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

[Jeanne_dArc]

The Pope is now saying that in certain circumstances a homosexual male prostitute could use a condom and that would be the lesser of two evils if the alternative is the the further spread of a deadly disease.

The Pope still insists that a female prostitute when she has sex must still leave possible the chance of becoming pregnant because obviously a prostitute having a baby by a client is a desirable outcome.

That is incorrect. A prostitute is not married to her clientele.

 

[dusty_david]

How on earth does the use of condoms by 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have to do with “The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.”

Last I check 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have 0% chance of conceiving. The condom isn’t used as birth control. It is used to stop infection. Therefore using condoms in this way doesn’t break the catholic rule about birth control. I don’t understand why so many people don’t get this.

 

[PRmerger]

How on earth does the use of condoms by 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have to do with “The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.”

Last I check 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have 0% chance of conceiving. The condom isn’t used as birth control. It is used to stop infection. Therefore using condoms in this way doesn’t break the catholic rule about birth control. I don’t understand why so many people don’t get this.

I think the question posed is this: if it’s licit to use as a barrier to infection for homosexual prostitutes, why not between homosexual couples?

 

[Observer3]

How on earth does the use of condoms by 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have to do with “The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.”

Last I check 2 homosexuals committing sodomy have 0% chance of conceiving. The condom isn’t used as birth control. It is used to stop infection. Therefore using condoms in this way doesn’t break the catholic rule about birth control. I don’t understand why so many people don’t get this.

There are those who believe everything the men in any religion tell them. Perhaps it’s because they want life to be simple and would like to believe one organization has the answers. Jesus never said condoms were evil or wrong, it’s men that made up those rules.

 

[Abu]

PRmerger
if it’s licit to use as a barrier to infection for homosexual prostitutes, why not between homosexual couples?

As dusty david explained, there is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it but may contribute some protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified.

 

[PRmerger]

There are those who believe everything the men in any religion tell them.

If this is a veiled dig at Catholics, you ought to know that the Catholic Church does not force its beliefs on anyone.

Perhaps it’s because they want life to be simple and would like to believe one organization has the answers.

What would be the point of following a pastor that you know is going to be wrong?

Jesus never said condoms were evil or wrong, it’s men that made up those rules.

That’s a made up rule itself, Observer. Jesus never said that all of His teachings were to be found only in Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

As dusty david explained, there is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it but may contribute some protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified.

Yes. So if it’s licit to provide protection against AIDS, why only for prostitutes?

 

[ddarko]

Yes. So if it’s licit to provide protection against AIDS, why only for prostitutes?

In the case of male prostitutes, contraception is out of the equation. In that event, a condom is just a neutral instrument. So wearing one actually means in that case that the participant is sort of realizing that he has some moral duty toward the other. So there is only one wrong thing here:- the act of Sodomy.

But in the case of a heterosexual relationship, it is contraception and is therefore immoral.

I think the confusion might be that you are thinking it is ok for all prostitutes including heterosexual?

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of male prostitutes, contraception is out of the equation. In that event, a condom is just a neutral instrument. So wearing one actually means in that case that the participant is sort of realizing that he has some moral duty toward the other.

But in the case of a heterosexual relationship, it is contraception and is therefore immoral.

I think the confusion might be that you are thinking it is ok for all prostitutes?

God Bless

No. I meant why is it not licit for 2 homosexuals to use a condom to prevent disease?

 

[ddarko]

No. I meant why is it not licit for 2 homosexuals to use a condom to prevent disease?

It is licit. There is no contraception involved in that case either. That is why the Pope said, ‘this and some other cases’ (or something like that in his reply)

I mean if you think about it, it is not anything new. I think the Pope’s comments in a way are making us better understand what we always implicitly knew but did not consider outright. Contraception is morally wrong. But in the case of homosexual relationships, there really isn’t the possibility of conception anyway. That alone makes the sexual act a moral sin. Wearing a condom while doing it really means nothing extra in terms of a moral sin.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

It is licit. There is no contraception involved in that case either. That is why the Pope said, ‘this and some other cases’ (or something like that in his reply)

God Bless

Ah. Very good, then. Makes sense to me!

 

[edwest2]

A clarification has been issued: No Change.

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

It is licit. There is no contraception involved in that case either. That is why the Pope said, ‘this and some other cases’ (or something like that in his reply)

I mean if you think about it, it is not anything new. I think the Pope’s comments in a way are making us better understand what we always implicitly knew but did not consider outright. Contraception is morally wrong. But in the case of homosexual relationships, there really isn’t the possibility of conception anyway. That alone makes the sexual act a moral sin. Wearing a condom while doing it really means nothing extra in terms of a moral sin.

God Bless

I see that I made the mistake of taking someone’s word (in this case, poster Yorkshireman) and not going to the source itself. According to that poster the pope was “fixated” on gay prostitutes.

Now, upon reading the article, I see that the above was only an example of licit use.

 

[ddarko]

I see that I made the mistake of taking someone’s word (in this case, poster Yorkshireman) and not going to the source itself. According to that poster the pope was “fixated” on gay prostitutes.

Now, upon reading the article, I see that the above was only an example of licit use.

Yes, Yorkshire has been going a bit crazy trying to make it look like the Pope really made a blunder or actually introduced something new.

As you said, the Pope actually gives the ‘‘male prostitute’’ case as an example because it is extreme and in his mind it probably was a way to convey how rare the exceptions to using a condom are. Even then, he used the word “may” and not “definitely would” ‘be a step towards moral responsibility’.

Psychologically, he was probably thinking the interviewer was probably going to ask him if he said "contraception is always wrong’’ about these kind of exceptions. So now when I look at it, I think the Pope was extremely smart and maybe too smart. He laid out the truth as it was so that people don’t think the Catholic teachings on contraception don’t make any logical sense and in-fact could see that it is logically consistent.

God Bless

 

[ready]

I’m glad that this issue has been straightened out (for me). I knew in the bottom of my heart that our Holy Father wouldn’t go against sound moral theology. He is a very wise and holy Pope.

 

[Spirithound]

You still haven’t explained why the pope is only talking about condom use in gay prostitution when (as with straight sex) money will not be changing hands in the vast majority of gay sexual encounters.

It’s as if the pope thinks the virus is only spread if it’s paid gay sex.

I’m not convinced there is a reason, and there doesn’t have to be. The pope is never obligated to address any specific question. However, if this is a true clarification of the rule, then the theologians are empowered to debate the extent of the clarification.

 

[Newbie2]

If the Pope now believes condoms can stop the AIDS virus from spreading when gay sex is purchased why doesn’t he think the virus can be stopped when two gays are doing it for nothing?

Previously the church had said minute holes in condoms allow the virus to pass. Now condoms are a barrier apparently. Does anybody know what scienctific study has made the Pope change his mind?

You’re reading too much into this.

Does anyone think there are many gay male prostitutes out there who up till now had never used a condom but will do so now that the pope says so.

Nope.

Well let me spell it out for you. Why is the pope seemingly only concerned that gay prostitutes wear condoms to stop the spread of HIV when most gay sex surely doesn’t involve any money changing hands.

Why is the pope fixated on gay prostitution rather than gay sex in general?

I’m sure he’s thought about it, but “fixated”. Pulleeze.

You still haven’t explained why the pope is only talking about condom use in gay prostitution when (as with straight sex) money will not be changing hands in the vast majority of gay sexual encounters.

It’s as if the pope thinks the virus is only spread if it’s paid gay sex.

He gave an example. I think you’re looking for an encyclical on the matter. Not to mention these are the Pope’s private comments and not official teachings.

No. I meant why is it not licit for 2 homosexuals to use a condom to prevent disease?

Might be.

 

[Abu]

Here is an outstanding article on the Pope’s interview and the definitive, infallible doctrine against contraception in marriage.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act.” (Dr Jeff Mirus, Nov 22, 2110).

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act.” (Dr Jeff Mirus, Nov 22, 2110).

Now that’s a loaded statement in the context of this discussion! Clearly the use of a condom in the act of prostitution is not frustrating the procreative purpose of the marital act.

 

[ddarko]

Here is an outstanding article on the Pope’s interview and the definitive, infallible doctrine against contraception in marriage.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act.” (Dr Jeff Mirus, Nov 22, 2110).

Thanks again Abu, I too was afraid to see the ‘Elephant’ in the eye lol. But now I looked and it does make sense.

But I mean, is there really an Elephant? Just to clarify, is contraception considered immoral only under marriage? Is this how it is stated in the Humanae Vitae? Because I was under the impression that any sexual act may not be contraceptive. Thus the seriousness of a same sex act is increased by the fact that it is contraceptive.

What I am sort of trying to get at here is, would abortion be considered wrong if it happened before marriage according to this view? Pro-creation was never in the equation anyway so the only sin would be premarital sex?

God Bless