Vatican: No condom change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EmergencyOps, Others have beat me to answering your follow up to my question, probably better than I could have.

But to one of your points, there just ISN’T any way to make a nice, easy tidy list of everything you can’t do in life. That isn’t the point of morality. Morality is about understanding the nature of God and seeking to (re)conform ourselves to it. (Can’t be done without Grace, btw - good thing we have access to so much!).

Sex is a tricky one to reason through because so much of what we want is utterly unrelated to reason! That leads to a cultural situation where many purposely confuse and conflate issues to try to rationalize what they want. No wonder even well meaning people have a hard time! Instead of consulting a list, seek to comprehend. Sex is a gift to spouses that God intended to be a physical manifestation of the life giving love that exists between the two. When the couple purposely neuters that act, they CHANGE it into something less than God intended. That’s it. See how it has utterly no application to male prostitutes?
 
Journalists are always looking for concessions by the Church to the modern,secular way of thinking or for knee-jerk reactions. Either way,the Church is made to look ridiculously behind the times and out of touch.
 
I agree with those who found the Pope’s comments confusing. What is confounding is that he appears to find permissible the use of condoms by prostitutes in order to avoid getting or spreading AIDS, but does not find permissible the use of condoms by African wives of husbands who frequent HIV-infected prostitutes.

The key factor cited by the Pope in finding condom use by the prostitute was his/her awakening moral conscience and assumption of responsibility – and not the prevention of transmission of a deadly disease! Sub-saharan Africa is filled with women dying of AIDS and leaving behind growing numbers of orphaned children. Surely, the Church must have a better answer for such women. The Church’s teaching on this subject is completely out of touch with reality.
 
I may not fully understand Church teachings, but as an outsider, we have a difficult time differentiating between the Pope’s opinions and official teachings. It’s a slippery slope. From the Jimmy Akin response article:
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. 🤷

-Mark
You don’t have to be an outsider to differentiate it. I think I am more upset at Jimmy Akin over his blogs than what the Pope is trying to say.

Like you said, Akin first says its his private opinion. That is gobbledygook. While the interview was done privately, it ceased to be private when the Pope PUBLISHED the interview in HIS book. It wasn’t like the media reported this themselves. A Pope can cause scandal by expressing his opinions in a public manner and I think publishing a book constitutes public manner. Just as a side note, I think its these excuses for the hierarchy that has helped contribute to a mistrust of people to the Vatican and the hierarchy.
 
I agree with those who found the Pope’s comments confusing. What is confounding is that he appears to find permissible the use of condoms by prostitutes in order to avoid getting or spreading AIDS, but does not find permissible the use of condoms by African wives of husbands who frequent HIV-infected prostitutes.

The key factor cited by the Pope in finding condom use by the prostitute was his/her awakening moral conscience and assumption of responsibility – and not the prevention of transmission of a deadly disease! Sub-saharan Africa is filled with women dying of AIDS and leaving behind growing numbers of orphaned children. Surely, the Church must have a better answer for such women. The Church’s teaching on this subject is completely out of touch with reality.
The Pope did not say that the same reasoning would not apply to an infected heterosexual man and his wife.

The AP has published a follow-up quote from an “unnamed Vatican official” that says the Pope intends this comment to begin a conversation on the appropriate role of condoms in disease prevention. That is a conversation moral theologians have been asking to have for years. I think it is brave and commendable of the Pope to start it.
 
Like you said, Akin first says its his private opinion. That is gobbledygook. While the interview was done privately, it ceased to be private when the Pope PUBLISHED the interview in HIS book. It wasn’t like the media reported this themselves. A Pope can cause scandal by expressing his opinions in a public manner and I think publishing a book constitutes public manner.
When the Church speaks of something that is private, it does not mean whispered in a corner; rather It means that it is something that does not have to be held by all. It is not gobbledy gook. It is a different use of the term than you use in your post. Whether it is published is irrelevant.
Just as a side note, I think its these excuses for the hierarchy that has helped contribute to a mistrust of people to the Vatican and the hierarchy.
This particular “excuse” of the hierarchy is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, chosen by the Holy Spirit as the Shepherd of the Bride of Christ. If you disagree with God’s choice, you are welcome to your opinion, and to set it against God’s opinion.
 
Here is part of an explanation of the Holy Father’s words given by Dr. Janet Smith, a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family:
"In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets.

Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing."
 
Alan and TMC, PLEASE read what the pope ACTUALLY said (and not from a distorted translation either). You are making an embarassing leap not justifiable by what he said.

Contrary to some irresponsible journalistic reports, he did NOT say that condom use by male prostitutes is morally acceptable. He acknowledged that such a man by recognizing the HARM in his behavior and seeking ways to limit that harm is taking the FIRST steps towards moral responsibility.

Again, PLEASE read the source material, not distorted secondary spin. He did not say what you think he said.
 
Alan and TMC, PLEASE read what the pope ACTUALLY said (and not from a distorted translation either). You are making an embarassing leap not justifiable by what he said.

Contrary to some irresponsible journalistic reports, he did NOT say that condom use by male prostitutes is morally acceptable. He acknowledged that such a man by recognizing the HARM in his behavior and seeking ways to limit that harm is taking the FIRST steps towards moral responsibility.

Again, PLEASE read the source material, not distorted secondary spin. He did not say what you think he said.
I have read what he said. I don’t think I have posted anything that is inconsistent with his statements. I certainly haven’t posted anything that would suggest that I think the Pope said that male prostitution was morally acceptable, so I am not sure why you are directing this comment at me. If you are referring to my comment that a Vatican official says the Pope wants to initiate a conversation on condom use… well, that is what the AP is reporting. If its not true take it up with the cited Vatican officials.

Pope seeks to start debate on condoms and AIDS
 
I have read what he said. I don’t think I have posted anything that is inconsistent with his statements. I certainly haven’t posted anything that would suggest that I think the Pope said that male prostitution was morally acceptable, so I am not sure why you are directing this comment at me. If you are referring to my comment that a Vatican official says the Pope wants to initiate a conversation on condom use… well, that is what the AP is reporting. If its not true take it up with the cited Vatican officials.

Pope seeks to start debate on condoms and AIDS
You are still using secondary quotes and sources. Read the originals. The pope didn’t justify the condom use for anybody he was clearly trying to say that the condo use was an initial recognition that the behavior was a problem and an attempt to address that problem, so it constituted a FIRST step towards morality (not the finished journey). Are you really surprised that certain “Vatican sources” would attempt to spin it the same way you seem to be trying to spin it?

Read ORIGINAL sources in context and it will become clear to you.
 
You are still using secondary quotes and sources. Read the originals. The pope didn’t justify the condom use for anybody he was clearly trying to say that the condo use was an initial recognition that the behavior was a problem and an attempt to address that problem, so it constituted a FIRST step towards morality (not the finished journey). Are you really surprised that certain “Vatican sources” would attempt to spin it the same way you seem to be trying to spin it?

Read ORIGINAL sources in context and it will become clear to you.
I don’t know if I am having trouble expressing myself, or if you are having trouble believing me. I have read the ORIGINAL sources. The Pope’s statement is not unclear to me. I have made no attempt to spin his statement in any way. If I have misreprestented what he said, please point out to me how I have done so. I am truly at a loss as to what I have said that has you up in arms.
 
I don’t know if I am having trouble expressing myself, or if you are having trouble believing me. I have read the ORIGINAL sources. The Pope’s statement is not unclear to me. I have made no attempt to spin his statement in any way. If I have misreprestented what he said, please point out to me how I have done so. I am truly at a loss as to what I have said that has you up in arms.
You quoted an AP article, not the unadulterated original. Is that all you read? It ain’t the real deal.
 
You quoted an AP article, not the unadulterated original. Is that all you read? It ain’t the real deal.
I did not quote an AP article as to what the Pope said. I quoted an AP article that discussed what a Vatican official said to the AP. Why would you assume I only read the AP because I quoted from one article?

Again, I have not misquoted, spun or misconstrued the Pope’s comments. Why are you insisting that I am somehow misrepresenting?
 
I have read what he said. I don’t think I have posted anything that is inconsistent with his statements. I certainly haven’t posted anything that would suggest that I think the Pope said that male prostitution was morally acceptable, so I am not sure why you are directing this comment at me. If you are referring to my comment that a Vatican official says the Pope wants to initiate a conversation on condom use… well, that is what the AP is reporting. If its not true take it up with the cited Vatican officials.

Pope seeks to start debate on condoms and AIDS
Yeah, what he said…
 
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.
FYI - If a women is taken a medication for a disease that also contracepts
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618
I promised you an answer:
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.
thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#3
EmergencyOps, Others have beat me to answering your follow up to my question, probably better than I could have.

But to one of your points, there just ISN’T any way to make a nice, easy tidy list of everything you can’t do in life. That isn’t the point of morality. Morality is about understanding the nature of God and seeking to (re)conform ourselves to it. (Can’t be done without Grace, btw - good thing we have access to so much!).

Sex is a tricky one to reason through because so much of what we want is utterly unrelated to reason! That leads to a cultural situation where many purposely confuse and conflate issues to try to rationalize what they want. No wonder even well meaning people have a hard time! Instead of consulting a list, seek to comprehend. Sex is a gift to spouses that God intended to be a physical manifestation of the life giving love that exists between the two. When the couple purposely neuters that act, they CHANGE it into something less than God intended. That’s it. See how it has utterly no application to male prostitutes?
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful, excellent answers and links. Thankfully, my wife and I are not in that scenario. We’re actually expecting our first child next June! But back to the topic, it is a tricky path, but unfortunately Benedict is being thrown to the lions for so many peoples’ sins.

-Mark
 
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
 
A couple thoughts

** I’m still trying to understand precisely what the Pope said and meant**. It sounds as though he was suggesting that it’s okay for male prostitutes who have HIV/AIDS to use a condom, that somehow it indicated some sense of responsibility on their part. A rather strange statement. No, I know he doesn’t in any way give approval to male prostitutes - of course, not. But to say that they can - and suggest that they should - use condoms to protect the partner from contacting HIV/AIDs is quite a step.
Code:
** Now, perhaps this has been raised already. **If a husband has contracted HIV/AIDS, as often happens in parts of Africa, why then would he not be justified in using condoms to protect his wife - or even another sexual partner, in fact? Because it is also likely to avoid conception, is this automatically wrong? Somehow, I think that the Pope should be at least as concerned and compassionate when it comes to protecting a wife than in protecting homosexuals, since the church so strongly endorses marriage while condemning acts of homosexuality.
** 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.

** 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.

** 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.

** 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.

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.

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?
 
Sadly, what many nonCatholics and Catholics believe is one extreme or the other:
  1. Catholics are taught sex is dirty and should not even be enjoyed.
  2. The Church is being unfair in limiting the sexual pleasure of Catholic married couples and should loosen or eliminate its ban on at least some forms of artificial contraception.
Here is a well-known Catholic educator to explain it all:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

God bless,
Ed
 
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.
Not really radical in nature. Pope was just commenting on the intention, the psychology behind it. He was not advocating condom use. The use of contraception for a homosexual has no meaning, it has no contraceptive abilities. Pope Benedict is not advocating homosexual acts or male prostitution. No other cases apply as far as I can see. The Church is against condom use for married couples.

Clear answer from Dr Janet Smith.

Part one: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39277

Part two: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39277&page=2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top