Sex in civil Marriage

[Blue_Horizon]

You are misusing the pope’s words and adding meaning to them, this is not what he meant. This is a grave error on your part. You can say whatever you like your words to mean but that does not make it so.

Lapey do you deny that the Pope has for the first time in history signalled an extraordinary new pastoral take on the, until now, always “intrinsically evil” position on contraception?

Intrinsically evil means intrinsically evil - no buts, no exceptions.
Yet here the Pope provides one “example” of a possible exception (clearly implying there could be others as well). He is signalling readiness to open a deeper discussion on this issue than allowed previously.

This is big. It is allowing for a different way of counselling on the issue at a pastoral level at least. I am not really saying that the example on this thread qualifies as another valid exception.

But I do not think it can be denied that the principle enunciated here by the Pope allows us to at least discuss the issue here in a new way that has never had any credence
before. Such thinking can no longer be rejected from the getgo on the grounds of “no exceptions.”

The Pope personally appears to believe there are pastoral exceptions and has offered a theology of “responsible sinning” to explain it. A door has been opened to new debate.

 

[aemcpa]

Lapey do you deny that the Pope has for the first time in history signalled an extraordinary new pastoral take on the, until now, always “intrinsically evil” position on contraception?

Condoms are not contraception when used in the context of homosexual acts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Condoms are not contraception when used in the context of homosexual acts.

What makes you think the Pope was not speaking of different sex prostitution?

The issue I am raising here (as was the Pope) is not so much one of abstract moral teaching, but rather concrete pastoral application/counsel in the face of a specific set of facts (which include “acceptance” that the person involved is already engaging in grave immoral behaviour which isn’t going to change anytime soon).

Yes Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God’s plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life. However if the question is, ‘I’m HIV positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?" …then the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say ‘Yes,’ while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a "real or moral solution.’ "

 

[aemcpa]

What makes you think the Pope was not speaking of different sex prostitution?

The fact that he wasn’t speaking of different sex prostitution.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The fact that he wasn’t speaking of different sex prostitution.

I understand your position, I am trying to work out why you think the Pope meant what you say. Your understanding of what the Pope meant appears incorrect.

“Male Prostitute” does not mean a male servicing males. It means a male servicing either males or females. A gigilo.

 

[Lapey]

I understand your position, I am trying to work out why you think the Pope meant what you say. Your understanding of what the Pope meant appears incorrect.

“Male Prostitute” does not mean a male servicing males. It means a male servicing either males or females. A gigilo.

Because the Pope is Catholic, always has been and always will be; the media is starting to learn that Pope Francis is also Catholic. everything that is said and taught by a Pope must be seen through the filter of Catholicism. Birth control is intrinsically evil; it is always evil. Condoms used b males in same sex relations has no possibility of producing life so there fore the sin of fornication is explicitly sinful and the condom may prevent the spread of aids. This was and is the only perspective which can be taken from Pope B16’s words. To add to his words would as wrong as adding words to the Gospel.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey do you deny that the Pope has for the first time in history signalled an extraordinary new pastoral take on the, until now, always “intrinsically evil” position on contraception?

Intrinsically evil means intrinsically evil - no buts, no exceptions.
Yet here the Pope provides one “example” of a possible exception (clearly implying there could be others as well). He is signalling readiness to open a deeper discussion on this issue than allowed previously.

This is big. It is allowing for a different way of counselling on the issue at a pastoral level at least. I am not really saying that the example on this thread qualifies as another valid exception.

But I do not think it can be denied that the principle enunciated here by the Pope allows us to at least discuss the issue here in a new way that has never had any credence
before. Such thinking can no longer be rejected from the getgo on the grounds of “no exceptions.”

The Pope personally appears to believe there are pastoral exceptions and has offered a theology of “responsible sinning” to explain it. A door has been opened to new debate.

What is big is the error in which you take his words. Even the pope cannot change what the Church has declared as truth. This topic, artificial BC as in abortion is and always will be intrinsically evil. There are no pastoral exceptions allowed. Please be careful with applying the term pastoral to anything that goes against Church defined truth. If you see that in the Pope’s words go back to the source for context, because the Pope is protected from error like this so he must mean something other than what YOU see in his words.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Condoms used b males in same sex relations has no possibility of producing life so there fore the sin of fornication is explicitly sinful and the condom may prevent the spread of aids. This was and is the only perspective which can be taken from Pope B16’s words. To add to his words would as wrong as adding words to the Gospel.

Lapey I think the only Catholic person who should be pontificating like this is the Pope.

I believe your understanding of what the Pope actually said is completely mistaken.

The Pope clearly wrote that he personally believes a case can be made for advising Catholic HIV male prostitutes (who have sex with females and don’t intend to stop anytime soon) to use condoms as a first step towards responsibility in sinning.

This is clear.
Yes this means we may all have to rethink our obviously less than perfect understanding of contraceptive pastoral/moral theology … or conclude the Pope is wrong.

It appears irrational to say the Pope did not really say this - which seems to be your present position (as well as that of some Vatican officials who are not endowed with the charism of infallibility).

If you still cannot accept this then you need to start quoting the Pope’s actual words and subsequent discussions and demonstrate where my understanding is incorrect. Appealing to your (and mine) limited understanding of moral theology and saying “it cannot be” is silly.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey I think the only Catholic person who should be pontificating like this is the Pope.

I believe your understanding of what the Pope actually said is completely mistaken.

The Pope clearly wrote that he personally believes a case can be made for advising Catholic HIV male prostitutes (who have sex with females and don’t intend to stop anytime soon) to use condoms as a first step towards responsibility in sinning.

This is clear.
Yes this means we may all have to rethink our obviously less than perfect understanding of contraceptive pastoral/moral theology … or conclude the Pope is wrong.

It appears irrational to say the Pope did not really say this - which seems to be your present position (as well as that of some Vatican officials who are not endowed with the charism of infallibility).

If you still cannot accept this then you need to start quoting the Pope’s actual words and subsequent discussions and demonstrate where my understanding is incorrect. Appealing to your (and mine) limited understanding of moral theology and saying “it cannot be” is silly.

You’re much too smart for this deacon, I have only had five years of formal formation. Obviously you have had more. Be my guest and lead anyone you like in what ever direction you like in the name of pastoral care. Have a nice day!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You’re much too smart for this deacon, I have only had five years of formal formation. Obviously you have had more. Be my guest and lead anyone you like in what ever direction you like in the name of pastoral care. Have a nice day!

Lapey one can only go so far trying to influence people from the “rule book” and personal authority. When an unusual topic, such as this one, clearly falls outside of “the rule book” then one needs to be open to debate, operating from agreed and accurate facts and use of reason.

It is one thing to humbly admit one is not good at doing that but being open enough to have a go or retire from the discussion and investigate the matter more deeply. It is another to say “I know best because I am a trained Deacon”, refuse to even accept/reflect on the matter (they are the words of a Theologian-Pope afterall), and bow out with a display of passive-aggression that is not worthy of your ordained Christian title of Deacon.

I am not saying my application/conclusions are right. But it cannot be denied that what the Pope said is extrordinary and it cannot be whitewashed away as you are trying to do. There is nominally a challenge by Pope Benedict here for educated Catholics to rethink our Pastoral Theology here along new lines. Your own personal response is understandable in the face of confusion but I hope you eventually think better of how you have handled this opportunity.

While my own theological training (or yours) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion I think it good for your own growth to know that I have spent 14 full time years in various Universities gaining various degrees. My first love was theology/philosophy (7 yrs). There is always a bigger fish Deacon Gary, go easy on the status thing, in the end it means nothing.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey one can only go so far trying to influence people from the “rule book” and personal authority. When an unusual topic, such as this one, clearly falls outside of “the rule book” then one needs to be open to debate, operating from agreed and accurate facts and use of reason.

It is one thing to humbly admit one is not good at doing that but being open enough to have a go or retire from the discussion and investigate the matter more deeply. It is another to say “I know best because I am a trained Deacon”, refuse to even accept/reflect on the matter (they are the words of a Theologian-Pope afterall), and bow out with a display of passive-aggression that is not worthy of your ordained Christian title of Deacon.

I am not saying my application/conclusions are right. But it cannot be denied that what the Pope said is extrordinary and it cannot be whitewashed away as you are trying to do. There is nominally a challenge by Pope Benedict here for educated Catholics to rethink our Pastoral Theology here along new lines. Your own personal response is understandable in the face of confusion but I hope you eventually think better of how you have handled this opportunity.

While my own theological training (or yours) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion I think it good for your own growth to know that I have spent 14 full time years in various Universities gaining various degrees. My first love was theology/philosophy (7 yrs). There is always a bigger fish Deacon Gary, go easy on the status thing, in the end it means nothing.

You won’t listen to the doctrine of the Church offered by me and others so what is the point? The doctrine has not and will not change, this is how I know you have misled yourself into believing otherwise. The scary part is that you feel your ability to teach flows from your enlightenment. I am done here as you will not hear what Mother Church is telling you through the Pope, and this lowly deacon.