Vatican: No condom change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thoughtfulone said:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. The subject was morality not condoms. I think you are reading to much into it. He gave the example of male prostitutes because if they use contraception it has no contraceptive ability because men can not get pregnant. He seemed to say the man is showing some advance along the scale of morality, he has recognized he has a responsibility others in the culture. The intention.
  2. Why would a HIV positive man or woman want to expose their partner to HIV/AIDS? Condoms can break. Condoms cannot be used in such a situation and, in any case, do not entirely protect the uninfected spouse. If one spouse has a sexually-transmittable disease and if the illness is incurable, the couple may have to live a life of celibate chastity. While this is a very difficult situation indeed, such a couple could especially entrust their marriage to the Holy Family and take Mary and Joseph as models of celibate and chaste spouses.
 
Christopher68 said:
You have written a very informative post.

From my vantage point, it seems that the Vatican is still very poor with media skills. The child abuse scandals proved that.

The story is being reported and interpreted as a shift in church teaching, from one that is ‘objective’ to one that is ‘subjective’.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It is not the Vatican’s fault in this instance, it is L’Osservatore Romano’s fault for not putting in context. Church teaching on condoms has not changed.
 
edwest2 said:
This is 100% the fault of the pagan media’s Spin Machine ™. Pope Benedict used to be a University professor, so I’m certain he expected some wrong interpretation.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Media has manipulated what the Pope has said. Church teaching on condoms has not changed.
 
losh14 said:
I think you are reading too much into it. Take what the Pope said at face value - a male prostitute who wants to not give HIV to his John or partner. He’s not calling all gays prostitutes - and I think that gays in general do a better job of testing themselves and protecting themselves against HIV than a prostitute would, just by nature of what a prostitute does. Think about it - prostitution means sex with multiple partners for pay. It’s a rather depraved thing to do if you are HIV positive and don’t care enough to stop hooking.

Because you can’t get around the contraceptive use of condoms here. Contraception is still condemned - and gay men using a condom is not contraceptive.

That’s contrived, but in such a case theologians may make an exception. It’s moot to point out, but the blood transfusion should be safe, at least in the U.S. where the current estimated incidence of HIV infection from blood transfusion is 1 in 1.8 million units. Alternatively, a couple may just wish to wait to marry until the results of the test are known.

Technically, women who are on the pill for therapeutic treatments (ie for endometriosis or anemia) are supposed to abstain from sex during the time of treatment.
Click to expand...
Good info, thanks! I still disagree with the CC’s position…but an informative post 🙂
 
** My own position, for what it’s worth, is that the dieheard Catholic position against contraceptives is wrong. **Why? To begin with. the Church accepts ‘natural birth control’ based on the cycle of the woman, which has the same goal: to impede contraception. In the second place, it seems to me that sexual relations between a husband and wife are private, and the decision as to family planning has to be theirs. The Church may suggest a position, but to make articial birth control a major violation of Catholic policy is self-defeating.
Click to expand...
“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood” (Catechism, 2399). Contraception and natural family planning (NFP) are common methods used to regulate births, however, there is a big difference in their respective morality – while the ends may be the same, the means are very different. Contraception attempts to close the marital act to procreation while NFP does not. Instead, NFP observes abstinence during fertile times – marital activity, however, is never closed to procreation.

The catechism explains it this way: “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality” (CCC 2370).

NFP vs Contraception differences:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15037

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=20169

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10445

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8956
** I remember two cases in which the natural method failed** when the couple had been warned that bearing another child would endanger the life of both the mother and baby. One couple followed the Church’s teaching, trusting in God, and both mother and baby died, leaving a grieving husband, six other motherless children, and a family which then left the Church. The other couple reluctantly opted for an early abortion, the woman was severely scolded by the priest at confession, so they, too, left the Church.
Click to expand...
That is very sad.
** Most married Catholic couples, after they have the number of children they feel they can provide adequately for, use artificial birth control.** Probably no issue, except maybe the sex scandal, has done more to drive Catholics away from the Church, at least among people I know. It has effected my attitude toward the Church as well, and it take a special effeort to maintain respect for some of its policies.
Click to expand...
Why would they use artificial birth control over NFP? It violates the natural meaning of the sexual act. Are these Catholics ‘‘in name only’’ or regular mass attendees? Liberal Churches have lost members while conservative Churches are growing.
 
** I also am inclined to think that lack of artificial birth control leads to more abortions. I certainly would prefer the first to the second, wouldn’t you?** When no conception occurs, with or without artificial birth control, no baby is killed, no baby is lost.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. What evidence do you have for that? As somebody living in Britain I beleive that is false. Sex education and free condoms have been dished out for decades and now we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. In 1999 they banked £15 million into sex education, free condoms. They admitted 2004 that it had only encouraged people to have sex.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456789/Teen-pregnancies-increase-after-sex-education-classes.html

Look at the graph from 1999 to 2008 and look how the STD rate has increased.

avert.org/std-statistics-uk.htm
 
The medical world has implemented hundreds of ways of extending life which some might consider ‘against natural law’ or against God’s plan. We use surgery and pills, for example, to battle cancer or heart disease or other afflictions? Why is it that these medical acts also are not against divine law? Is there nothing to the old notion that God has determined when we are born and when we are to die? Should we not let nature take its course rather than try to buck nature through modern medicine? Some of this smacks a bit of Mormonism, which (as I recall) suggests that souls are just waiting in heaven to be born, so parents need to have large families, etc.
Click to expand...
Odd you say since artificial contraception is completely unnatural.
It’s time for Catholicism to adopt a new policy in line with reason, compassion, good health, responsibility, and family happiness. I know one devoted Catholic couple well who confidentially have shared with me that sexual relations for them is rare and even scary because they have three teenage children and do not feel psychologically or financially (and even for other reasons, too) that they should risk having another child. This reluctance to have normal and joyful sexual relations has injured their intimate relationship, but they also are convinced that they must suffer through this because the Church has spoken. Is that what the Church should demand?
Click to expand...
Catholicism can not change. This is not something that can change. That Catholic couple if they use NFP would not need to worry. It only takes one time for sex to result in a pregnancy so if they have sex rarely, they can not be that scared.

Perspectives in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Condoms for Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 37:9 (March 11, 1988), 133–137

Found that one condom in 250 can fail a leakage test. When the United States donated eight hundred million condoms to developing nations in 1990, the condom companies could have included 3.2 million defective condoms in the batch! This also relates back to the married couple were one has HIV/AIDS.
 
Abyssinia said:
[It is interesting that the Pope entirely sidesteps this particularly vexing debate by the example he uses to consider condom use. He reflects on the decision of a (presumably homosexual) male prostitute to use a condom. In such a case, there can be no question of the contraceptive effect of the condom. Consequently his example does not relate to the debate over the use of condoms by discordant couples.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0107.htm
Click to expand...
Let us not be presumptious. Women hire male prostitutes and use of a condom is contraceptive in that case. The Pope is talking about the use of contraception.
 
I am deeply troubled by the statements Benedict has made. I understand the theoretical argument that the individual prostitute (male, female, other) is exhibitnig a kernel of morality in considering the health of the other, but even this consideration, in my estimation, is perverted.

I think the more appropriate analogy is this:

***Gangster A puts a mob hit on Gangster B, but in commission of the crime, he shoots him in the back of the head instead of the front, so his mother can have an open casket funeral. ***

Can we now say that Gangster A has a moral bone in his body?

***Or, Pregnant Woman X decided to abort her spina bifida child because she did not want it to suffer after birth. ***

Can we now say that this abortion has a moral component?

I understand this is the Pope’s personal opinion on the matter, and subject to error. But the media will present it as an infallible truth being passed down. This is an incredibly slippery slope, and the Vatican needs to stop it quickly.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
So, it appears now that the Pope has said that he did not intend to make a distinction between male or female prostitutes when he made his comments on the use of condoms? What do you think?

reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2UU20101123
Click to expand...
Firstly, the article is wrong in saying that Pope Benedict said that it may be morally justifiable to use condoms to stop the transmission of AIDS. He said nothing of the sort. He actually said:
[using condoms] is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection…[The Church] does not regard [the use of condoms] as a real or moral solution…
Click to expand...
  • Interestingly, though, the article quotes this very section, even though it directly contradicts what was written in the first sentence of the article.
In fact, nothing in his answer to the quesions posed by Mr Seewald indicates that he believes it to be a morally justifiable solution.

Secondly, it seems to me that the media didn’t really need Fr Lombardi to clarify the Pope’s comments, i.e. with regard to his example of a male prostitute. Surely the media aren’t so stupid as not to be able to recognise the meaning of the word “Perhaps” - the Pope said:
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostituteuses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization…
Click to expand...
The Pope was clearly giving an example - which, by inference, means that what he said can apply to many people other than male prostitutes.

The media didn’t need Fr Lombardi to clarify anything - they only needed him to help them further turn this story into something it is not.

The full text of this section of the book is HERE with some commentary by George Weigel who wrote the foreword to the book.
 
NPC said:
Firstly, the article is wrong in saying that Pope Benedict said that it may be morally justifiable to use condoms to stop the transmission of AIDS. He said nothing of the sort. He actually said:
  • Interestingly, though, the article quotes this very section, even though it directly contradicts what was written in the first sentence of the article.
In fact, nothing in his answer to the quesions posed by Mr Seewald indicates that he believes it to be a morally justifiable solution.

Secondly, it seems to me that the media didn’t really need Fr Lombardi to clarify the Pope’s comments, i.e. with regard to his example of a male prostitute. Surely the media aren’t so stupid as not to be able to recognise the meaning of the word “Perhaps” - the Pope said:

The Pope was clearly giving an example - which, by inference, means that what he said can apply to many people other than male prostitutes.

The media didn’t need Fr Lombardi to clarify anything - they only needed him to help them further turn this story into something it is not.

The full text of this section of the book is HERE with some commentary by George Weigel who wrote the foreword to the book.
Click to expand...
Good article!
 
I have no idea what is going on. Is the Pope referring to male and female prostitutes? HIV discordant couples?

Fr Lombardi’s clarification did not clarify anything. This is completely ambiguous. What is the Vatican doing? We need clarification, real answers to clear questions.

Does the Pope approve of condoms? If so, for who?

Will the Pope change official Catholic teaching?
 
Abyssinia said:
I have no idea what is going on. Is the Pope referring to male and female prostitutes? HIV discordant couples?

Fr Lombardi’s clarification did not clarify anything. This is completely ambiguous. What is the Vatican doing? We need clarification, real answers to clear questions.

Does the Pope approve of condoms? If so, for who?

Will the Pope change official Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
The Pope never advocated for the use of condoms. What he said was
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Click to expand...
and
[The Catholic Church] of course does not regard it 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.
Click to expand...
This issue, condom advocacy for MALE prostitutes, although not a solution or a moral good, can be a sign of a changing morality for these people that will allow them to accept a moral, virtuous, human attitude towards sex and the sexual faculties. It can also signify an acceptance on the part of those people of their actions and the responsibility they now bear due to those actions to protect others from their past and current moral failures.
 
Abyssinia said:
Does the Pope approve of condoms? If so, for who?

Will the Pope change official Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
From the Pope’s reply, as recorded in the new book, the answer would seem to be “NO” to both questions.

He was not commenting on the morality of (using the example he gave) a male prostitute using condoms. He said that the decision of such a person to use a condom could be a step towards a moralisation - i.e. he was commenting on the possible rationale of such a person’s decision, not saying that the action itself was morally acceptable. A step towards moralisation is not the same as saying that that step is morally justifiable.

On the basis of the Pope’s reply, he will not change the Church’s teaching. From my reading of the answer, he is actually reinforcing the Church’s teaching - that condoms are not a morally acceptable solution to the AIDS problem. He says this in the book, reiterating what he said on his trip to Africa last year, and laying out the position of the Church.
 
edwest2 said:
This is 100% the fault of the pagan media’s Spin Machine ™. Pope Benedict used to be a University professor, so I’m certain he expected some wrong interpretation.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Well here’s an opinion from Ed Peters, a canon lawyer of In the Light of the Law:
Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted. Now, instead of being able to present the pope’s interview as a positive and even vigorous affirmation of unified truth, Catholic theologians and spokesmen must respond defensively against secular attacks and distortions, resorting (for the most part) to a level of sophistication that befits a graduate seminar in moral theology, not a reader-friendly presentation of ideas. I mean, great scot, the book is not even published yet, and already the Vatican Press is Office is having to issue hasty corrections and unconvincing clarifications!
Click to expand...
And it’s all because of L’OR.
Click to expand...
Again.
Click to expand...
Yes, again. L’OR’s panting after pop relevance (with pieces on, e.g., The Beatles and The Simpsons) is embarrassing enough. I’ve learned to ignore that. Its mistreatment of Brazilian Abp. Cardoso Sobrihno should have been seen as the warning sign that it was. I said so at the time.
Click to expand...
I also found this quote from the Holy Father’s book on First Things:
On Papal Pronouns
Click to expand...
I use both the “I” and the “we”. For on many, many matters I am not simply expressing ideas that have happened to occur to Joseph Ratzinger, but I am speaking out of the common life of the Church’s communion. In these cases, I am speaking, as it were, in intrinsic fellowship with my fellow believers—and I am expressing what we are in common and what we can believe in common. In this sense, the “we” has its legitimate role, not as a plural of majesty, but as a real expression of the fact of coming from others, of speaking through and with others. But where one says something personal in the role of “I”, then the first person singular has its role to play as well. So both are used: the “I” and the “we”.
Click to expand...
As for the “pagan media spin machine”, they’re ignorant. I’m sure none of them are even aware that the Pope can even have private opinions or speculate on moral matters without it being a sea change in Church teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top