Against AIDS” are totally way out of line.
Nowhere in the text of Pope Benedict’s response can we find a summary justification of the morality of condom use. This is clear in the texts I highlighted. Let me highlight them once again: **“…that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done,” ; “…But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself” ; “ 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” ; “…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.” **
I don’t see how the quotes above translate to “Pope OKs Condom Use”. On the contrary, the above quotations reflect the consistent conviction of the Church regarding condom use vis a vis HIV/AIDs: that condoms are not the solution. If at all, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problem. Condoms can only reduce the risk of infection. And with the fatally serious threat of HIV/AIDs, risk reduction is not acceptable. Prevention is the only acceptable option. And prevention is only served by abstinence (for the unmarried) and monogamy and fidelity (for the married).

In the first place, Pope Benedict’s response was not even a direct commentary on the possible moral justification of condom use, clearly not for contraception. He was making a moral speculation on what may be going on in the heart of one (a male prostitute) who uses the condom in a homosexual or heterosexual sex act.

 

[IVDAE]

Part 3:

What did Pope Benedict intend to say?

Pope Benedict was specific in his response. He spoke of a “male prostitute” who uses a condom. What the Pope stressed was not that condom use is OK in the case of a male prostitute engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts. He merely said that **“this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…” **Perhaps an analogy can help us appreciate what the Pope is saying (for this point I will modify a principle I picked up from lay moral theologian Janet Smith).

There are two robbers. One uses a real knife with a real intent to kill and harm. The other uses a plastic knife because he has no real intention of killing. He only intends to frighten and intimidate. Both men will be committing an evil act. But obviously, between the two, it is the one who employs a toy knife that shows at least a hint, a semblance, a little amount of moral responsibility which hopefully, can still mature to a real and correct kind of moral responsibility that will let him realize that robbing people is an evil option to take. Does this mean the Church will teach that it is “OK” and moral to rob people using a fake knife? No. The Church simply says that between the two, the one with the fake knife is the one that manifests a semblance of an “assumption of responsibility”, immature it may be.

The same logic can be applied to Pope Benedict’s example. Obviously, the mere fact that the person used a condom indicates a “semblance of responsibility.” One who engages in prostituted sex without a condom, shows a total absence of moral responsibility, for himself or for the other. Compared to this one, one who uses a condom at least shows a hint of “assuming a responsibility” which Benedict hopes can be a **“first step in the direction of a moralization” **i.e., hopefully it can develop to a more correct kind of responsibility, not in the direction of regular condom use, as secular interpreters assumed, but, as Benedict finished his sentence, (which the secular media left out), “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.”
As we see here, Pope Benedict is too deep a theologian and a thinker to be presented from a shallow and surface level interpretation. The Pope and the Church’s consistent ethical teachings deserve more than that. We pray that the media may also assume responsibility in reporting matters related to faith and morals. We pray that intellectual integrity and professionalism may not be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, sensationalism and paper sales.

 

[buffalo]

You know this statement is misleading right?

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

…and condoms have holes.

 

[Man]

I believe that what the pope is saying is that murder is depraved, or a sin calling out to Heaven for Vengeance, etc, whereas condom use is a ‘mere’ mortal sin. Explaining the reason for this traditional teaching in a reasonable way is not hard, but explaining from a theological or philosophical way might be more difficult. From the legal perspective it is quite clear that murder can quite easily cause you Hell on Earth, and in the life to come.

He is not saying the condom is less sinful than it was before, he is reminding everyone that murder is an extremely grave matter, putting you on the fast lane to Hell.

Further, from a pastoral standpoint, it seems like the positive way he addresses the question, which managed to confuse many people, including priests, sadly. Is similar to how one might counsel people, we’ll say, addicted to drugs, or other immoral behavior (contraception, masturbation), encouraging them on the way to living in way ever more in line with Church teaching, encouraging them to take concrete steps to conversion. And so, it is perhaps, a change in that priest need not feel afraid, if they did, of pointing out that passing AIDS knowingly is depraved and must be avoided. Similarly, condom use must be avoided, but isolated usages of condoms are not going to destroy your reality, the same way a vengeance sin, or compound (multiple) vengeance sin will or could, at least not the same percent of the time.

Therefore, it is quite clear that in a marriage where one person has AIDS, they must not have sex. Having condoms around seems like definitely being an occasion for sin, and possibly the precipitant of one killing the other with a disease.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I do not see how they are useful. 1% would be a great risk, 15% is a huge risk. Who would want to risk that?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is not a contrary moral position is it? The Moral issue before the revalation was clear and correct. Now, God has spoken through his chosen leader of our Church and the values have changed. There were many secular critics previously quoting false statistics over “Tens of Millions” of africans dying through the Churches opposition to condoms. What they failed to see was that although people were dying, their souls were being raised in a glorious way. They died free of that sin they would have been dirtied with.

What is the alternative! Come now? You are trying to say here that Our Lord was misguided in his choice! Ridiculous!

We should see this in exactly the same way as Limbo. Limbo served a purpose for a certain time according to our Lords Plan. When Limbo was revealed as insubstantiated, the reality of Limbo was not affected one little bit. It was just rendered unnceccessery according to the Plan. Otherwise, this would not have been revealed.

You must be joking.

Actually nothing has changed in church teaching, because the church doesn’t have a teaching on how to do perform immoral acts in ways that are less immoral. This whole condom question is about choosing one immoral act over another immoral act. Sure, one act might be worse than another, but the Church has never provided us with guidance on such matters. The gay prostitute in the pope’s example should not have gay sex at all. This teaching is the same as it has always been.

Similarly, most Catholics before last week and today would agree that someone like that would be doing less harm by using a condom. It’s just common sense, not something new.