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

[ddarko]

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

 

[Abu]

ddarko
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.

ddarko,
Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae deal with what is right and what is wrong in marriage concerning the procreative and unitive ends of marriage.
This can be known from the Natural Moral Law.

As Dr Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”

Also see by Dr Mirus:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179
“Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.”
[My underlining].

 

[Abu]

Sorry, ddarko, I missed the next question.

Abortion is the killing of a human being, who exists from the moment of conception, so it is always objectively gravely wrong. That’s why there should be no steps taken to abort after conception even in the case of rape.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae deal with what is right and what is wrong in marriage concerning the procreative and unitive ends of marriage.
This can be known from the Natural Moral Law.

As Dr Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”

Also see by Dr Mirus:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179
“Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.”
[My underlining].

Ok I see. Thanks for the clarification.

This confusion I am having just might be because the view is slightly novel to me since my old position was that ''contraception is wrong when there is sex in general".

Guess I learnt something new today

Thanks Abu.

God Bless

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

After the initial shock of waking up to the headlines of Pope Benedict’s statements on condom…I am now trying hard to understand what Pope Benedict said:

My take on what I read that he wrote is that it might not be a bad thing if a male prostitute (meaning it is not used as a contraceptive…as that is impossible between man and another man) decides to use condom at the moment he realizes that he might be doing harm to others.

It is an act of charity coming from the convoluted morals of a male prostitute to protect his partner…perhaps a first inklling that what he is doing is a bad thing…

But then…it should not stop in that moment as a lapse towards moralitty and continue with sexual acts just because he now thinks he is now charitable and thats it…he’s done his job…ánd go on as usual…NO! The male prostitute should now strive hard towards the truth that his sexual activities that necessitated the use of a condom was bad and make moves to change his ways.

That’s my take on what he said.

Honestly…it does take some thinking…and I am sure some people will not bother to really think hard about what the Pope really means…especially those Catholics with weaker faith. They would just see the opening that condom may not be a sin in those rare cases…in those brief instance of moral realization of a male prostitute and twist the Pope’s words for their ends and say, “Hey, the Pope say condoms are ok”!" …which the Holy Father obviously does not advocate.

The timing of ths controversy is hardly the best as our country is now in the midst of debating the controversial Reproductive Health bill.

The statements can make solid Catholics rally for the Pope and try to see what he really means…but on the other hand…it can push weaker Catholics to give in to the pull of artificial contraceptive mentality.

Wasn’t Pope Benedict a professor of Philosophy?..I think the case that the Pope mentioned is something philosophy students would welcome as they are used to unravelling hard moral issues and dilemmas…

Unfortunately…majority of the people in the world do not think that way.

I am hopeful that Pope Benedict will clarify his statements soon in a way that can be easily and clearly understood by everyone.

Let’s all pray for Pope Benedict XVI that God will help him be a good shepherd to his flock…

Mama Mary, Papa Joseph and all the angels and saints…please pray for God’s guidance for our beloved Pope Benedict XVI to always do and say what is right for God’s church.

Please Lord, have mercy on your people. Help us live as you want us to live. Please help our faith to grow and move us to search for You always in our daily lives.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please God, no more European popes.

Which continent of origin do you suggest?

 

[Yorkshireman]

The Pope’s clarification has reached the mainstream media.
guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/vatican-pope-condom-ruling

Is this right: a woman can have sex with a man who uses a condom so long as the woman is a prostitute and wants to reduce the risk of a spread of infection?

Women that are not sex workers must insist the man doesn’t wear a condom for sex, or is it ok to ask a partner to wear a condom if he has AIDS?

 

[Abu]

Yorkshireman
Is this right: a woman can have sex with a man who uses a condom so long as the woman is a prostitute and wants to reduce the risk of a spread of infection?

Never rely on the secular media for anything, especially anything Catholic. The Holy Father was being interviewed and a book written – there is no change in doctrine on morals. Everything that is immoral stays immoral – God is immutable (changeless), and Christ’s Church teaches His truth infallibly.

Please see post #139.

 

[kaid100]

Gang, this was a big mistake by His Holiness.

He should have known that publicly going on an academic frolic with secular media would end badly. There are grave, in-your-face calamities at the moment (hemorrhaging Catholic practice, intense secularlization, decline in basic natural institutions [fewer marriages, e.g.], etc.)

This is no time to wonder aloud whether a male prostitute would be ‘moving in the right direction’ by using a condom during his goings on.
…

This is a theory, but I’m wondering myself if (rather than the Pope thinking aloud) the Pope has concluded it would be better to move the Church away from its traditional stance on condoms, and has started by making an example where conception could not occur (that of a male prostitute) in preparation for a more fundamental shift later on. By making this statement in a book rather than an official announcement, it gives the Vatican a chance to see how ordinary Catholics will react to the suggestion, while still giving the possibility of backing away from the idea (or not taking the idea any further) later on. A possible future stance of the Vatican might be that it is acceptable for married couples to use condoms when they know that exactly one of them has a sexually-transmitted disease, but not to use a condom for family-planning reasons. Again, this is all conjecture.

 

[Abu]

kaid100kaid100
A possible future stance of the Vatican might be that it is acceptable for married couples to use condoms when they know that exactly one of them has a sexually-transmitted disease, but not to use a condom for family-planning reasons. Again, this is all conjecture.

Such “conjecture” is futile, and helps no one. Don’t rely on the media for anything Catholic. No doctrine has changed nor can change.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN): **
In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).

On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

 

[kaid100]

Such “conjecture” is futile, and helps no one. Don’t rely on the media for anything Catholic. No doctrine has changed nor can change.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN): **
In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf.Rom.3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” (Veritatis Splendor, n.80).

On March 1, 1997 the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family issued a Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life. Included in this document is the following statement: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

These statements were made in 2007 and 1997, before anything about the Pope’s present book was known. If any Catholic other than the Pope had made the comments recently attributed to him, other mainstream Catholics would have harangued them for not following proper teaching and for implying that there are any circumstances in which using a condom is even slightly better than not using a condom.

 

[Annie39]

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)

Nope, even that man cannot morally use condoms. He should stop having relations with his wife.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, even that man cannot morally use condoms. He should stop having relations with his wife.

Initially to read that one recoils.

But, upon further examination it is the only moral and loving answer.

No loving husband would risk infecting his wife with such a virulent virus.

No condom will prevent, with 100% certainty, transmission of this.

If anyone doubts the above, I challenge you to allow your DD or DS to be in a relationship with a HIV+ spouse and encourage them to continue relations while using a condom. You wouldn’t do it 'cause you wouldn’t risk the life of your loved one.

But, if someone does indeed advocate use of condoms between an infected spouse, is it only because it’s not your loved one? Or because it’s “just” a poor person in a developing country?

 

[larkin31]

The Pope’s apparent comments on condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS are both wise and humane. I commend them.

 

[ddarko]

The Pope’s apparent comments on condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS are both wise and humane. I commend them.

lol, you mean the *media spin on * ’Popes comments on condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS are both wise and humane. I commend them’

Sorry to burst your bubble Larkin, but you’ve been misinformed … it is not humane. it is selfish to use a condom. But hey… wouldn’t be the first time you tried a stunt like this

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Initially to read that one recoils.

But, upon further examination it is the only moral and loving answer.

No loving husband would risk infecting his wife with such a virulent virus.

No condom will prevent, with 100% certainty, transmission of this.

If anyone doubts the above, I challenge you to allow your DD or DS to be in a relationship with a HIV+ spouse and encourage them to continue relations while using a condom. You wouldn’t do it 'cause you wouldn’t risk the life of your loved one.

But, if someone does indeed advocate use of condoms between an infected spouse, is it only because it’s not your loved one? Or because it’s “just” a poor person in a developing country?

Exactly.

A loving husband/wife must do EVERYTHING he can to keep his/her spouse safe. Relying on a Condom which could malfunction in a million ways is NOT the way to go. If a person is going to use a condom and have sex knowing they are infected, that just shows how much less the person loves the other. He/She just wants to have sex at all cost no matter what might happen to the other.

That’s selfish if you ask anyone.

So if someones infected and truly is in Love with their spouse, the correct thing to do is ABSTAIN!

God Bless

 

[Abu]

Contraception remains gravely sinful and intrinsically wrong in marriage. No change.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010 **
Regarding the Pope’s interview, “none of this has any bearing on the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception in marriage. Indeed, no matter what position the Pope or any other moralist may take on the use of condoms in particular situations which are already fundamentally disordered—situations in which sexual activity is already intrinsically immoral—that position cannot affect the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms in sexual acts which are otherwise properly ordered and moral—that is, within marriage. In each and every properly ordered and therefore moral sexual act (that is, in each and every marital act), deliberate contraception remains intrinsically immoral.”

Idle desires, wishful feeling, cannot change that.

 

[RobbyS]

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).

The pope no more approves of the use of condoms than he approves of prostitution.

 

[RobbyS]

Contraception remains gravely sinful and intrinsically wrong in marriage. No change.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010 **
Regarding the Pope’s interview, “none of this has any bearing on the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception in marriage. Indeed, no matter what position the Pope or any other moralist may take on the use of condoms in particular situations which are already fundamentally disordered—situations in which sexual activity is already intrinsically immoral—that position cannot affect the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms in sexual acts which are otherwise properly ordered and moral—that is, within marriage. In each and every properly ordered and therefore moral sexual act (that is, in each and every marital act), deliberate contraception remains intrinsically immoral.”

Idle desires, wishful feeling, cannot change that.

The problem is the wholesale turn away from the belief that the sex act aims at procreation. Abandon it, and marriage becomes a mere convention.

 

[larkin31]

lol, you mean the media spin on ’Popes comments on condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS are both wise and humane. I commend them’

Sorry to burst your bubble Larkin, but you’ve been misinformed … it is not humane. it is selfish to use a condom. But hey… wouldn’t be the first time you tried a stunt like this

God Bless

You falsely claim that I did not read more. I did. I read every comment quoted by the Pope from this upcoming book. You should be more careful not to write from such animus.

I will repeat, in case you would like to disagree: The Pope’s comments on condom use by male prostitutes are both wise and humane.

If you would like to deny either the wisdom or the humanity in the Pope’s remarks, then by all means do so.