Vatican: Condom use less evil than spreading HIV

[TarkanAttila]

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?

That’s a fair understanding of it. Except, that using a condom is not where the path begins. The path begins in realising that premarital and homosexual sex is sinful and morally offensive. Using a condom only means they are aware that they are aware that they are harming other people and are taking responsibility for their actions. They’re not quite right, but they are headed in the right direction. Sort of.

At least, that’s how I understand Benedict’s ideas and their interpretation.

 

[wanner47]

Mark Shea has a good article about this whole situation:

ROME – In a startling change to the Catholic Faith, Pope Benedict XVI announced today that tossing people down elevator shafts could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility “in the intention of reducing the risk of having your own son electrocuted to death before your very eyes.”

The Imperial Mainstream Media Center has taken this as a signal that the Church intends to canonize Darth Vader for his saintly courage in tossing Emperor Palpatine down an elevator shaft as the latter was torturing Darth Vader’s son to death with huge bolts of electric Force energy. In addition, the Imperial Mainstream Media Center has also declared that the pope therefore means to say that destruction of whole planets, as well as the subjugation of billions of inhabitants all over the galaxy, the betrayal of his closest friends, the slaughter of the Jedi and their younglings, and his conversion to the Dark Side “don’t matter.”

But most importantly, according to an Imperial Mainstream Media spokesman, “The point is, throwing people down elevator shafts is now formally accepted by the Church as moral behavior and Catholics need to think about how to incorporate this new development of doctrine into their lives. If you feel that throwing people down elevator shafts is the safe and right thing for you, then,” says the Imperial Mainstream Media Center, “we believe the pope means to say, ‘Do it with my blessing.’”

But seriously, folks: Two things are beyond my comprehension in this latest kerfuffle from the incurably thick mainstream media and the reliably easy-to-blindside people at the Vatican who seem to make it their business to let the MSM turn Benedict’s sensible remarks into a “gaffe” or, sillier still, tinder for global conflagrations of “controversy.”

First, what’s the big deal with what Benedict said? His point, for anybody with two brain cells to rub together to see, is that somebody who has lived a sinful life can take a modest and imperfect step toward forgetting himself and try to do something for somebody else. That doesn’t automatically make him a hero or a saint, nor does it baptize the details of his attempt at self-sacrificial decency as a Good Thing. So when Darth Vader – after betraying the Jedi, killing a bunch of children, acting for years as the lieutenant of the Most Evil Man in the Galaxy, destroying Alderaan, torturing Han Solo, and trying with might and main to kill Luke Skywalker – finally feels a tiny pang of conscience after watching his own son be tortured in the most sadistic manner possible and tosses Emperor Palpatine down an elevator shaft, we can say that there has been “a first step in assuming moral responsibility” – a first eensy weensy, itsy bitsy step. We can’t say, “Pope approves throwing people down elevator shafts.”

 

[Willy_Jose]

Here is a link to the statement of an official spokesman for the Vatican : Fr. Federico Lombardi of the Holy See Press Office:

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/vatican-spokesmans-statement-on-condoms/

 

[Abyssinia]

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.

I am going to paste my comment from the other thread:

I think the Pope was referring to male, female and transsexual prostitutes. We know that male was translated wrong from the German and Fr Lombardi has said the Pope meant women as well. But ‘prostitute’ was the hypothetical that was used in the interview. I assume the Pope meant HIV positive prostitute who has no respect for themselves or anyone else around them that that they maybe having sex with. But condoms do have a 15% failure rate. The Pope mentioned nothing of HIV discordant married couples using condoms. He said nothing about changing Catholic teaching. Why are the mainstream media acting as if an assumed hypothetical situation for a prostitute means Catholics can use condoms whenever?

I have seen only one mainstream media article refer to the truth regard the Pope’s comments on condoms:

What emerges in the interviews is a man who in his own words is “a simple beggar before God - even more than all other people” who, nonetheless, is deeply confident in the future of the church and of Christianity. Questioned about the AIDS crisis, the pope does not approve the use of condoms, despite what has been widely reported in the world news. In fact, “the sheer fixation on the condom” is itself part of the problem; it “implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only as a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.” It is possible that in the case of some individuals the use of a condom might indicate “a first assumption of responsibility on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed,” but nowhere does he suggest that the use of condoms is objectively effective or morally acceptable.

Read more: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/23/EDRI1GG63L.DTL#ixzz16AphxtWI

 

[Windfish]

I honestly don’t know what’s going on anymore. Is there anyone has comprehensive on the issue? Akin’s blog is close, but it is missing some of the new tidbits from the “Vatican spokesperson.”

 

[Willy_Jose]

I honestly don’t know what’s going on anymore. Is there anyone has comprehensive on the issue? Akin’s blog is close, but it is missing some of the new tidbits from the “Vatican spokesperson.”

Maybe the Vatican spokesperson should stop issuing “clarifications” anymore. At this point, it fails to clarify and only muddles the issue further. I agree with Dr John Haas : “We ought to let the Pope speak for himself”.

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/new.php?id=2205

I understand the book is selling like hotcakes. I think a sequel is in order, this early.
However, I’d much prefer a Magisterial document.

 

[AntiTheist]

“We can’t say, ‘Pope approves throwing people down elevator shafts.’”

No, but if the pope was the head of a religion that for a long time publicly condemned the practice of throwing people down elevator shafts as intrinsically evil – and if this position had been extremely controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from people who point out benefits of throwing people down elevator shafts, such as preventing the spread of disease – then his statement that throwing someone down an elevator shaft can be positive is going to be met with gasps of surprise and, if the reaction of some uber-conservative Catholics is any indication, horror.

Personally, I think this whole condom thing is a ham-fisted attempt to drum up press to attract people’s attention to the issue, one that I suspect is going to backfire, either by giving people the impression that Catholicism is a-ok with condoms or by giving people a chance to examine the actual Catholic teachings, which I can guarantee are not exactly going to win people over in droves.

Frankly, if the Pope’s intent was to convey the message that his apologists are now claiming, then he and his editors did a poor job of making the point clear. From the context that’s been leaked, it certainly sounds as if the Pope is saying 1) Condoms are bad, 2) Infecting people with HIV is bad, and 3) A person infecting others with HIV is taking the first steps toward moraltiy – i.e. doing a better thing than just infecting people – by wearing a condom.

The excerpt certainly implies that the lesser of the two “evils” is wearing a condom. If the Pope intended some other idea to be conveyed, he either failed spectacularly or was deliberately engaging in a publicity ploy that I think is likely to backfire.

Either way, I’m enjoying watching this mess play out.

 

[inocente]

I’m trying to understand this whole situation - and the media isn’t helping!

Watching interviews with members of the public over the last few days, a number of Catholics in France, Spain and Italy said it was about time that condoms are approved by the Church and that they had been ignoring the “old” teaching anyway.

It seems a lot of people have taken what they wanted to hear, whatever the nuances in the actual teaching. Any complicated subtleties will likely get ignored no matter how well it is now explained, and currently it’s a bit confusing even down to the Italian version of the book referring apparently to “una prostituta” (female) while the English refers to a male prostitute.

Overall, I would have thought Benedict was merely pointing out that Humanae Vitae pre-dates AIDs and needs to be reinterpreted. What many on CAF seem to have missed is that more reinterpretations may be on the way :-

Although Pope Benedict reiterated the Church’s fundamental opposition to contraception, and repeated his view that condoms were not the answer to curbing HIV, he added that there was much in the area of sexual ethics that needed to be pondered and expressed in new ways. - BBC

 

[Willy_Jose]

No, but if the pope was the head of a religion that for a long time publicly condemned the practice of throwing people down elevator shafts as intrinsically evil – and if this position had been extremely controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from people who point out benefits of throwing people down elevator shafts, such as preventing the spread of disease – then his statement that throwing someone down an elevator shaft can be positive is going to be met with gasps of surprise and, if the reaction of some uber-conservative Catholics is any indication, horror.

Personally, I think this whole condom thing is a ham-fisted attempt to drum up press to attract people’s attention to the issue, one that I suspect is going to backfire, either by giving people the impression that Catholicism is a-ok with condoms or by giving people a chance to examine the actual Catholic teachings, which I can guarantee are not exactly going to win people over in droves.

Frankly, if the Pope’s intent was to convey the message that his apologists are now claiming, then he and his editors did a poor job of making the point clear. From the context that’s been leaked, it certainly sounds as if the Pope is saying 1) Condoms are bad, 2) Infecting people with HIV is bad, and 3) A person infecting others with HIV is taking the first steps toward moraltiy – i.e. doing a better thing than just infecting people – by wearing a condom.

The excerpt certainly implies that the lesser of the two “evils” is wearing a condom. If the Pope intended some other idea to be conveyed, he either failed spectacularly or was deliberately engaging in a publicity ploy that I think is likely to backfire.

Either way, I’m enjoying watching this mess play out.

Interesting speculation, but still…speculation.

The recent developments (no,I wouldn’t call lit a “mess”) is a necessary part in what Catholics call “Development of Doctrine”. The essential truths were already laid out, but elements need to be explicated in detail due to ongoing developments and novel aberrations. Contemporary issues need to be explicitly addressed that was never apparent beforehand. HIV was not a phenomenon when Humanae Vitae was released back in 1968. Still, the Pope’s statements do not contradict tradition, much as the clueless media wants to portray it.

I wouldn’t second-guess the Pope’s intentions, nor boldly predict what the outcome of this current controversy. At any rate, the perceptions on “outcomes” would be relative. Would one hundred converts be fine? One million? How about one single soul? Just how much is “droves”? Is the Pope motivated that people would be won over in droves? That would be nice, but the Pope is motivated to speak out the truth, whether people come in droves or not. Is the Pope advocating a “lesser evil”? No, the choice here is between good and evil, between authentic “human sexuality” and its perversions.

At any rate, do enjoy yourself. I’m enjoying it too, but perhaps in a different way.

 

[Abyssinia]

I honestly don’t know what’s going on anymore. Is there anyone has comprehensive on the issue? Akin’s blog is close, but it is missing some of the new tidbits from the “Vatican spokesperson.”

Nothing has changed in Catholic teaching. Condoms are still not allowed for married couples, or for HIV discordant couples.

 

[Abyssinia]

Maybe the Vatican spokesperson should stop issuing “clarifications” anymore. At this point, it fails to clarify and only muddles the issue further. I agree with Dr John Haas : “We ought to let the Pope speak for himself”.

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/new.php?id=2205

I understand the book is selling like hotcakes. I think a sequel is in order, this early.
However, I’d much prefer a Magisterial document.

Catholic teaching has not been changed. One good thing has good thing has come out of all of this and that is the book is selling more which means a lot more people will get to read about the Pope.

 

[Abyssinia]

No, but if the pope was the head of a religion that for a long time publicly condemned the practice of throwing people down elevator shafts as intrinsically evil – and if this position had been extremely controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from people who point out benefits of throwing people down elevator shafts, such as preventing the spread of disease – then his statement that throwing someone down an elevator shaft can be positive is going to be met with gasps of surprise and, if the reaction of some uber-conservative Catholics is any indication, horror.

Personally, I think this whole condom thing is a ham-fisted attempt to drum up press to attract people’s attention to the issue, one that I suspect is going to backfire, either by giving people the impression that Catholicism is a-ok with condoms or by giving people a chance to examine the actual Catholic teachings, which I can guarantee are not exactly going to win people over in droves.

Frankly, if the Pope’s intent was to convey the message that his apologists are now claiming, then he and his editors did a poor job of making the point clear. From the context that’s been leaked, it certainly sounds as if the Pope is saying 1) Condoms are bad, 2) Infecting people with HIV is bad, and 3) A person infecting others with HIV is taking the first steps toward moraltiy – i.e. doing a better thing than just infecting people – by wearing a condom.

The excerpt certainly implies that the lesser of the two “evils” is wearing a condom. If the Pope intended some other idea to be conveyed, he either failed spectacularly or was deliberately engaging in a publicity ploy that I think is likely to backfire.

Either way, I’m enjoying watching this mess play out.

No the Pope did not say that wearing a condom was a moral thing.

You can switch the ‘‘man’’ with a woman or a transsexual.

There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?

If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.

lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/what-pope-benedict-said-about-condoms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lovingit+%28Catholic+and+Loving+it!%29

He gave an example of a prostitute, the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention, but the action of wearing a condom is still wrong.

The question is why are the mainstream media have headlines and manipulating what the Pope said to make it look like the Pope actually said condoms are acceptable, and that is not what he said.

 

[Abyssinia]

Watching interviews with members of the public over the last few days, a number of Catholics in France, Spain and Italy said it was about time that condoms are approved by the Church and that they had been ignoring the “old” teaching anyway.

It seems a lot of people have taken what they wanted to hear, whatever the nuances in the actual teaching. Any complicated subtleties will likely get ignored no matter how well it is now explained, and currently it’s a bit confusing even down to the Italian version of the book referring apparently to “una prostituta” (female) while the English refers to a male prostitute.

Overall, I would have thought Benedict was merely pointing out that Humanae Vitae pre-dates AIDs and needs to be reinterpreted. What many on CAF seem to have missed is that more reinterpretations may be on the way :-

Although Pope Benedict reiterated the Church’s fundamental opposition to contraception, and repeated his view that condoms were not the answer to curbing HIV, he added that there was much in the area of sexual ethics that needed to be pondered and expressed in new ways. - BBC

They should not believe everything the mainstream media tells them. If they read the actual interview that the Pope did they would see that Catholic teaching has not changed, he did not say that condoms where moral, he did not say married people should use condoms.

Whether the Pope was referring to male, females or transsexuals, it stays the same. The Pope says the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention. But a condom is not a real or moral solution.

 

[Abyssinia]

Interesting speculation, but still…speculation.

The recent developments (no,I wouldn’t call lit a “mess”) is a necessary part in what Catholics call “Development of Doctrine”. The essential truths were already laid out, but elements need to be explicated in detail due to ongoing developments and novel aberrations. Contemporary issues need to be explicitly addressed that was never apparent beforehand. HIV was not a phenomenon when Humanae Vitae was released back in 1968. Still, the Pope’s statements do not contradict tradition, much as the clueless media wants to portray it.

I wouldn’t second-guess the Pope’s intentions, nor boldly predict what the outcome of this current controversy. At any rate, the perceptions on “outcomes” would be relative. Would one hundred converts be fine? One million? How about one single soul? Just how much is “droves”? Is the Pope motivated that people would be won over in droves? That would be nice, but the Pope is motivated to speak out the truth, whether people come in droves or not. Is the Pope advocating a “lesser evil”? No, the choice here is between good and evil, between authentic “human sexuality” and its perversions.

At any rate, do enjoy yourself. I’m enjoying it too, but perhaps in a different way.

The media is acting like the Pope has changed Catholic teaching, now condoms are acceptable for all, Human Vitae has been reformed, its been rewritten and now it just has one sentence, condoms acceptable for all.

When the Pope said condoms where ‘‘not a real or moral solution.’’

 

[TarkanAttila]

No, but if the pope was the head of a religion that for a long time publicly condemned the practice of throwing people down elevator shafts as intrinsically evil – and if this position had been extremely controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from people who point out benefits of throwing people down elevator shafts, such as preventing the spread of disease – then his statement that throwing someone down an elevator shaft can be positive is going to be met with gasps of surprise and, if the reaction of some uber-conservative Catholics is any indication, horror.

Personally, I think this whole condom thing is a ham-fisted attempt to drum up press to attract people’s attention to the issue, one that I suspect is going to backfire, either by giving people the impression that Catholicism is a-ok with condoms or by giving people a chance to examine the actual Catholic teachings, which I can guarantee are not exactly going to win people over in droves.
**
Frankly, if the Pope’s intent was to convey the message that his apologists are now claiming, then he and his editors did a poor job of making the point clear. From the context that’s been leaked, it certainly sounds as if the Pope is saying 1) Condoms are bad, 2) Infecting people with HIV is bad, and 3) A person infecting others with HIV is taking the first steps toward moraltiy[sic] – i.e. doing a better thing than just infecting people – by wearing a condom.
**
The excerpt certainly implies that the lesser of the two “evils” is wearing a condom. If the Pope intended some other idea to be conveyed, he either failed spectacularly or was deliberately engaging in a publicity ploy that I think is likely to backfire.

Either way, I’m enjoying watching this mess play out.

Your comprehension of the matter at hand makes my opinion of you a bit less cold.

Thanks for actually reading what His Holiness said instead of jumping to conclusions like so many of your brethren (atheists) and other non-Catholics.

At least, if I understand you correctly, you agree that (from the Pope’s P.O.V.), condoms and AIDS are both bad, but protecting someone from AIDS is the beginning of moral development.

 

[rick43235]

Catholic teaching has not been changed.

“This is a game-changer,” said the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/11/24/vaticans-condom-stance-altered.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“This is a game-changer,” said the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/11/24/vaticans-condom-stance-altered.html

"This is NOT a game-changer’ says Tantum Ergo, a prominent Catholic writer.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

No, but if the pope was the head of a religion that for a long time publicly condemned the practice of throwing people down elevator shafts as intrinsically evil – and if this position had been extremely controversial and attracted a lot of criticism, especially from people who point out benefits of throwing people down elevator shafts, such as preventing the spread of disease – then his statement that throwing someone down an elevator shaft can be positive is going to be met with gasps of surprise and, if the reaction of some uber-conservative Catholics is any indication, horror.

Personally, I think this whole condom thing is a ham-fisted attempt to drum up press to attract people’s attention to the issue, one that I suspect is going to backfire, either by giving people the impression that Catholicism is a-ok with condoms or by giving people a chance to examine the actual Catholic teachings, which I can guarantee are not exactly going to win people over in droves.

Frankly, if the Pope’s intent was to convey the message that his apologists are now claiming, then he and his editors did a poor job of making the point clear. From the context that’s been leaked, it certainly sounds as if the Pope is saying 1) Condoms are bad, 2) Infecting people with HIV is bad, and 3) A person infecting others with HIV is taking the first steps toward moraltiy – i.e. doing a better thing than just infecting people – by wearing a condom.

The excerpt certainly implies that the lesser of the two “evils” is wearing a condom. If the Pope intended some other idea to be conveyed, he either failed spectacularly or was deliberately engaging in a publicity ploy that I think is likely to backfire.

Either way, I’m enjoying watching this mess play out.

I’m not, for sure. The Mischaracterization of the Pope’s message to pacify some Leftist, Heretical groups and allow the MSM to push their own Leftist Twaddle is NOT I would enjoy watching.