The Pope's Comments on Condoms

[Marc_Anthony]

The Telegraph has a lot to answer for.

Recent research has showed me quite clearly and obviously that the Pope never condoned using condoms. All very good.

Also, I was not the first person who thought this news broke recently, because it’s apparently doing the rounds again. Wesley J. Smith has a wonderful blog called Secondhand Smoke, and there he put up this article. I’ll just post the entire thing with the link because it’s very short:

firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/08/09/pope-embraces-abc-to-fight-aids/comment-page-1/#comment-50112

Pope Embraces ABC to Fight AIDS
Thursday, August 9, 2012, 9:10 AM
Wesley J. Smith

Never let the perfect interfere with the good, the old saying goes. That seems to be the new approach taken by the Catholic Church as the Pope has dropped his adamant opposition to condoms in the fight against AIDS. From the Telegraph story:

** After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms. He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids. While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. 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.” He stressed that abstinence was the best policy in fighting the disease but in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life. “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 redevelop 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.”**

Indeed. Anyone who is HIV positive should not risk another’s life by having sex. Period.

Still, priorities are priorities. By okaying condoms to prevent disease, the Pope seems to be blessing the ABC approach–which I think works best in the world as it is, rather than as it should be. Abstinence; Be Faithful; Condoms. Good for Benedict!

Update: This story was posted today on a news compiling site. But it is from Nov. 2010. Still, I think it is worth noting. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion thereby caused.

Later in the comments several posters, correctly, told Wesley the story was inaccurate. He responded with:

Explain how it [referring to his belief that the Pope changed his stance on ABC] is wrong. He didn’t say, “I support ABC,” but he did support use of condoms in some cases to fight AIDS. That’s ABC whatever you call it, which also puts first emphasis on abstinence.

I wrote in reply (my first post there):

I will take a crack at showing how shockingly wrong this article truly is.

The Pope said:

“It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. 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.”

What does this mean? It means that if somebody (and by the way, the context of us is specifically referring to a PROSTITUTE) who is having unprotected sex and then they realize that this could harm somebody, using a condom is the first step to abstinence.

Did he ever, once, say condom use was PERMISSIBLE? Absolutely not! All he said was that understanding that you might be hurting somebody is the first step on the road to recovery.

By analogy: If a mob man realizes that beating people with bats could actually kill them and then instead beats them “only” with fists, we can say that this is the first step to realizing that what they’re doing is wrong. We’re not condoning beating!

This is supported by these words:

“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 redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.”

He is not saying there are justified individual cases where using a condom is ACCEPTABLE. He is saying that there are justified individual cases where using a condom show that a human being is starting to see how what they’re doing is harmful.

I hate to tell you this Wesley because I pretty much agree with you on everything but you are absolutely, totally, 100% wrong on this one.

In fact a previous poster said pretty much what I said, but shorter, in a previous post:

The Pope is not saying, and is not quoted as saying, that condom use is a moral action. He said that decision to use one to prevent the spread of infection was in some cases sign of person trying to behave in a responsible manner.

We can think of numerous analogies. Imagine, say, a bank robber who takes pains to avoid bloodshed. We could be appreciative of the regard for others’ safety, without condoning the robbery, nor the use of the sleep-inducing gas that allowed the robbery to take place without grave harm.

Wesley’s comment was a reply to that post among a couple of others. So unfortunately IMO I think Wesley’s going to be too proud to admit he was so completely wrong about this issue, because people have already said where the article went South and he totally ignored their explanations. But hey, at least we tried.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is from CNA, please read it. The Pope never condoned the use of condoms.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/analysis-what-the-pope-really-said-about-condoms/

Briefly, the Pope said the fact that some one did use a condom might indicate that their conscience was starting to wake up but his comments in no way approved the use of condoms.

 

[amDg0815]

The pope’s statement on condom’s is not synonymous with saying this is the Catholic Church’s teaching. Contrary to popular belief the pope in union with the bishop’s are not infallibile whe teaching on faith or morals. There is much more to the definition of infallibility than that.

The definition infallibility of the ordinary and universal magesterium (OUM) is this:

When the pope in union with the bishops propose for our belief a thing which is contained in the word of God be it written (Scripture) and unwritten(Tradition) , viz., the deposit of faith, on the topic of faith or morals and that same proposal is proposed as being ‘divinely revealed’ and to be held by the universal Church for all time it therefore must be believed with divine faith because such a proposal is protected by the charism of infallibility which was promised to Peter and his successors so that they might safely guard the deposit of faith. To dissent from such a proposal is a sin against faith and let such a person be anethema.

The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter so that he might make known some new doctrine(condomes are ok) but that he might safely guard the deposit of faith coming down from the apostles.

I cringe when I hear people saying that when the pope speaks in union with the bishops on the topic of faith or morals he is infalliblle - because that is just not true. It may be true or may not be true. It depends. That definition is totally insufficient. It leaves so much out.

The hallmark of infallibility is Tradition. Has the Church held this or that belief at all times in history in all places. When Pope Pius XII defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma he was speaking infallibly. The Pope wasn’t telling us anything we didn’t already believe. All he did was raise the weight of the penalty for dissent against that teaching from grave sin to anathema.

The pope is speaking baloney when he says condoms are OK. Since when did the health of the body become more important than the state of the soul. Sure if you don’t use a condom you might get sick. But if you use a condom (onanism) you commit mortal sin which is the death of the soul.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

OLD article dredged up again. . .debunked a couple years ago.

When will these people realize that the only SUCCESSFUL resurrection is that of Christ?:???

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The pope is speaking baloney when he says condoms are OK. Since when did the health of the body become more important than the state of the soul. Sure if you don’t use a condom you might get sick. But if you use a condom (onanism) you commit mortal sin which is the death of the soul.

I would imagine much like a woman is allowed to use the pill as part of “hormone therapy”. If one partner has a disease that could harm the other person, a condom is a better solution than making another person ill. The sin is in using these things in order to prevent pregnancy and not be open to life.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would imagine much like a woman is allowed to use the pill as part of “hormone therapy”. If one partner has a disease that could harm the other person, a condom is a better solution than making another person ill. The sin is in using these things in order to prevent pregnancy and not be open to life.

A. The Pope never claimed what the poster said he did.

B. It is an old story, a couple of years old, thoroughy discussed AND DEBUNKED even back then.

C. Must we beat that horse again??

 

[TimothyH]

What the Pope actually said was that a completely depraved, drug addicted prostitute who started using condoms, that might be a sign that the person was experiencing the beginning of a converstion.

It’s like a morbidly obese person who eats five cheesburgers every day switching to five chicken sandwiches in an effort to get healthy. Unlimately it is not the right solution but it is a start.

That’s all the Pope was saying.

-Tim-

 

[WingsOfEagles]

A. The Pope never claimed what the poster said he did.

B. It is an old story, a couple of years old, thoroughy discussed AND DEBUNKED even back then.

C. Must we beat that horse again??

“Lifts ban on condoms” was debunked.

However, he did have a 2 page statement on condoms stating that though not the best solution, if an infected person were still having sex, using a condom could be seen as taking some responsibility. He made statements about how it could be a first realization that one “cannot do whatever he wants” and showing a sign about caring about other people (by not wanting to get them sick too).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

To clarify: My original post expressed disappointment at the fact that this article is now making the rounds again. Not only that it is misleading good people into relaying false information, people such as Wesley J. Smith, who runs an otherwise excellent blog. So he asked commenters to explain where he, and the article, was wrong. I obliged.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Lifts ban on condoms” was debunked.

However, he did have a 2 page statement on condoms stating that though not the best solution, if an infected person were still having sex, using a condom could be seen as taking some responsibility. He made statements about how it could be a first realization that one “cannot do whatever he wants” and showing a sign about caring about other people (by not wanting to get them sick too).

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE PLEASE.

He did not say that the use of the condom was a MORAL SOLUTION or a REAL SOLUTION.

He said that the CONCEPT of thinking of another person (even if the thought was based on something WRONG) was a STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF CARING FOR OTHERS AND NOT JUST SELF. NOT that the use of the condom was good or that it would stop AIDS. It isn’t and it won’t.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE PLEASE.

He did not say that the use of the condom was a MORAL SOLUTION or a REAL SOLUTION.

He said that the CONCEPT of thinking of another person (even if the thought was based on something WRONG) was a STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF CARING FOR OTHERS AND NOT JUST SELF. NOT that the use of the condom was good or that it would stop AIDS. It isn’t and it won’t.

Did I say moral? I viewed it as the Pope saying “perhaps, the lesser of two evils”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Did I say moral? I viewed it as the Pope saying “perhaps, the lesser of two evils”.

But that is not what the Pope said. He said, and I believe I quote, that the solution “was neither real nor moral”. And that is hardly claiming it is the lesser of two evils.

Look carefully.

“It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. 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.”

---

Now if something is not a real solution or a moral solution, then it is not a solution, correct? You cannot have a ‘fake solution’ or an ‘immoral solution’ be claimed as a solution.

The INTENTION to reduce risk of infection is a STEP to ANOTHER sexuality. That means that the sexuality addressed by ‘lessening the risk of infection’ is NOT that sexuality which the Pope wishes to see and which is the moral and real good.

The concept of thinking of others (even if the thought involves the idea that one can ‘protect them’ by something which does NOT protect them) is a STEP toward good, but it is not in itself good if it does not utilize good.

Think about “The end does not justify the means” (which is a Christian teaching).

THAT is what the Pope is saying here.

The ‘end’ which the rapist sees is ‘not infecting’ another person, and the MEANS he sees are condoms.

But it’s a wrong and incomplete idea.

The ‘end’ of an action should be the consideration of morality and its effect on the other person, not just the idea that one can go ahead and rape provided they don’t expose the victim to AIDS because they used a condom and that would supposedly protect the victim.

So neither the ends nor the means involving this kind of situation are real or moral. . .

BUT the fact that the rapist is considering ANY end to an action (even this wrong one) from even the SMALLEST point of view of the other person (in this case, the idea that rape is OK provided the person doesn’t get infected with AIDS) is a STEP toward understanding the REAL MORALITY.

The step is the CONSIDERING of the other person IN SOME WAY.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I would imagine much like a woman is allowed to use the pill as part of “hormone therapy”. If one partner has a disease that could harm the other person, a condom is a better solution than making another person ill. The sin is in using these things in order to prevent pregnancy and not be open to life.

Did I say moral? I viewed it as the Pope saying “perhaps, the lesser of two evils”.

If it’s not a moral solution than it’s absolutely prohibited. All he said is that deciding to use them may indicate development on the part of the sinner. You could say that in some sense this is a lesser evil than the evil of not recognizing the problem at all, but this does not mean that it’s ok.

Condoms are still absolutely prohibited and nothing the Pope actually said even hints at anything else.

 

[april32010]

The pope is speaking baloney when he says condoms are OK. Since when did the health of the body become more important than the state of the soul. Sure if you don’t use a condom you might get sick. But if you use a condom (onanism) you commit mortal sin which is the death of the soul.

i would suggest you shut up when you don’t know what you are talking about.he did not say condoms are ok,read what he said before you start insulting the Holy Father .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Lifts ban on condoms” was debunked.

However, he did have a 2 page statement on condoms stating that though not the best solution, if an infected person were still having sex, using a condom could be seen as taking some responsibility. He made statements about how it could be a first realization that one “cannot do whatever he wants” and showing a sign about caring about other people (by not wanting to get them sick too).

And that is not an approval of the use of condoms even in that situation. Even in that situation, the forbidden use of sex is a sin and the use of a condom is another sin even though it may show that the sinner is beginning to be concerned about harming others. Personally I think it was a poor response made on the spur of the moment without sufficient reflection. I can see how the confusion arose.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

And that is not an approval of the use of condoms even in that situation. Even in that situation, the forbidden use of sex is a sin and the use of a condom is another sin even though it may show that the sinner is beginning to be concerned about harming others. Personally I think it was a poor response made on the spur of the moment without sufficient reflection. I can see how the confusion arose.

I actually think it was a very careful an nuanced response considering that he had to answer the question on the spur of the moment; the wording is very careful and precise. The Vatican newspaper just set off a huge firestorm by cherrypicking his comments to intentionally make it sound explanatory. They should be ashamed of themselves.