Release of pope's comments on condoms a blunder or apologetic genius?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Code: 
Pope Benedict XVI has signaled that in some limited cases, where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease rather than to prevent pregnancy, the use of condoms might be morally justified.

While that position is hardly new, in the sense that a large number of Catholic theologians and even a special Vatican commission requested by Benedict XVI have endorsed it, this is the first time the pope himself has publicly espoused such a view.

The  comments do not yet rise to the level of official church teaching, but they do suggest that Benedict might be open to such a development.
The comments from Benedict come in a book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald titled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, published in English by Ignatius Press.

Excerpts from the Seewald interview were published today by L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.

read more

More…
 
Has anyone seen this article?

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AJ1CC20101120

Can anyone tell me the details behind this? Because this feels very disturbing. I was under the impression that two wrongs don’t make a right.

On the other hand, it looks like it’s just his personal opinion and not an infallible binding teaching. So it really doesn’t matter. But still, what is the pope thinking??:confused:

God Bless 🙂
 
I think you need to:

(a) Wait until the Pope’s book is released and read it in its entirity

(b) Know that news agencies are famous for misinterpreting what the Pope says and taking things out of context. Even in the excerpt they quote the Pope clearly says condom use is not moral.

I wouldn’t be disturbed unless I had read and understood everything in the Pope’s book in context.

And, the Pope’s private theological writings are not Church doctrines.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/light-of-the-world/
 
1ke said:
I think you need to:

(a) Wait until the Pope’s book is released and read it in its entirity

(b) Know that news agencies are famous for misinterpreting what the Pope says and taking things out of context. Even in the excerpt they quote the Pope clearly says condom use is not moral.

I wouldn’t be disturbed unless I had read and understood everything in the Pope’s book in context.

And, the Pope’s private theological writings are not Church doctrines.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/light-of-the-world/
Click to expand...
Hi,

Thanks for your reply 🙂

Yes, very true. They do love to distort it to fit there needs.

And as you said, it’s his private theological ideas. The thing that disturbed me was that it felt like he was giving in to moral relativism.

But yes, lets wait and see. I will keep a look on the link you posted for the detailed Op-Ed on the book.

God Bless 🙂
 
I can see a case for condoms in the use of marriage, where a philandering husband contracted the disease, and uses one to protect his faithful wife. This may be the kind of scenario the Pope actually envisions, though the media of course focuses on the use by prostitutes 😦

(Incindently, I more mad that they focus on the prostitutes than marriage, because I know the media is doing it for the shock value, not out of concern for their freedom, health and dignity, as would be the Pope’s core concerns)
 
It is also worth noting that while Condoms have not helped stem the spread of HIV in Africa, in Latin and South America the spread of HIV is primarily through prostitution and in cases where the government has decided to legalize and regulated prostitution so that condoms were required the Spread problem of HIV has been reduced to a minimal thing. Perhaps this had some influence in comments as these countries have a very strong Catholic influence and the moral conflict involved in such laws is probably a difficult issue for them.
 
  1. The Pope’s private writings matter the moment they are published.
  2. There is no clarity in this article but the rabid desire of the pagan media to get the Church to act the way they want it to act. The Church will not do this. And that angers them.
Peace,
Ed
 
PatrickSebast said:
It is also worth noting that while Condoms have not helped stem the spread of HIV in Africa, in Latin and South America the spread of HIV is primarily through prostitution and in cases where the government has decided to legalize and regulated prostitution so that condoms were required the Spread problem of HIV has been reduced to a minimal thing. Perhaps this had some influence in comments as these countries have a very strong Catholic influence and the moral conflict involved in such laws is probably a difficult issue for them.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. This is why I was most disturbed. There is a lot of academic work done on it that shows condoms do not work in stemming HIV. So when the pope says (IF HE DID ACTUALLY SAY) that it could be used in this sense, it is incorrect to being with. It just looks like he is giving in to the pressure.

I really hope that it’s just the media misinterpreting him.

God Bless 🙂
 
This article has some additional quotes that put the Pope’s comments in context:
timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101120/world-news/pope-says-condoms-acceptable-in-certain-cases-book

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,”

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes … But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

The Pope is merely pointing out that a particular intention is a good intention. He hopes that such a good intention might lead the person to a better understanding of morality and a turning away from immoral acts. He is not approving of contraception, nor is he approving of the use of condoms by homosexuals (i.e. cases where the condoms are not contraceptive).
 
runningdude said:
I can see a case for condoms in the use of marriage, where a philandering husband contracted the disease, and uses one to protect his faithful wife. This may be the kind of scenario the Pope actually envisions, though the media of course focuses on the use by prostitutes
Click to expand...
No, the Pope was not approving of the intrinsically evil act of contraception (a married couple using condoms) with a good intention, such as to avoid disease transmission.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)
 
ddarko said:
Hi,

And as you said, it’s his private theological ideas.** The thing that disturbed me was that it felt like he was giving in to moral relativism. **But yes, lets wait and see. I will keep a look on the link you posted for the detailed Op-Ed on the book.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
A Pope giving into moral relativism? NEVER!:eek:Peace, Carlan
 
Personally I applaud the Pope for this change. The end result of these statements will likely be that the spread of STDs will reduce significantly, which can only be a good thing.
 
Ron_Conte said:
This article has some additional quotes that put the Pope’s comments in context:
timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101120/world-news/pope-says-condoms-acceptable-in-certain-cases-book

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,”

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes … But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

The Pope is merely pointing out that a particular intention is a good intention. He hopes that such a good intention might lead the person to a better understanding of morality and a turning away from immoral acts. He is not approving of contraception, nor is he approving of the use of condoms by homosexuals (i.e. cases where the condoms are not contraceptive).
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Ron_Conte said:
This article has some additional quotes that put the Pope’s comments in context:
timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101120/world-news/pope-says-condoms-acceptable-in-certain-cases-book

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,”

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes … But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

The Pope is merely pointing out that a particular intention is a good intention. He hopes that such a good intention might lead the person to a better understanding of morality and a turning away from immoral acts. He is not approving of contraception, nor is he approving of the use of condoms by homosexuals (i.e. cases where the condoms are not contraceptive).
Click to expand...
Thanks, but this very idea is what troubles me.

An advocate of abortion for an example, has good intentions to save the mother’s life. But the practice of it is morally wrong. Similarly, someone with HIV considering sexual activity is already wrong. The proper thing to do is to abstain. Two wrongs can’t make it a right no?

God Bless 🙂
 
Ron_Conte said:
No, the Pope was not approving of the intrinsically evil act of contraception (a married couple using condoms) with a good intention, such as to avoid disease transmission.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)
Click to expand...
The linked article was so vague, and I was speaking off the cuff. Finding a second source the AP via Yahoo news, I see I was mistaken: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms.

The pope spoke about exceptionally limited circumstances, such as male on male prostitution, where conception was already impossible and thus condoms themselves would have little moral relevance (though many other grave moral issues surrounding sexuality certainly would be at stake…).
 
It is scary how much power the secular news media has over members of the Church. The media can misrepresent the words of the Pope, and thereby spread a false doctrine very rapidly to millions of Catholics. The harm that is done in just a brief space of time, using the power of modern communication, is immense and incalculable.

Extended quote from the book is here:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798

The relevant portion is quoted below:

Pope Bendict: 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.

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, 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.
 
No He hasn’t said what the media are saying.

He has basically said that when someone is doing something wrong sexually But
they are wearing the condom to prevent the transmission of an infection that they have
there can be seen in this intention something that can lead in the direction of the moralization of sexuality.

Once again the media twists everything.

Brother Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top