Vatican: No condom change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NPC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope what you say is true. I love the Church teaching on abstinence and fidelity and I do not want it to change.
 
Abyssinia said:
I hope what you say is true. I love the Church teaching on abstinence and fidelity and I do not want it to change.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Burke’s response:
No, it’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that a person who is given to prostitution, at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
From here

Dont take anything the AP says without a block of salt. As Pope JPII and Benedict XVI have said, “Be Not Afraid”.

Let nothing trouble you, let nothing make you afraid. All things pass away. God never changes. Patience obtains everything. God alone is suffices.
-St. Theresa of Avila
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
Instead of believing what Reuters says, since they spend WAY too much time attacking the Church, try to find the source quote for their article. I would bet that you cant 😉
Click to expand...
What do you mean by ‘‘source quote?’’ If you search for the quotes you can find them in lots of news articles, they can not be made up?
 
Abyssinia said:
What do you mean by ‘‘source quote?’’ If you search for the quotes you can find them in lots of news articles, they can not be made up?
Click to expand...
Sure they can. Who quoted him first? Where did he say it? He would have issued a press release or at least an official interview… Where is it (either of the two)?

My point is, quotes can be misattributed or taken completely out of context with relative ease.
 
Yes, I read the reuters article today and was really confused. I just spent yesterday emailing a Protestant talk show host adamantly defending that this only applied to male prostitutes or perhaps homosexuals because there is no issue with the transmission of life (or preventing it as the case may be.) I thought I made an open and shut case to him, then I wake up today and see quotes from Father Lombardi saying that the pope says it doesn’t matter if it’s women or men prostitutes as long as they are concerned about the risk to the other. If it can be the case for prostitutes, how can it not be defended for married couples with HIV. I dont’ know how to defend church teaching anymore if this is true.

I am really confused and hope there is a clarification soon!!!

IF a reuters article quotes Lombardi directly, can we assume that it is NOT what he really said?:confused:
 
Socio_Momma said:
Here’s the CNS blog with the same statements from Lombardi, it appears the statements were made during the presentation of the book at the Vatican press office

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/vatican-clarifies-popes-reference-to-male-prostitute-in-condoms-comment/
Click to expand...
Oh, its not fun to have to eat crow…
“I asked the pope personally if there was a serious or important problem in the choice of the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and he said no, that is, the main point — and this is why I didn’t refer to masculine or feminine in (my earlier) communiqué — is the first step of responsibility in taking into account the risk to the life of another person with whom one has relations,” Father Lombardi said.
Click to expand...
“Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point. The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person,”
Click to expand...
Dang it, he did say it.

Still doesnt change the fact that the Pope did not say it was ok to use condoms, only that it would signify a change of attitude, perhaps an understanding of the misuse of the bodily faculties.
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
Sure they can. Who quoted him first? Where did he say it? He would have issued a press release or at least an official interview… Where is it (either of the two)?

My point is, quotes can be misattributed or taken completely out of context with relative ease.
Click to expand...
From your response below you know Fr Lombardi did say it.
 
I disagree. The modern media is a global propaganda machine. They are virulently anti-religion. They love the things the Church is against and purposely lavish praise on the perverted and dysfunctional.

The devil is a real entity and he has got a hold on the media today. I work in the media and have watched it closely. They are getting worse and worse. That does not disturb me much because I know faithful Catholics who see it as the mouthpiece it is.

Peace,
Ed
 
MotherNoRest said:
Yes, I read the reuters article today and was really confused. I just spent yesterday emailing a Protestant talk show host adamantly defending that this only applied to male prostitutes or perhaps homosexuals because there is no issue with the transmission of life (or preventing it as the case may be.) I thought I made an open and shut case to him, then I wake up today and see quotes from Father Lombardi saying that the pope says it doesn’t matter if it’s women or men prostitutes as long as they are concerned about the risk to the other. If it can be the case for prostitutes, how can it not be defended for married couples with HIV. I dont’ know how to defend church teaching anymore if this is true.

I am really confused and hope there is a clarification soon!!!

IF a reuters article quotes Lombardi directly, can we assume that it is NOT what he really said?:confused:
Click to expand...
I am in the same position you are. I do not understand. Is he referring to prostitutes, homosexuals, HIV discordant married couples, everyone? We need a clarification straight from the Vatican. You can not just change Catholic teaching surely? Abstinence and fidelity promotion is working Africa, look at Uganda. Why would you change what is working?
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
Oh, its not fun to have to eat crow…

Dang it, he did say it.

Still doesnt change the fact that the Pope did not say it was ok to use condoms, only that it would signify a change of attitude, perhaps an understanding of the misuse of the bodily faculties.
Click to expand...
Isn’t saying that it would signify a change of attitude, condoning condom use? If so, it is still not clear for who. I wish Pope Benedict could just clarify directly.
 
Abyssinia said:
Isn’t saying that it would signify a change of attitude, condoning condom use? If so, it is still not clear for who. I wish Pope Benedict could just clarify directly.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It is saying that these people might be coming to a fuller understanding of the total effect of their actions and be taking whatever steps to limit it they feel capable of. Kind of like if a pathological liar stops telling BIG lies and moves on to WHITE lies. It is still a sin, but shows that they are coming to realize the inherent sinfulness of their actions.
 
Abyssinia said:
What do you mean by ‘‘source quote?’’ If you search for the quotes you can find them in lots of news articles, they can not be made up?
Click to expand...
No. They are quoting the wrong person or distorting the message. Most news sources get their news from the same place.

Peace,
Ed
 
Where does “news” come from?

Today, in order to save money, a lot of newspapers use what are called wire services. They do send reporters to cover local stories, and if it’s big news, a few get to go to disaster sites or hurricane sites, for example. But a lot of news in your newspaper is distributed electronically by the wire services.

The following are wire services. Their job is to collect news from other sources, from press releases and so on, and newspapers pay a fee to get news from them.

Reuters

Associated Press

The newspapers get to pick and choose what stories go in and what stories do not.

Peace,
Ed
 
I am still confused. If someone may use a condom to signify their understanding of not harming others, what then of the couple, one of whom has HIV acquired through non-immoral means, who would like to use a condom to prevent spread to the other spouse. Is it allowed? This needs huge clarification. I get the “a small step toward gaining a sense of morality…” but it sure seems like a big can or worms just got opened. :confused:
 
MotherNoRest said:
I am still confused. If someone may use a condom to signify their understanding of not harming others,
Click to expand...
No, they may not use a condom. They may not engage in illicit sexual acts, with or without the condom. It is morally impermissible.

The moral concern that might be expressed by thinking to use a condom when one is already determined to engage in immoral sexual conduct, however, may represent the beginnings of moral awareness - actually being concerned for who gets hurt by your sexual behavior. When one becomes fully aware and decides to truly act in a moral fashion one does not use condoms, but rather one stops having illicit sexual relations.
what then of the couple, one of whom has HIV acquired through non-immoral means, who would like to use a condom to prevent spread to the other spouse. Is it allowed?
Click to expand...
If sexual intercourse would risk harm to your spouse then the only way to truly protect him or her is to abstain. It is not loving to take 5 bullets out of a 6-shooter and spin the chambers before pointing it at your spouse’s head and pulling the trigger. This is particularly relevant to condom use because the contraceptive closes the sexual act to the gift of life, removing the moral good from married sexual intercourse.

The hard truth is that sometimes the only morally permissible choice is to keep your pants on.
This needs huge clarification. I get the “a small step toward gaining a sense of morality…” but it sure seems like a big can or worms just got opened. :confused:
Click to expand...
The only can of worms opened is getting the attention of the virulently anti-Catholic and institutionally ignorant media.
  • Marty Lund
 
The position is now: if a woman is at all worried a partner has HIV she can insist on a condom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top