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.
Very true.

Faithful Catholics know that Pope Benedict XVI is a faithful Supreme Vicar of Christ.
 
whats gonna be annoying is that these liberal drones who have TV shows will start bantering on this issue like they did with Limbo. I can just see it “Pope accepts condom use now” in their scripts. Just like when they claimed that the Church did away with Limbo all of a sudden and one of the comedy hosts , I think John Steward, made a comedy of millions of babies being released from Limbo…

There gonna make it like the Church has gone back on its doctrines. And of course, all the liberal drones are gonna be like “Oh yea, you really got them!” 🤷

and whats even more sad is that people are gonna think that this gives it an ok to use contraception. Take a look at this one sad response from an individual who replied to the article. He says:
*"Clearly, the Pope was using an extreme example to explain a very basic point: the use of condoms is not in and of itself an absolute moral evil. That would seem an obvious point to anyone not brought up in the doctrine of 1968 (which was itself controversial and marginal).
Click to expand...
But even in that context the Pope is staying true to the traditions of the Church in arguing that a higher moral cause (the prevention of disease) would render acceptable an act which is normally disapproved.
Click to expand...
That is a major step for the Church which has up until now held a fundamentalist position.*
Click to expand...
We should be pleased that the Church is moving forward from the sexual teachings bestowed on us from the reformation and the repercussions of that time and into a fuller understanding and acceptance of the joy, pleasure and bond of love that sex (even without the possibility of conception) can bring."
Click to expand...
THIS, here is why I lament. Notice the red bold. sigh People are going to become very misled
 
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.
 
Abu said:
Faithful Catholics know that Pope Benedict XVI is a faithful, Supreme Vicar of Christ.
Useful commentary on the Pope’s statements and how they are twisted are here:
ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:22:09:44Z

and here:
catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

and here:
splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2010/11/ginger-factor-the-pope-approves-of-condoms/

and here:
thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-pope-benedict-xvis-next-visit-will.html
Click to expand...
Thank you! I read the first link and it’s saved under favourites, just for future’s sake. I recommend that people who are unsure about this issue to read it.
 
ddarko said:
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 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the Pope said, but I do know whatever he said, the press got it wrong. I have never seen them get it right.
 
Yorkshireman said:
**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.
Click to expand...
What are the two evils?

Obviously, homosexual sex is one. The other cannot be contraception.

This, methinks, is the moral equivalent of a single man masturbating (alone) into a condom. The condom use in such a case is morally neutral; there is no intent for nor any actual act of contraception.

In the case of homosexual sodomy and the use of a condom, there could actually be a morally positive solely in the attempt to avoid one or the other partner’s illness and subsequent death. It’s right on the edge of moral relativism, but doesn’t cross that line.

That is not to say that such homosexual acts become any less morally objectionable with the use of a condom; we need to be clear on that.

It’s sort of like shooting someone in the head rather than torture them to death with a butcher knife. The act of killing them is morally objectionable. However, the killer’s purposeful choice of a painless method, sparing the victim of pain and suffering in its intent and only in its intent, could be looked at as a moral good i.e. that the killer didn’t want them to suffer.

Yes, this is a very imperfect analogy, but I thought I’d throw it out there…
 
Just a note. Having lived in africa and the philippines westerners often miss the point that many people are prostitutes against their will. In both cases people are treated like slaves. So there is this issue as well. A person in this situation has limited choices that we in the west fail to understand the full implications of. Of course prostitution is wrong however not all people have a choice in the Matter. This is also an issue in Tibet and India.
 
Des said:
You’re as bad as the secular media. It’s tough enough trying to correct falsehoods that they create regarding the Pope’s words without also having to battle ignorant Catholics all too eager to be angry at our Pope.

Nowhere in HIs quote did he say “There can be single justified cases”.

What He did say was “There may be a basis etc…”

but that was after He said this:

"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"

In context, the "There may be a basis" line had NOTHING to do with condoms but more to do with sexuality being treated as a positive value.
Click to expand...
Um, I’m not angry at the Pope. I applaud this statement. I just think it’s funny how you people get your panties all in a bunch just because the Pope indicated that a male prostitute with AIDS using a condom isn’t the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. You’ve all been defending the CC’s position on ABC for so long that your whole world comes crashing down around you if the Pope makes a tiny step in another direction. Sheesh.
 
Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, issued a statement Nov. 21 in response to wide international coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms in a new book-length interview with the German journalist Peter Seewald.

In essence, Benedict reiterated the church’s broad opposition to artificial birth control, but said that in some exceptional cases, where the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, the use of a condom could be a “first step” towards a greater sense of moral responsibility.

In his statement, Lombardi insists that Benedict has not changed church teaching on condoms, but rather given papal expression to a position long held by moral theologians and other “ecclesial personalities,” including a number of cardinals.

The full text of Lombardi’s statement follows, in an NCR translation from Italian.
**Note of Fr. Lombardi on the words of the pope on the question of condoms
**

read more

More…
 
Vatican City, Nov 20, 2010 / 07:39 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Excerpts of Pope Benedict XVI’s new book are already causing a stir. Though some media reports claim he offers a change in papal teaching about condom use, Pope Benedict in fact says that a humanized sexuality, not condoms, is the right response to HIV.

More…
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Um, I’m not angry at the Pope. I applaud this statement. I just think it’s funny how you people get your panties all in a bunch just because the Pope indicated that a male prostitute with AIDS using a condom isn’t the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. You’ve all been defending the CC’s position on ABC for so long that your whole world comes crashing down around you if the Pope makes a tiny step in another direction. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I have not been defending ABC’s but I have certainly been opposing the C part of it. Contraception is not morally justifiable in the way the popular world wants it.

And yes, we stand for the truth and we defend it. When something like this happens, it’s not that our world comes crashing down but we want to know what really went on. As you might have seen from the articles the popular media is running, that isn’t exactly easy So no, we are not here to “get your panties all in a bunch” but to find out the truth as should you.

God Bless 🙂
 
Newbie2 said:
What are the two evils?

Obviously, homosexual sex is one. The other cannot be contraception.

This, methinks, is the moral equivalent of a single man masturbating (alone) into a condom. *The condom use in such a case is morally neutral; there is no intent for nor any actual act of contraception.

In the case of homosexual sodomy and the use of a condom, there could actually be a morally positive solely in the attempt to avoid one or the other partner’s illness and subsequent death. *It’s right on the edge of moral relativism, but doesn’t cross that line.

That is not to say that such homosexual acts become any less morally objectionable with the use of a condom; we need to be clear on that.

It’s sort of like shooting someone in the head rather than torture them to death with a butcher knife. *The act of killing them is morally objectionable. *However, the killer’s purposeful choice of a painless method, sparing the victim of pain and suffering in its intent and only in its intent, could be looked at as a moral good i.e. that the killer didn’t want them to suffer.

Yes, this is a very imperfect analogy, but I thought I’d throw it out there…
Click to expand...
It’s perfectly obvious what to the Pope are the two evils. You’re just making things complicated with your amateur philosophyspeak.

(for the Pope) one evil is homosexual sex. A lesser evil is homosexual sex that (with a condom) doesn’t spread a deadly disease.

That’s the way the Pope now sees things . Like it or not.
 
Yorkshireman said:
It’s perfectly obvious what to the Pope are the two evils. You’re just making things complicated with your amateur philosophyspeak.*

(for the Pope) one evil is homosexual sex. A lesser evil is homosexual sex that (with a condom) doesn’t spread a deadly disease.*

That’s the way the Pope now sees things . Like it or not.*
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing why Contraception is wrong. It is wrong NOT because it stops the spread of diseases BUT because it is opposed to conception of life.

Between two male prostitutes, how can there be conception? So the sin is the sodomy. Contraception in this case is not really conta-conception.

So the Pope has not changed anything.

God Bless 🙂
 
The Pope wants gay prostitutes to use condoms because it reduces the spread of AIDS. Previously the position of the church was that condoms didn’t stop the spread of the disease. This is a change.

Also, why is the Pope restricting his condom comments to gay prostitution? Is gay sex for money somehow less bad than gays doing it for nothing? 😃
 
Abu said:
Face Reality:
Faithful Catholics know that Pope Benedict XVI is a faithful, Supreme Vicar of Christ.
Useful commentary on the Pope’s statements and how they are twisted are also here:
ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:22:09:44Z

and here:
splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2010/11/ginger-factor-the-pope-approves-of-condoms/

and here:
thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-pope-benedict-xvis-next-visit-will.html
Click to expand...
Thank you so much Abu. The first article helped a lot!!!

Thanks to others as well for clarifying this issue. Though I knew there must be some distortion by the media, considering the barrage of articles, I really was lost for true information on the matter. The information everyone provided here has helped a lot and I am sure it did others who read this thread as well!

Thank you everyone!

God Bless 🙂
 
Yorkshireman said:
It’s perfectly obvious what to the Pope are the two evils. You’re just making things complicated with your amateur philosophyspeak.

(for the Pope) one evil is homosexual sex. A lesser evil is homosexual sex that (with a condom) doesn’t spread a deadly disease.

That’s the way the Pope now sees things . Like it or not.
Click to expand...
Um…homosexual sex and homosexual sex with a condom are still both homosexual sex, which is ONE evil. Perhaps two variations on on evil, but the homosexual sex is the evil in either case. What is the other evil?

Why do you suppose that I may not like what the Pope says??
ddarko said:
I think you are confusing why Contraception is wrong. It is wrong NOT because it stops the spread of diseases BUT because it is opposed to conception of life.

Between two male prostitutes, how can there be conception? So the sin is the sodomy. Contraception in this case is not really conta-conception.

So the Pope has not changed anything.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
👍
 
Yorkshireman said:
The Pope wants gay prostitutes to use condoms because it reduces the spread of AIDS.** Previously the position of the church was that condoms didn’t stop the spread of the disease.** This is a change.

No change. " Previously the position of the church was that condoms didn’t stop the spread of the disease"…within the context of marital relations.

Also, why is the Pope restricting his condom comments to gay prostitution? Is gay sex for money somehow less bad than gays doing it for nothing? 😃
Click to expand...
Perhaps just an example and his comments were not meant to be all encompassing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top