Vatican: Condom use less evil than spreading HIV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Sock

Guest
VATICAN CITY – In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.
 
Robert_Sock said:
VATICAN CITY – In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Um, where is the ‘link’ to the news story that this purportedly came from? Because I haven’t seen anything from “The Vatican” that said anything like this at all.
 
Thanks for the link.

The people who have misinterpreted the Pope’s statements in a book are going to have a LOT to answer for. . .
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Thanks for the link.

The people who have misinterpreted the Pope’s statements in a book are going to have a LOT to answer for. . .
Click to expand...
I don’t think anybody misinterpreted the Pope’s statements. These stories are coming directly from the Vatican. I applaud Pope Benedict. Condoms are still evil, but less evil than HIV. It takes a strong Pope to say this to the Catholic community.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I don’t think anybody misinterpreted the Pope’s statements. These stories are coming directly from the Vatican. I applaud Pope Benedict. Condoms are still evil, but less evil than HIV. It takes a strong Pope to say this to the Catholic community.
Click to expand...
Did you read what the Pope said? He never said that condoms are 'less evil than HIV.'
 
Wow, yet another showing of breathtaking ignorance and / or malice on the part of a media outlet. These “journalists” should have their credentials and their degrees revoked. They fail reading comprehension forever, as well as basic logic. Of course, the Associated Press hasn’t had anything remotely resembling journalistic standards for a long time now. Sad, really.

The Pope’s position clearly state in context that if someone makes an effort to protect the another from infection it may indicate that they are beginning to awaken to a more human (and less animal) understanding of sexuality. It can give hope that they might reform to truly moral action and abandon illicit sexual practices. It does not mean that they are acting morally, or that the Church endorses in any way the “lesser of two evils” while dealing in the coin of Mortal Sin.
Robert_Sock said:
I don’t think anybody misinterpreted the Pope’s statements. These stories are coming directly from the Vatican. I applaud Pope Benedict. Condoms are still evil, but less evil than HIV. It takes a strong Pope to say this to the Catholic community.
Click to expand...
Actually, the story is coming directly from the ethically bankrupt and virulently anti-Catholic Associated Press - as per the by-line of the linked article:

“By VICTOR L. SIMPSON and NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press”

The Associated Press may have a field reporting at Vatican City. They are not, however, the Vatican.
  • Marty Lund
 
Robert_Sock said:
This is what the Vatican said.
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. Your source article likewise contradicts you. The only source cited in this article making that claim is Rev. James Martin - Random Liberal Jesuit writer and “culture editor” for America Magazine. He’s passing off his own spin on media report with ZERO authority to speak for the Pope in this regard. He does not serve at or represent the Holy See.

More accurate headline: “Yet Another Random Liberal Jesuit Scandalizes Catholic Church”

Seriously, where do they keep coming up with these guys? I mean, I love the Society of Jesus for helping provide me with a fine education but why do they keep producing priests that feel compelled to go off the reservation with these kooky theories? As if Liberation Theology wasn’t bad enough …
  • Marty Lund
 
Robert_Sock said:
Let us wait and see. The truth will come out. I sincerely doubt that the reporters and their contacts are all wrong.
Click to expand...
What kind of argument is that? Truly. That is such a logical fallacy.

Truth isn’t determined by ‘majority vote.’
 
Robert_Sock said:
Let us wait and see. The truth will come out. I sincerely doubt that the reporters and their contacts are all wrong.
Click to expand...
Just admit it. You read the article and took what Rev. Martin wrote as official word from the Vatican. You were wrong.

In the battle for credibility in reporting the position of the Church I’ll put the accumulated teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church up against the continual retractions, misquotations, misrepresentations, and wild projections on the Associated Press any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
Just admit it. You read the article and took what Rev. Martin wrote as official word from the Vatican. You were wrong.

In the battle for credibility in reporting the position of the Church I’ll put the accumulated teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church up against the continual retractions, misquotations, misrepresentations, and wild projections on the Associated Press any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Sounds like you’re in a state of denial. It happens! Again, let us wait and see what the truth is.
 
mlund said:
Just admit it. You read the article and took what Rev. Martin wrote as official word from the Vatican. You were wrong.

In the battle for credibility in reporting the position of the Church I’ll put the accumulated teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church up against the continual retractions, misquotations, misrepresentations, and wild projections on the Associated Press any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
What about Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau? You sound like you want to bite somebody’s head off.
Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert on the Vatican’s bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil.
Click to expand...
“Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst,” he told the AP. “Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility.”
Click to expand...
He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted, and the church’s teaching hadn’t been clear. There is no official Vatican policy about condoms and HIV, and Vatican officials in the past have insisted that condoms not only don’t help fight HIV transmission but make it worse because it gives users a false sense of security.
Click to expand...
“This pope gave this interview. He was not foolish. It was intentional,” Suaudeau said. “He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it’s true that the church sometimes has not been too clear.”
Click to expand...
 
Robert_Sock said:
Sounds like you’re in a state of denial.
Click to expand...
If you want to stake the credibility of the discredited Associated Press against the Church, sir, you go right ahead and accuse me about being in denial.

Just try and find a pinch of salt the next time you see quotes from a random Jesuit magazine editor and start insisting to everyone around you start parroting what he said insisting “It’s from the Vatican!!!”
Robert_Sock said:
What about Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau?
Click to expand...
The articles selective citation of a single member of the Vatican’s bioethics board does not actually provide support for the assertion that the Pope endorses condom use as an alternative to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Abstaining from illicit sexual behavior is the moral choice. Having sex with a condom or without a condom are both impermissible and immoral choices. Neither is approved or or condoned by the Church.

The Church does not endorse robbery as an alternative to murder, though nobody would wave a headline about that asserted “Vatician: Robbery less evil than murder” like it was news. Murder obviously causes the greater, irreparable harm, though both are Mortal Sins.
You sound like you want to bite somebody’s head off.
Click to expand...
I’d certainly love to see a muzzle put on the constant bather of misinformation from the ignorant media outlets, their parrots, and their various opportunistic hangers-on. I do think people in the press deserve to lose their jobs over this disgusting display.
  • Marty Lund
 
Oh boy, am I ever looking forward to explaining this one over Thanksgiving…:rolleyes:

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
I’m trying to understand this whole situation - and the media isn’t helping!

The way I understand it, the Pope (who, by the way, published this as a BOOK, not an encyclical or anything even remotely official!) said that someone who KNOWINGLY spreads AIDS is commiting a grevious act, but the fact that they take steps to protect others is at least a small sign of progress on their part to morality?

Much like the idea that they are finally starting to think of others. But using condoms to stop the spread of AIDS is still a greivous act not just because of contraception, but because of the fact that sex (protected or not) could still potentially spread AIDS and you could kill someone. Therefore, there is a change of heart towards morality by using the condom, but they are still potentially killing people by being sexually active. That the journey to morality starts with using the condom, and ends by the abstaining from sex altogether. It seems his main point is that catholics should never use condoms, but use abstinance - therefore making condoms totally unnecessary, and Catholics should always be urging everyone to practice abstinance to halt the spread of this infectious and dangerous disease.

Am I correct in this asumption?
 
I’m trying to understand this whole situation - and the media isn’t helping!

The way I understand it, the Pope (who, by the way, published this as a BOOK, not an encyclical or anything even remotely official!) said that someone who KNOWINGLY spreads AIDS is commiting a grevious act, but the fact that they take steps to protect others is at least a small sign of progress on their part to morality?

Much like the idea that they are finally starting to think of others. But using condoms to stop the spread of AIDS is still a greivous act not just because of contraception, but because of the fact that sex (protected or not) could still potentially spread AIDS and you could kill someone. Therefore, there is a change of heart towards morality by using the condom, but they are still potentially killing people by being sexually active. That the journey to morality starts with using the condom, and ends by the abstaining from sex altogether. It seems his main point is that catholics should never use condoms, but use abstinance - therefore making condoms totally unnecessary, and Catholics should always be urging everyone to practice abstinance to halt the spread of this infectious and dangerous disease.

Am I correct in this assumption?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top