I think you are using an example (a man who is known to have AIDS). To justify some weird scenario where a celebate man has received AIDS but doesn’t know it. To answer your question, a one in a million chance that one aquired AIDS through some exotic means is not a reason to use a condom. That is nothing but a flimsy excuse for contraception.
This it why the statement represents no change in Church teaching on the use of condoms. I remember a CDF theologian saying three or four years ago that condoms are not evil - only human actions are evil. He went on to say that whether using a condom is evil or not depends on how and why it is being used, and gave a similar example to yours - using the pill to regulate heavy menstrual cycles. But when a Church official says the word “condom” it apparently creates such a loud sound that many people can’t hear whatever he says next.
Yes, the rarity of the situation is an issue. The blood supply has been screened for AIDS since 1985. When AIDS first became known, people did get AIDS from transfusion. It is no longer a danger. Besides the timeline for AIDS testing is three months, not one year. Again, if one is so paranoid about it, then test for it.
It can actually take a lot longer for the antibodies for HIV to show up in a blood test. While it is rare, people can and do get it from transfusions, especially in emergency situations. A person can test negative and then test positive a year later, so a couple might marry thinking that both parties are clean when they are not. The Church allows the Pill for several reasons, none of them as serious as contracting a deadly disease. Again, it makes zero sense.
Thank you, I read the bit in the paper and the way it was presented my first reaction was “What is he doing?” I was truly confused. However I knew if I came in here I would get a clearer picture of what The Pope actually meant. You did that so again thank you. I leave no longer confused.
Maybe it’s a challenge.Me, too. And feel sad like someone is compromising something that is the most important thing in my life.
. Male prostitutes? Why doesn’t he start with that? Uh…to begin with the Church (the last time I looked) does not condone male prostitution nor any form of prostitution. Shouldn’t the sexual deviance be addressed?Please provide a source showing that the Church allows for the use of the birthcontrol pill.
Thoughtfulone is confused on just what the Church teaches. It’s a common mistake to believe that the thing itself (condom, pill, etc) is what is condemned as morally wrong. This is lazy reasoning. A pill, ANY pill is not evil. The USE a pill is put to can be evil.
You have written a very informative post.
What the Pope said seems to be teetering on a very slippery slope indeed. I can understand the reasoning but he seems to be trying to dig society out of the moral cesspool it finds itself in. Maybe he just decided to start here but
Count me among the confused.
**Man…take sex out of it for a second? How to do that? The whole text is based on the sex act.
Exactly: The point you made was the main reason I was confused, upset, ect: was the fact that he mentioned male prostitues without saying it is morally wrong. The secular media and unfortunately lapsed Catholics and Catholics who do not agree with some teachings of the Chuirch will read it mean it is OK.
I understand what he is saying, but to say that people’s reading skills are in question means nothing.
The Pill, Plan B, or an IUD is not evil/morally wrong? I don’t think I have “lazy reasoning”. I’m just confused. You used an example of a single woman, but I am married so I have a question about married women. Are my wife and I prohibited (morally, ethically, or otherwise according to The Church) from having intercourse if she is on the pill for heavy “cycles” or acne? She is not taking it under false pretenses, but in taking it…any act of marital love-making is NOT toward the end result of having a child.
He really shouldn’t vocalize any opinion that is not in line with the Church. To us, it really doesn’t matter if The Vatican’s PR crew label it as Ex Cathedra or not. Shouldn’t the Pope simply state what the Church teaches, in black and white? Quote the CCC, instead of saying the use of condoms “…can be a first step in the direction of a moralization”. It’s like saying a priest giving a woman a ride to an abortion clinic can be a first step in the direction of moralization.
So true, how quickly we become the targets of scorn for adhering to teaching. Why should I trust the secular version of morality when it is such a moving target, while the Church remains firm.
You’re already onto why this isn’t that radical.
This isn’t a change in how married couples should view their sexuality, or how unmarried people should live in chastity. This is a realization that there is a difference between AIDS in Africa and AIDS in sex tourism destinations like parts of Southeast Asia (where there are many male prostitutes).
There’s a key difference between heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse, that of the ability to conceive. For a man and a woman to use a condom, especially a married couple, it removes the intrinsic procreative quality of sex and reduces it to a pleasurable act. For a man and a man, there’s no intrinsic procreative quality of sex to begin with and so the act is only for pleasure. Therefore the use of a condom introduces an element of concern for the health of the other.
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.
When you put it like that, I’m not certain, because there’s a therapeutic use that’s not intrinsically evil - treating acne with the pill is better than with something teratogenic, and I think it’s required if your wife is taking something teratogenic to avoid birth defects in the first place. I think it can be argued that for short-term treatment, a couple can abstain, but if it’s necessary longer-term, that’s a different question. I’ll have to research this (and an answer I gave earlier in the list to Thoughfulone, hadn’t fully thought that out then).
Completely understandable. Would it help if I pointed out that I’d give more weight to a statement that I had time to think about, debate thoroughly with my colleagues, pray on, write and review, than one that I had to give on the spur of the moment in an interview? This is essentially the difference between an ex cathedra statement - which ought to reflect the opinion of the Magisterium, not just the person of the Pope - and the present statement which came out of an interview in which Ratzinger tried to answer the question at hand.
Yes, where he can, and I don’t think it was a black and white kind of question.
The same people who now take this to mean “condoms are always okay” are the ones who never listened to the CCC in the first place. By the same token, when one of the Cardinals came up with a ‘new’ list of the seven deadly sins and included pollution among them, some took it as “okay, lust is fine!” when it was really an attempt to say “let’s combat evil where evil exists in our current world.”
Bit much. Think about it, Benedict said nothing about condom use among married persons. He emphasized the intention of reducing the risk of infection, not the intention of using the condom to enable some safe sex. I don’t see a slippery slope here, though I’m sure there are some liberals - Catholic, secular or otherwise - who do and would welcome it.
FYI - If a women is taken a medication for a disease that also contracepts
Note that this is allowed for. It does not mean all uses are acceptable. One would still have to weigh the intended good versus the evil done and the make sure one’s motive has nothing to do with contraception. I would be hard pressed to understand how one could justify possible abortion versus acne.
It’s not a very good one - I don’t know how orthodox the source is, but I don’t think there’s an actual definitive answer, ie no official statement on it.