Vatican: No condom change

[Abyssinia]

**Church officials stress that Pope Benedict XVI was not justifying the sexuality that requires protection **

The Vatican on Sunday cautioned that there is nothing “revolutionary” in Pope Benedict XVI’s startling assertion that condom use in exceptional circumstances can be a responsible act in the fight against the spread of HIV.

The Holy See’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement stressing that the pope’s comment in a book being published Tuesday neither “reforms or changes” church teaching, which forbids use of condoms and other contraceptives.

Neither was Benedict “morally justifying” the unbridled exercise of sexuality, Lombardi added.

The pope maintains that condom use to lessen the danger of infection is a “first assumption of responsibility,” the statement said, quoting from the book.

“The reasoning of the pope cannot certainly be defined as a revolutionary turn,” the spokesman said.

The pope spoke in an interview given to a German journalist. Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on Saturday published excerpts from the book, “Light of the World,” three days ahead of publication.

In the interview, Benedict says that in certain cases, such as for a male prostitute, condom use could be a first step in assuming moral responsibility for stemming the spread of the virus that causes AIDS.

Lombardi noted that the pope emphasized the church’s main advice in the fight against AIDS – sexual abstinence and fidelity among married couples. He cited Benedict’s words that the church “of course does not regard it (condom use) as a real or moral solution.”

“With this, the pope isn’t reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it, putting it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as expression of love and responsibility,” the spokesman said.

Full

Clarification by Fr Federico Lombardi: oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=440913

Here is longer Italian version: oecumene.radiovaticana.org/IT1/Articolo.asp?c=440912

 

[edwest2]

Thank God for the quick clarification. Perhaps now the secularists will calm down.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Los_Angeles]

Why would the Pope make such a statement about condoms that could be so easily misinterpreted in the first place?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[baylee]

Thank God for the quick clarification. Perhaps now the secularists will calm down.

Peace,
Ed

If this is clarified, then why I am stil confused?

 

[MarianD]

There was never anything confusing about what Pope Benedict said. People just didn’t read what he said and instead just read the headlines and made their conclusions from that.

 

[BusterMartin]

There was never anything confusing about what Pope Benedict said. People just didn’t read what he said and instead just read the headlines and made their conclusions from that.

Agreed. His comments, when read at face value and not twisted by the media, were quite clear. I really couldn’t, and still don’t, understand why people take the media’s words at face value but not the Pope’s. Condoms are still neither condoned by the Catholic Church nor by the Pope.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed. His comments, when read at face value and not twisted by the media, were quite clear. I really couldn’t, and still don’t, understand why people take the media’s words at face value but not the Pope’s. Condoms are still neither condoned by the Catholic Church nor by the Pope.

Think about it. How much time does the average person spend in front of the TV, listening to secular media or getting “news” on the internet? How much time do even some Catholics spend reading Catholic news sources?

The Media Spin Machine ™ went into overdrive to get the news to hedonists around the world. I’m certain a few “comedians” are already running skits about it, “fire bad,” “Catholic Church bad - unless it even vaguely approves of something we desperately want.”

Most people are surrounded by secular noise. They’ve become conditioned.

Peace,
Ed

 

[coolduude]

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[ddarko]

Think about it. How much time does the average person spend in front of the TV, listening to secular media or getting “news” on the internet? How much time do even some Catholics spend reading Catholic news sources?

The Media Spin Machine ™ went into overdrive to get the news to hedonists around the world. I’m certain a few “comedians” are already running skits about it, “fire bad,” “Catholic Church bad - unless it even vaguely approves of something we desperately want.”

Most people are surrounded by secular noise. They’ve become conditioned.

Yes, and what was really crazy here is that nearly every secular paper was running articles with headlines suggesting that ‘the pope had an epiphany to grant contraception the OK to fight AIDS’ before many of the Catholic ones. Then the way they took excerpts and put down the Pope’s words were psychologically suggestive to imply that he was actually meaning such a thing.

I have to say, though I’ve seen my share of the media twisting the stories around, but I have not seen it happen like this, to such a large extent, in such an unprofessional way. At least before, it was just a statement of the actual Papal position and then attacking him. But this was like every secular paper went out their way to pick and choose the words from the Pope himself to spread this lie. It feels unprecedented.

To think how many faithful Catholics are probably feeling very lost right now after hearing this news from the secular media.

God Bless

 

[edwest2]

You’re right but the Vatican is doing what it can. I read an an article on the gay site Advocate yesterday talking about this. The Church is being watched like a hawk, in some cases because it is hedonist enemy number one.

Peace,
Ed

 

[averheyen]

I just have so many problems with what the pope said, or purported to have said. It’s just not right. There’s something majorly askew about it.

 

[ddarko]

I just have so many problems with what the pope said, or purported to have said. It’s just not right. There’s something majorly askew about it.

Just read it in slowly. This article that was presented by Abu in the other thread might help shed some light on your issue.

ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms?

And the other thread is over here btw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514226

Rest assured though my friend, our Pope has not said anything wrong or new.

God Bless

 

[coolduude]

I just have so many problems with what the pope said, or purported to have said. It’s just not right. There’s something majorly askew about it.

Nonsense.

Matthew:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The Church is always right on faith and morals, and can never be wrong. Trust in the Church, and you’ll change your mind about the Pope

 

[averheyen]

I love the Holy Father and our Mother church, don’t kid yerself. But charity in truth is not pushing condoms, ESPECIALLY in a situation like that. If I were to hand someone, in a situation like the pope gave, a condom vs pulling them up from the gutters in the spirit of mother thresea, I know which one I’d want to answer for when I meet the lord on the day of my death. Right sexuality is the answer. I get that. But if I’m to use the example he gave as a means for why condom use might be justified, then it doesn’t take long to justify the Winnipeg statement as valid because hey, lets face it, they were reeeeally trying.

 

[bhall0689]

I think this is a step in the right direction, but am confused as to why the Church is a) downplaying the radical nature of the statement, and b) if condom use is only justified in a male homosexual situation.

I was taught from birth that condom use was immoral under all circumstances, save rape. Of course it makes logical sense that a homosexual prostitute diagnosed with AIDs protect his partner. Not doing so might lead to the unnecessary death of the infected customer’s wife and potential children he might have with her. Why sacrifice the lives of innocent parties based on a notion of morality which, frankly, crumbles under the obligation we have to protect human lives? But for the Church to acknowledge that the use of a condom would be the best option if the homosexual act were going to be committed no matter what IS pretty radical, and it’s promising. It makes sense.

But the pope seemed to imply condom use was permissible only in extreme moral situations, and he used the infected, male prostitute as an example. Would other cases apply as well, or is this the only one? It remains to be clarified.

 

[Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict was being very intellectual, talking about the intention of wanting to keep someone safe. The mainstream media is reporting this all wrong. They are making out as if the Pope has made some radical change, in himself and/or in Catholic teaching which is not true. The clarification from Fr Lombardi is still not clear. I still do not understand what the Pope meant. It is possible that the Pope made a mistake, it was just an interview.

This has really exposed liberal Catholics too, such as Damian Thompson and Christina Odone of the Telegraph. When the news first was broadcast they mistook it as the Pope changing the teaching on condoms, and they reveled in it. Now, not so much. These two Catholic commentators and others are saying that there has been some radical change, and there hasn’t so I do understand it:

bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2010/11/daily_view_pope_condones_condo.html

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100064611/the-pope%E2%80%99s-condom-ruling-is-a-liberation/

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331905/Charities-Pope-condom-U-turn-concedes-justified.html

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100064572/conservative-catholics-blame-media-for-condoms-story-but-are-they-secretly-cross-with-the-pope/

My concern is for the Catholic on the street, taking what the mainstream media has too say to heart and thinking now that condom use is acceptable. I am concerned some people out there may have committed mortal sin because of a misunderstanding.

If the Pope had mentioned a married couple, that would be radical. I do not understand why some people are choosing to see what the Pope said as radical. Why are Catholics against condoms, because of their contraceptive abilities. The Pope seems to mention homosexual intercourse, by male prostitutes, they can not get pregnant, thus using a condom is irrelevant. Like two lesbians using a contraceptive pill.

Lets be clear though, Pope did not say condom use is acceptable between married people, before marriage, between couples or married people where one has HIV/AIDS.

Four things to know:

1. Artificial Contraception not approved by Church
   The pope did not approve of condoms to be used as contraceptives. The church clearly forbids all forms of artificial contraception and nothing the pope said violates this.
2. Comments referred only to male prostitutes
   The pope’s comments referred only to male prostitutes. Obviously the Church has made numerous comments on the immorality of homosexual sex, plus the fact that these acts are inherently nonreproductive, the use or non-use of condoms becomes a moot point. The main objection to the use of a condom is its contraceptive quality. In a situation that can be nothing but non-contraceptive, the objection becomes moot.
3. Pope did not say it is good for gay men to use condoms
   The pope did not say a gay man using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS or HIV is doing something morally good. Rather, the intention behind him using it can be the beginning point of a sense of morality. Basically the thought of the gay man to protect the health of his partner is at least the beginning of a sense of morality on the issue, even though everything about the situation is immoral.
4. Not official teachings
   These are the personal thoughts of Pope Benedict, and in no way can be construed as a change in Catholic teaching on the issues of artificial contraception and birth control. In order for something to be an official church teaching, the pope must declare it using formal and official Church channels such as publishing an encyclical or papal bull. In order for something to be declared infallible, the criteria is even more stringent and is very seldom used.

holymotherchurch.blogspot.com/2010/11/4-things-are-pope-and-condoms.html

 

[baylee]

Abyssnia…thank you. Your post was very well organized and clear. It helped me understand this a great deal.

 

[thomfra]

i think this is a step in the right direction, but am confused as to why the church is a) downplaying the radical nature of the statement, and b) if condom use is only justified in a male homosexual situation.

I was taught from birth that condom use was immoral under all circumstances, save rape. Of course it makes logical sense that a homosexual prostitute diagnosed with aids protect his partner. Not doing so might lead to the unnecessary death of the infected customer’s wife and potential children he might have with her. why sacrifice the lives of innocent parties based on a notion of morality which, frankly, crumbles under the obligation we have to protect human lives? but for the church to acknowledge that the use of a condom would be the best option if the homosexual act were going to be committed no matter what is pretty radical, and it’s promising. It makes sense.
but the pope seemed to imply condom use was permissible only in extreme moral situations, and he used the infected, male prostitute as an example. Would other cases apply as well, or is this the only one? It remains to be clarified.

yes, yes, yes!!!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I have a couple of problems with this statement by the Pope:

1.) It’s as if he assuming male prostitutes (and perhaps gay men in general?) are a bunch of animals who care only about themselves, going around having sex with anyone and spreading disease willy-nilly. Describing the use of the condom to prevent spreading AIDS as the beginning of a sense of sexual morality almost seems to me to be treating these individuals as depraved psychopaths who usually go around doing whatever they want with no care in the world about others. In general, I think most people, yes, even male prostitutes, don’t want to kill someone with AIDS. I think his perception is a bit off, and thus, he may be unable to really speak effectively on issues of homosexuality? Maybe I’m wrong though and just reading too much into it.

2.) WHY, oh WHY is it licit for gay prostitutes to protect themselves and others, but not for a married couple where 1 partner has AIDS. You could have 2 people, both virgins, who marry in the Catholic Church, where 1 unknowingly has the disease from a blood transfusion. It may not even show up on a blood test for a year or more! Why should this couple not be allowed to use a condom to prevent the spread of the disease in the same way that a woman can use the Pill for other medical issues. It makes no sense.

 

[pnewton]

Why would the Pope make such a statement about condoms that could be so easily misinterpreted in the first place?

Because what he said was true, if taken at face value, and not as some sign of a shift in policy. I say “policy” because the articles I read show a profound ignorance at the difference between policy and moral teaching. Yes, secular media outlets twisted it into something that it was not. That is what they do best.