Pope's Comments Apply to Females & Transexuals too

[Socio_Momma]

Here’s the CNS blog with the same statements from Lombardi, it appears the statements were made during the presentation of the book at the Vatican press office

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2010/11…ndoms-comment/

I also posted this link in the other thread that was started on the same topic (I think we posted at the same time originally) too. This link doesn’t have the same spin the Reuters article attempts to add.

I think it’s important as Catholics to know what is being said by Fr. Lombardi as a representative of the Vatican so we can try to accurately (or at least attempt to, this is confusing!) discuss this, because I’m guessing many of us are talking about this around the kitchen table (so to speak) & some may have this come up as Thanksgiving rolls around with family talking about things in the media as conversation.

 

[LongJourney]

promoted abstinence and fidelity. Why would you change what is working?

People who do not have the choice in the immediate situation, but may make the choice later. And later might be too late. I really don’t think there are many practicing male prostitutes who are also practicing Catholics.

Again, I am just wrapping my head around the subject. And thank you for quoting Cardinal Burke. :tiphat:

 

[Adeodatus]

I humbly submit that we need to stop immediately blaming the media over everything. The media didn’t make all these wacky comments.

Likewise, although the media was deceptive and calumnious regarding the Holy Father, whom I still believe had nothing to do with any abuse cover ups, we must admit that it was not the media that molested any children. Nor has the media smashed high altars with sledgehammers, removed the Tabernacle to side rooms or closets, arranged clown masses and dancing chickens in the sanctuary, distributed the Most Holy Sacrament in the hand, employed altar girls and female ‘Eucharistic ministers’, arranged for liberal nuns to ‘concelebrate’ in vestments, attempted to confect pizza and beer as Communion, stocked the seminaries with homosexuals, embraced and funded pro-abortion and Communist political organizations, given Communion to openly pro-abortion politicians, held gay pride masses, suppressed the Tridentine Mass, denied the reality of miracles and of the saints, driven millions and millions of souls away from the ark of salvation, and any of the almost numberless other OUTRAGES inflicted upon our Lord, His Church and the laity over the past 40 years.

We cannot lay any of that at the feet of the media.

 

[pnewton]

The media didn’t make all these wacky comments.

“Wacky comments” begs the question. Not all are gullible to what the media prints as to buy it hook, line a and sinker. Your rant rates no comment.

 

[Abyssinia]

People who do not have the choice in the immediate situation, but may make the choice later. And later might be too late. I really don’t think there are many practicing male prostitutes who are also practicing Catholics.

Again, I am just wrapping my head around the subject. And thank you for quoting Cardinal Burke. :tiphat:

Who do you mean?

 

[edwest2]

Nope. This is just plain wrong. Another attempt to sow confusion in the ranks.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514325

Peace,
Ed

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

Sorry, but there’s different moral principles involved here. Saying that using a condom to prevent transmission of disease is not a separate sin is not the same as saying that condoms should be handed out.

 

[Jim_Gnadinger]

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.

The innocent would be those who contract the disease through blood transfusions or other means that are otherwise not connected to the diseased person.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

***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?

I think common sense would say that the action in your example was preferable than if the gangster had intentionally shot his victim in the face. Why is it so upsetting to people here that the pope pointed out the obvious that its preferable to not spread disease at the same time as commiting another sin? It’s just common sense, and will help the mainstream culture understand us a lot better.

Here are some more examples:

It’s preferable, when robbing a bank, to use bullets that cause less serious injuries. It’s preferable when committing arson to warn the people to get out of the building first. It’s preferable when stealing to steal from someone who can more afford to be stolen from. It’s preferable when poisoning people to use poison that causes less suffering. It’s preferable when kidnapping people for ransom to try not to injure the victims unnecessarily. etc.

 

[exiled]

How is this not the same as advocating giving clean needles to drug addicts? Or saying to kids, “your going to have sex anyway, so just be sure to use a condom/pill”. This has shaken me up so much, and I’m afraid I’m not heady enough to read the pope’s statements and be able to rest easy on the notion that he really didn’t say what it sounds like he said.
Additionally, I would have expected the Holy Father to know that in today’s world any comment like this by him is going to be trumpeted around the world as a change in the Church’s position. Seems an imprudent statement at best, and a major theological error at worst.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

How is this not the same as advocating giving clean needles to drug addicts?

Saying that its better to use a clean needle than a dirty one is information that is correct. Handing an addict a needle borders on formal cooperation with evil. Those are very different moral issues. Just as noting the fact that condoms help reduce the transmission of HIV is merely truthful information but handing someone a condom is aiding/abetting their sin.

 

[Kingbear]

This is all such a divisive storm whipped up by the media as if it was something significant.
From time to time God gives new revalations, this is perfectly natural and in order. Although all previous Popes have taught against condom use, the Holy Father would not have said what he did if he had not received this from Our Lord.
Obviously then , as many of us have suspected, things are happening fast and within our lifetime!
Gods Plan will continue to be unveiled in his own time and in his own way. It has become neccessery for mother church to have this new revealing at this time.
We should be honoured, but it would seem that some people are just anxious or angry, when such revealing of Gods perfect plan occours.

What I think is sticking in peoples craw, is that it appears that this is a response to criticisms of the Church by the media. People might point to the Holy Fathers message and say he is “Doing a U Turn”. Such ignorance is what annoys me.

If the use of Condoms in the circumstances that the Holy Father has spoken of, and at this specific time was not part of Gods divine and impeccable plan, then we WOULDNT EVEN KNOW, because the Holy Father would not have revealed it!

 

[gakroeger]

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.

This is absolutely correct. The Pope has not changed anything, it is wishful thinking on the part of those who find it impossible to follow Church teaching. Hoping against hope the Church will change. Morality does not change with time as these opponents of the Church think it does.

If the Pope had said that it is acceptable to the Church to use condoms as balloons the result would have been the same by the bias media.

 

[Kingbear]

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.

.

What possible use is saving millions of lives when those same lives will end eventually and their souls will be lost! C’mon! Think about it!

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

This is all such a divisive storm whipped up by the media as if it was something significant.
From time to time God gives new revalations, this is perfectly natural and in order. Although all previous Popes have taught against condom use, the Holy Father would not have said what he did if he had not received this from Our Lord.
Obviously then , as many of us have suspected, things are happening fast and within our lifetime!
Gods Plan will continue to be unveiled in his own time and in his own way. It has become neccessery for mother church to have this new revealing at this time.
We should be honoured, but it would seem that some people are just anxious or angry, when such revealing of Gods perfect plan occours.

What I think is sticking in peoples craw, is that it appears that this is a response to criticisms of the Church by the media. People might point to the Holy Fathers message and say he is “Doing a U Turn”. Such ignorance is what annoys me.

If the use of Condoms in the circumstances that the Holy Father has spoken of, and at this specific time was not part of Gods divine and impeccable plan, then we WOULDNT EVEN KNOW, because the Holy Father would not have revealed it!

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.

 

[Yorkshireman]

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.

So, a woman unless she knows beyond all reasonable doubt a man doesn’t have AIDS can insist he wears a condom.

Reasons to doubt a man is disease-free. 1. Men tell lies.

So a woman can always insist in a condom so as to be sure of protecting herself.

 

[Kingbear]

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.

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.

 

[Abyssinia]

So, a woman unless she knows beyond all reasonable doubt a man doesn’t have AIDS can insist he wears a condom.

Reasons to doubt a man is disease-free. 1. Men tell lies.

So a woman can always insist in a condom so as to be sure of protecting herself.

According to the good doctor, condoms are not enough to prevent the spread of HIV:

So the truth of the matter is that condoms have a much, much, higher failure rate than 15% during typical use. In dealing with the transmissibility of HIV, this is catastrophic.

IF you really love someone; you abstain. Period.

Will anyone hear his rational point of view amidst the cacophony of voices unleashed by the Holy Father’s comments? Pope Benedict was not recommending condoms, he was merely saying any act towards protecting another is moving towards morality, it shows an awakening of the moral sensibility. No one said it overrides the immorality of homosexual acts, or contraceptive acts. It was meant to make a hypothetical point, which is important to understand particularly if condoms are as ineffective as Dr Nadal maintains.
Read his entire post here.

causa-nostrae-laetitiae.blogspot.com/2010/11/condom-conumdrum-is-moot-point.html

 

[Yorkshireman]

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 do wish God had told the Pope earlier or even told the previous Pope.

 

[He_Man]

The problem is, if we are to believe what we are being told about the clarification, it is just a message of common sense.

As has been pointed out in this topic,

• If you are going to shoot someone in a bank robbery, aim for below the knee so as not to permanently injure.
• If you are going to steal money from someone, make sure they are wealthy enough to afford it.
• If you are going to rape someone, make sure you have no diseases first.

Well, ummm, duh?

It seems unnecessary, and as such, extremely naive of the Vatican, IF that is truly the message. I hope it is, but again, cavalierly broaching the issue of condom use in such a brazen manner is foolish. The people on Catholic Answers know the devil, and subsequently, the secular world is out to manipulate, lie about, and destroy the
Catholic Church - does the Vatican simply not realize this? Of course they do. They just handled this, PR -wise, in a horrible way that could do damage for years to come. I know many Catholics that are confused and disillusioned, and I know many secular anti-Catholics who claim to have more respect for the Church now, all on the basis of misinformation.

The Vatican may be morally upright, but they need to wake up when it comes to Public Relations and potential scandal. The Pope is our religious leader, but his position is a much a political one as a religious one. To ignore the importance of being a politician as the leader of God’s Church is to not fully embrace the mantle of Peter, and to do a disservice to the rest of us.