K
kelvinf
Guest
I don’t trust them. That is why I didn’t even bother about trying to quote what they are saying.
Release of pope's comments on condoms a blunder or apologetic genius?
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
yo!!!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
To me this is a rational position on condom usage. I have always felt that it should be left to the moral conscience of the condom user why they are using the condom in the first place. Surely there is a context is which a greater evil would be caused by not using a condom (as is the case with disease). Sometimes an evil can be the lesser of two evils. While I do think that sexual abstinence does encourage more spiritual growth than condom usage I always fail to see the difference between pregnancy management and using a condom until when it is practical to have children. Why does condom usage necessarily mean that you are trying to prevent having children, rather than simply trying to manage child birth in a practical manner? I find it difficult to believe that sexual intercourse between two people is just about having children, although this is the foundational reason for having sexuality.
Now; while I think this is the rational position, it might not be the moral one, so I don’t want you to think that I am speaking for the faith; this is just my opinion.
Y
Yorkshireman
Guest
Our species is thought to be 150,000 years old. For many tens of thousands of years people didn’t even know that sex led to babies.*
On the downside none of these people ever got married but in their favor they never used a condom either. *
L
LilyM
Guest
Sounds exactly correct - similar to the case of a sexually-inactive woman who, to combat painfully heavy periods, might take a pill normally used for ABC. If she were sexually active, the contraceptive nature of the medication might become an issue, but not if she is not active.Ron Conte,
Thank you so much for clarifying this.
So if I understand correctly, this is what the Pope meant:
In the case of male prostitutes, conception is not possible anyway and there is no sin of contraception in that sense. There is only the sin of sodomy and the sin of endangering the life of the other by possibly infecting him. Thus to realize at least one of the sins (causing infection to the other) is a sign of moral progress in that specific case.
If that is the case, the Pope was spot on I think. I don’t think he intended the media to use it for a case for use of condoms for HIV prevention in Africa. Because, in that specific case you have contraception which can never under any circumstances be morally permissible.
God Bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
How is this position any different than allowing use of “the Pill” for non-contraceptive purposes such as acne or heavy periods?
(NB: the above is not a commentary on whether it’s medically beneficial to use oral contraceptives for acne or heavy periods. Only that it is licit to do so.)
(NB: the above is not a commentary on whether it’s medically beneficial to use oral contraceptives for acne or heavy periods. Only that it is licit to do so.)
P
PRmerger
Guest
haha, Lily! I posted just seconds after you on the same point!
Regarding the above: the Church does not prohibit use of the Pill for acne, heavy periods, *even if *a woman is married and sexually active.
I
Irishrosebeauty
Guest
Anytime people make exceptions for certain groups(even though homos are disordered), you are going to get people in an uproar. The Pope is delusional if he thinks this is going to fly with Catholics, who have kept the faith. We already have the child abuse scandal, now we get to see his concern for the life of homosexuals. Married couples evidently do not matter, if one has been exposed by this virus (caused by transfusions etc.) The homosexual lobby is in full force here folks!
S
Spirithound
Guest
Malicious oneupmanship on the part of L’Osservatore.
S
Spirithound
Guest
That’s not what he wants, and that’s not what he said.
Previously, he was speaking about AIDS as a whole. Condoms, as a perceived safeguard against disease, promote riskier behaviour.
Perhaps it’s worse.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?
Y
Yorkshireman
Guest
Why do you think the pope is focusing on gay prostitution with his condom comments? I don’t know but I’m guessing for every gay sex act paid for there’s probably 100 or 1,000 where there’s been no charge.
S
Spirithound
Guest
I still don’t see the connection you’re trying to make.
Y
Yorkshireman
Guest
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?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You’re the one making the claim that the Pope is ‘fixated’ on this. You haven’t proven that this is anything more than your personal speculation. Why should we accept that ‘personal speculation’ as truth? Where’s your proof?
S
Spirithound
Guest
I already addressed this. The pope is not “concerned that” gay prostitutes use condoms. He does not want gay prostitutes to use condoms.
He said that the use of condoms may be licit for male prostitutes. This is in no way telling them to use condoms, nor does it preclude the use of condoms in non-paying gay sex.
P
PJM
Guest
Because:
This is not voiding a CC Doctrine of very long standing. Catholic Dogma, once defined can never be VOIDED! Our understanding can change, and exceptions as in this case, can cause a specific response.
It is an issue of “the Greater Good” [Long accepted in Moral Theology] specified FOR a precise group and a SPECIFIC cause.
The target group is MALE Prostitutes: Specifically in Africa; where there is a BLOOMING Catholic population; and the AIDS epidemic continues to take MANY Life’s.
IT DOES NOT ADDRESS any other social group, GAY or straight, NOR does it change existing Moral standards beyond the very specified application.
BUT we ought to expect the GAY community as well as Catholic Liberals to be fed by the Secular Press who’d love this change to apply to all; all of the time.
SORRY folks; it can’t happen!
MONEY changing hands has NOTHING to do with the proclaimation! The issue is literally “LIFE and DEATH!”
Y
Yorkshireman
Guest
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.
P
PJM
Guest
Please see my two post on this string; the last being number 112;
God bless, PJM
A
Abu
Guest
Natural Birth Regulation uses the natural phases provided by the Creator, without deliberately thwarting His designs by placing a material or chemical barrier against the procreative end of intercourse. It is against the natural moral law and against the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church.
Contraception by any means is evil. There can be no contraception in sodomy. Contraception has been definitively declared infallibly to be a grave sin and intrinsically wrong for those who call themselves Catholic but are misled or confused.
In 1930, in his encyclical, Casti Connubii (56), Pope Pius XI declared, “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
The gravity is in the use of any means including condoms to frustrate the procreation of life.
In 1968, in Humanae Vitae (14), Pope Paul VI declared: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”
The intrinsic wrongness is in the deliberately contraceptive misuse of the marital act which includes condoms.
- Status