well well well...

[april32010]

in Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:

To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man.

there is new no doctrine,there can’t be.

 

[Actaeon]

The Holy Father has acknowledged what the medical community has been saying all along; that condoms can be effective to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But he stopped short of saying it is OK to use them for this or any other reason. It’s more of a theoretical statement than anything else.

And it is old news. He mentioned this over two years ago.

And, to be clear, he was saying they were okay for people who are, say, gay prostitutes: where the issue of contracepting was not even present at all. Of course two gay men cannot make a baby, so in that case the SOLE function of condoms is to prevent disease.

Such could never be said about a straight pairing, so the point in the OP is moot.

Contraception (not disease prevention) is wrong. It’s not specific to condoms, it’s all about the intent of the action (to contracept)

 

[april32010]

And, to be clear, he was saying they were okay for people who are, say, gay prostitutes:

no,he did not say that .read post 19

 

[april32010]

Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year – which is exactly what fidelity programs promote. The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior. The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people.

quote from this article :catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0126.htm

the author Edward C. Green is the director of harvardaidsprp.org/ , where Allison Herling Ruark is a research fellow.

 

[april32010]

so then doesnt it follow that contraceptive sex should be permissible if used for this purpose?

by what logic?

 

[1ke]

And, to be clear, he was saying they were okay for people who are, say, gay prostitutes: where the issue of contracepting was not even present at all. Of course two gay men cannot make a baby, so in that case the SOLE function of condoms is to prevent disease.

Such could never be said about a straight pairing, so the point in the OP is moot.

Contraception (not disease prevention) is wrong. It’s not specific to condoms, it’s all about the intent of the action (to contracept)

You are quite confused. The Pope said no such thing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh puh-lease. We discussed this ad infinitum back in 2009 when the interview first came out.

I don’t know HOW people missed at the end when the Pope said that use of the condom would not be a real or moral solution. I mean, it’s there in black and white.

What he SAID was that for a person for whom the issue of procreation would not be possible (that is, a male prostituting himself with another male), to even consider (WRONGLY) that use of a condom might ‘protect’ the other person from disease, would show that the person while still acting wrongly, immorally, and sinfully, in this sexual situation even IF he thought the use of the condom would take away a possible bad PHYSICAL consequence --thinking nothing of the SPIRITUAL state of the partner–EVEN SO, the fact that he thought of the other person’s potential physical need AT ALL was a TINY STEP in learning how to think of OTHERS and not just of himself.

**The sex is wrong. The use of the condom is wrong. The idea that using the condom is ‘good’ is wrong. But the idea of trying to think of the other person–even if you’re completely wrong about what is ‘good’ for that person–the ATTEMPT to CONSIDER another is a STEP toward good. **

 

[Tantum_ergo]

BTW, can I put in a ‘shout out’ to the Mods --somehow, somewhere, some news service has gotten hold of an OLD OLD STORY and people are reading it and presenting it (unwittingly) as a NEW story from August 2012.

It isn’t.

We discussed this forever back when the story REALLY came out. Must we do it again when it isn’t really ‘news’???

 

[edwest2]

it seems that condoms are licit sometimes after all. i apologize for teh tone lol, but all this time i have argued taht condoms can indeed be morally allowable ud er certain circumstances and at certain tiems, and i was right! i remember how i brought up rational arguments and you all just dismissed them sarcastically and basically ignored them. i hope you all learned a lesson in humility! you all know who you are.

now the main point of this thread. i predict that eventually the pope will extend this allowance to married couples who have already had kids. this has been my argument so far every time i argued for contarception, and it seems the church is moving in that direction. so my hat is off to the church, they have truly made a very intelligent well reasoned decision this time. bravo pope Benedict!
does anyone out there share my opinion?

See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701939

Peace,
Ed

 

[JK8619]

these are some of the most offensive statements about the Holy Father i’ve read,as if he is some political hack affected by opinion polls. no,his position is condom use doesn’t stop the spread of disease. again,read the whole interview.

Way to pick a couple of sentences and take them out of context. You took two sentences from two different posts. Did you actually read the full posts? I didn’t say that was my position. I said that’s how almost every media source I read/watched portrayed it.

 

[april32010]

Way to pick a couple of sentences and take them out of context. You took two sentences from two different posts. Did you actually read the full posts? I didn’t say that was my position. I said that’s how almost every media source I read/watched portrayed it.

I’ve read this story from several sources. It seemed to me that he said that it would be better for male prostitute to use condoms if they were going to do what they do. After people started getting upset about his statement, saying he was supporting the use of condoms, he seemed to back pedal a bit. I agree with what you said. My main point was that first he seemed to say it was better for male prostitutes to use condoms, but later it seemed like he was being a bit ambiguous about his actual position. Maybe it was bad translations, but thats what I got from most sources.

Like another poster said, what you are referring to is old news. The Pope’s initial statement was not very clear, but it did look like he wanted to ease up restrictions on condoms. After conservative Catholics started freaking out, he backed off. I really doubt that the Pope will change any of the Church’s teachings on condoms or any other contraceptives any time soon.

 

[TEPO]

I agree that it is morally wrong for gay male prostitutes to use condominiums together, but I think it it’s okay for married couples to use them.

 

[JRKH]

I agree that it is morally wrong for gay male prostitutes to use condominiums together, but I think it it’s okay for married couples to use them.

RE: Bolded section…

This s NOT however the teaching of the Church…Just want that to be clear to anyone peeking in.

TEPO,
I respect your right to hold such a view privately - even to the point of sharing that view in private conversation.
However we, as Catholics need to uphold the teachings of the Church in our public discourse lest we unintentionally lead someone into error.

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

Here --note from the Holy See clearing up any misunderstandings:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

 

[RSD]

RE: Bolded section…

This s NOT however the teaching of the Church…Just want that to be clear to anyone peeking in.

TEPO,
I respect your right to hold such a view privately - even to the point of sharing that view in private conversation.
However we, as Catholics need to uphold the teachings of the Church in our public discourse lest we unintentionally lead someone into error.

Peace
James

The church has no problems with married couples using condominiums, just as the church has no objection to a married couple using a house, apartment, hotel room or tent. They just should not do it in the streets and frighten the horses.

I stand here on the horns of a dilemma. Either I dilute a joke by belaboring it, or I risk giving scandal to anyone who does not get the joke. I love a good joke, but I fear to give scandal.

I believe the above poster was utilizing the similarity between the words condom, a form of barrier contraceptive, and condo (which is short for condominium) a type of housing. This kind of joke is called a pun.

 

[april32010]

I agree that it is morally wrong for gay male prostitutes to use condominiums together, but I think it it’s okay for married couples to use them.

are we talking duplexes or high rises

 

[TEPO]

are we talking duplexes or high rises

he-he-he…

 

[JRKH]

The church has no problems with married couples using condominiums, just as the church has no objection to a married couple using a house, apartment, hotel room or tent. They just should not do it in the streets and frighten the horses.

I stand here on the horns of a dilemma. Either I dilute a joke by belaboring it, or I risk giving scandal to anyone who does not get the joke. I love a good joke, but I fear to give scandal.

I believe the above poster was utilizing the similarity between the words condom, a form of barrier contraceptive, and condo (which is short for condominium) a type of housing. This kind of joke is called a pun.

I stand here thoroughly busted:takethat: . . . . . and embarrassed…:blushing::blushing:

Btu I do love a good joke too and will take my lumps…

Peace
James

 

[TEPO]

RE: Bolded section…

This s NOT however the teaching of the Church…Just want that to be clear to anyone peeking in.

TEPO,
I respect your right to hold such a view privately - even to the point of sharing that view in private conversation.
However we, as Catholics need to uphold the teachings of the Church in our public discourse lest we unintentionally lead someone into error.

Peace
James

. Hook-line and sinker!

:takeoff:

 

[TEPO]

I stand here thoroughly busted:takethat: . . . . . and embarrassed.

Btu I do love a good joke too and will take my lumps…

Peace
James

It’s all in good fun James, I’ve been had a few times in the past myself.

Course I shouldn’t make a habit of this as im bordering on the fine line of falling into “trollism”…. … But I just couldn’t resist.

Peace,
TEPO.