Vatican: No condom change

[Rich_Olszewski]

I know full well the pope does not condone extra marital sex. He has merely recognised that when it does happen, it’s morally a little less bad if those involved use a condom to cut down on HIV transmission.

That sounds right to me. Adultery is not condoned and fornication is not condoned. But, we know that both go on - a lot - regardless what the Church says. That the Pope recognizes that there can be a reasonably legitimate use of a condom - to prevent disease - can only be a positive thing.

 

[wanner47]

I really don’t see why you’ve brought rape into this discussion. Also the pope wasn’t just talking about prostitutes. They were mentioned in an example. I know full well the pope does not condone extra marital sex. He has merely recognised that when it does happen, it’s morally a little less bad if those involved use a condom to cut down on HIV transmission.

Regarding the bolded:

YOU ARE WRONG.

The pope said that the REALIZATION that promiscuous sex can have deadly consequences is a first step toward recognizing that promiscuous sex is wrong. HE DID NOT SAY THAT CONDOM USE IN ANY RESPECT IS “A LITTLE LESS BAD.”

Specifically, the Pope said:

She [the Church] does not regard it [condom use] as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality”

(emphasis mine)

The INTENTION of using a condom. NOT THE CONDOM ITSELF.

How can you read the above paragraph and say that the pope said condom use “was a little less bad”? He said it was NOT A REAL OR MORAL SOLUTION.

Sorry for the caps, but I can’t tell if you’re really not getting the distinction or if you are being deliberately obtuse.

Regarding rape, you yourself said that sometimes sex “is just going to happen.” Rape would be an instance of that. If a rapist uses a condom with the intention of preventing disease in his victim, that may be the first step toward a realization that rape is wrong, and that is a good thing. But the rape isn’t a good thing.

 

[ddarko]

I’m not obsessed with condoms I’m just noting that the pope is now recognising in the real world that sometimes sex outside of marriage is just going to happen and in that situation with a deadly disease around it is better that the man wears a condom. *

As someone can be HIV positive without knowing it, is the pope, in situations where sex is going to happen anyway, in favour of condom usage in all extra-marital relationships? Again, I know the preferred situation would be no sex.*

lol NO.

First, Pope has NOT said that there are moral situations where sex is going to happen other than within marriage. This again shows your obsession with a inhuman sexuality. You are under the impression that no sex, before or outside of marriage, is an impossibility in this day and age. YOU ARE WRONG!!!

Secondly, wahat part of NO Pre/extra-marital sex don’t you get? It’s like saying the pope said murder is wrong but giving a proper burial is good. So is the Pope condoning killing the person and then giving him a proper burial? Obviously NOT. I really fail to see what valid logical rule of inference you used to come up with such a conclusion.

The Pope only said that the intention “MAY” lead the person to realize the mistake of what he is doing. It was like saying, “Hitler might have repented right before he shot himself”. In reality who knows if he did or not. Similarly, that part was just a speculation by the Pope. Even I can speculate whether you are finally GETTING THIS after all this repeated arguments you bring up. But hey… it’s just a speculation nothing concrete… as you might be proving as you read this now

So seriously, unless you have some real obsession with having pre-marital sex and using a condom, I really do not see why you don’t get it. You are reaching so hard to make it look like the Pope is OK with you using a Condom when you have sex outside of your marriage.

If you are a true Catholic, and not simply a “Raised Catholic”, you should easily know that the Pope was clearly opposing INHUMANE sexuality which contraception, pre and extra-marital sex, sodomy, and prostitution are all part of.

God Bless

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I’d be interested in the motives behind the big commotion made by the secular media after the publication of the book. If they were really, really neutral about what the pope of a religion they do not belong to said about the matter, and if they really couldn’t care less to what an ‘oldfashioned, dying institute’ teaches, why all the fuss?

Could it be that they, without willing to admit it, maybe even unconsciously, recognize that what the Church teaches is higher than what the world teaches? Could it be that they want the Church and the pope to change doctrine so that they can say: ‘ah, I’m relieved to know that they are not better than me’?

 

[edwest2]

I’d be interested in the motives behind the big commotion made by the secular media after the publication of the book. If they were really, really neutral about what the pope of a religion they do not belong to said about the matter, and if they really couldn’t care less to what an ‘oldfashioned, dying institute’ teaches, why all the fuss?

Could it be that they, without willing to admit it, maybe even unconsciously, recognize that what the Church teaches is higher than what the world teaches? Could it be that they want the Church and the pope to change doctrine so that they can say: ‘ah, I’m relieved to know that they are not better than me’?

Yes, partly. The other part has to do with the obsession for change by the secular media.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Rock]

Why some members of this forum continue to push the idea that the Pope said condom use is OK, after all the clear examples and arguments presented to the contrary is mind boggling. I think the battle lines are being set, and Christ is purifying his Church. The rejection of Humane Vite by a large portion of the Church both at it’s initial publishing, and today will not continue. I think the Pope’s comments about the first movements towards an eventual full realization of moral responsibility in the mind of the prostitute ironically apply to a great deal of Catholics who currently will not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception. The Catholics who have rejected the teaching on contraception have in a way become “prostitutes” to the culture of death. Perhaps they will see how their disobedience lays the groundwork for acceptance of abortion and the breakdown of the family. If they realize these harmful consequences exist, perhaps they will eventually realize the sinful nature of the contraceptive mentality.

 

[edwest2]

Why some members of this forum continue to push the idea that the Pope said condom use is OK, after all the clear examples and arguments presented to the contrary is mind boggling. I think the battle lines are being set, and Christ is purifying his Church. The rejection of Humane Vite by a large portion of the Church both at it’s initial publishing, and today will not continue. I think the Pope’s comments about the first movements towards an eventual full realization of moral responsibility in the mind of the prostitute ironically apply to a great deal of Catholics who currently will not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception. The Catholics who have rejected the teaching on contraception have in a way become “prostitutes” to the culture of death. Perhaps they will see how their disobedience lays the groundwork for acceptance of abortion and the breakdown of the family. If they realize these harmful consequences exist, perhaps they will eventually realize the sinful nature of the contraceptive mentality.

Why? Among the possible reasons are:

Some strongly disagree with Church teaching and want it to change so they see what they want to see.

Some may be “astroturf,” a term used to describe people who are paid money to post in designated places while pretending to be an average person. Their job is to write whatever their employer tells them to write.

Some have a malicious desire to sow confusion in the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Why? Among the possible reasons are:

Some strongly disagree with Church teaching and want it to change so they see what they want to see.

Some may be “astroturf,” a term used to describe people who are paid money to post in designated places while pretending to be an average person. Their job is to write whatever their employer tells them to write.

Some have a malicious desire to sow confusion in the Church.

Peace,
Ed

Aw man, I didnt think that there really were those types of people…

Thats pretty sad.

FSC