well well well...

[Marc_Anthony]

FYI: Google is not a valid dictionary, because it is a web-compiling program (software with no human check) that draws definitions from unscholarly and unqualified sources (such as dictionary.com, which itself uses unqualified sources). You’d be better sticking to websters, as they have an industry accepted scholarly review of their work.

Merriam Webster’s definition:

para·phrase noun \ˈper-ə-ˌfrāz,ˈpa-rə-
Definition of PARAPHRASE
1: a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
2: the use or process of paraphrasing in studying or teaching composition
You’ll note that the definition of paraphrasing includes NO statement that it must be for (or even is made more paraphrase-ish by) greater clarity

I’ve always thought Oxford was the most generally accepted dictionary.

 

[thewanderer]

it was a quote from an article, read it for yourself.
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

and from another article:
“In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.”

but it goes without saying that condoms are permissible in under certain circumstances. honestly i arrived at this conclusion before the pope affirmed it. (these are the benefits of being a free thinker)

it seems many people on this forum have a flawed understanding of morality and sin.

As was pointed out, that is not a direct quote, that is the opinion of the person who wrote the news article. This, however is a direct quote

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution

 

[JRKH]

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)

Allow me to directly quote what the pope stated:
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.
So, what I said, including the example, was EXACTLY what the pope said… that condoms would be a step in the right direction for people such as male prostitutes. I never said that they were 100% licit, nor did I condone the acts that they would allow. I merely paraphrased the pope himself.

I’m sorry but this is NOT exactly what you said. In Paraphrasing (something to be avoided whenever the actual text is available) you changed the meaning. This may not have been your intention…but that is what happened.

By saying in your paraphrase that, “he (the pope) was saying they were okay for people who are, say, gay prostitutes…” you completely misrepresented the statement as quoted.
This occurred because the term “okay” as used above clearly conveys the meaning of approval. The pope intended no such meaning in his comments…

It is by far better to avoid paraphrasing when the actual text is available…

Which brings me to the deeper and more general aspect of the matter - - -

IN the quoted remarks, the Pope is not talking about condoms at all, he was talking about morality.
Read the quoted passage again carefully and consider carefully what is being discussed - what is being conveyed…
The example was intended to demonstrate a small movement toward a more correct morality…That is all.
It would be no different than if the pope offered some other example like - - a criminal taking a group hostage but then letting any children and women in the group go. His action shows a move toward a more moral outlook, but it does not make hostage taking okay under any circumstances…
Numerous other examples might be found - it just happened that, within the context of the morality that was being discussed, he chose that example.

It was others who took this statement out of context and created the problem.

Peace
James

 

[Actaeon]

editk just posted,when i saw everything on one post i could see your point.but he didn’t say it was ok even in that narrow instance .

I probably could have been more clear, but I wanted to be concise and simple in terms of addressing, for the OP, that the pope was only referring to very specific cases and not speaking of a general norm.

It happens, and I do it to (as much or more than most), that people tend to jump on each other rather than determining that someone was simplifying a point in order to highlight a different aspect of the issue at hand… certainly we can’t all be nuanced about everything, or none of us would come in under then 10,000 character limit for posting!

Still friends?

I’ve always thought Oxford was the most generally accepted dictionary.

But they’re stingy heads and make it inconvenient for me to look up words in their dictionary for free! I’m certainly not going to “subscribe” to a dictionary (whoever thought of such a thing anyway…?)!

 

[Actaeon]

I’m sorry but this is NOT exactly what you said. In Paraphrasing (something to be avoided whenever the actual text is available) you changed the meaning. This may not have been your intention…but that is what happened.

By saying in your paraphrase that, “he (the pope) was saying they were okay for people who are, say, gay prostitutes…” you completely misrepresented the statement as quoted.
This occurred because the term “okay” as used above clearly conveys the meaning of approval. The pope intended no such meaning in his comments…

Since it appears you missed it, I refer you back to the post where I clarified that no one should be laboring under the impression that “okay” and “morally good”/“licit” share the same meaning…

 

[JRKH]

Since it appears you missed it, I refer you back to the post where I clarified that no one should be laboring under the impression that “okay” and “morally good”/“licit” share the same meaning…

Yes I saw that post. I am afraid that for the majority of people this distinction is too fine to grasp. It certainly is not what I understand when I hear the phrase “he said it’s okay…”

Mainly the thing to remember is that there is no reason to paraphrase when the actual text is available…give me the actual text and let ME determine what I think it means…paraphrasing (by it’s very nature) tells me what you think it means.
You might be right…but then…

Peace
James

 

[TEPO]

If we were given the choice to legally ban the production of condoms entirely, the Church would call for banning them… No if’s and’s or but’s about it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

according to what ive read, the pope allowed contraception between husband and wife if the intention was to porevent HIV. no that is NOT what was said. If you ‘read it’ that way, with respect, your reading comprehension was very ‘off.’
this makes sense. this is what ive been saying all along. one of my main arguments against the church’s strict condom laws was STDs. but luckily it seems the church caught it’s mistake and changed.The Church made no mistake and it has not changed,
so it follows logical thinking that if a husband and wife wish to avoid STD, then it should be morally licit to engage in contraceptive sex. i believe the church will eventually yield to this. and i believe the church will also eventually allow a couple to use contraception once they have had a few kids.And I believe that eventually I will win the Lotto. The difference between what YOU believe and what I believe is that I actually DO have a chance to win the Lotto, YOUR ‘belief’ has no chance whatsoever.

Jesus said “when a man and a women come together for the puropse of procreation…”. he never said that every sexual act must be procreative. He never said that any act must not have to be procreative either, See, if you are gonna argue over what was never said (trying to prove a negative) so can we.
im tired of traditional catholics trying to pretend that NFP is somehow different from contraception or contraceptive sex. We’re tired of people who try to tell us something different from Church teaching is ‘really true’, ourselves. its not, no matter how you try to rationalise it, it just isnt ANY different. And we’ll accept that when you are the Pope and the Holy Spirit actually TELLS you this.
i hope you know that in eastern orthodoxy and the early church they even forbade NFP. so back then it was either “concieve or be abstinent”. so if youre going to oppose contraception at all costs at least be consistent like the early church fathers were and oppose NFP as well.

Sigh. Another ‘wannabe pope’ lectures the Catholic Church, . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

it was a quote from an article, read it for yourself.
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

and from another article:
“In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.”

but it goes without saying that condoms are permissible in under certain circumstances. honestly i arrived at this conclusion before the pope affirmed it. (these are the benefits of being a free thinker)

it seems many people on this forum have a flawed understanding of morality and sin.

He says nothing of the kind.

The author of the ARTICLE is the one who says (quite wrongly) that little gem you (wrongly) attribute to Benedict.
**
ONE OF THE REASONS that this original article was THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED 2 YEARS AGO.

and this probably explains your difficulty. You were unable to determine the difference between an actual QUOTE from a person (here’s a hint, it is usually bracketed by “quotation marks”) and what a totally DIFFERENT person says a person said, even if that person NEVER SAID WHAT IS CLAIMED.

Let me give you an example,

Example #1: Nathan Hale said, “I regret that I have only one life to give for my country”

Example #2: In a newspaper article headed, :“Breaking news from the Revolutionary War battlefield, Nathan Hale expressed his regrets over having to give his life for his country.”

In the first example, we have an ACTUAL QUOTE from the man himself.’

In the SECOND example, we have a person using SOME of the WORDS from the quote but COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING WHAT THE PERSON ACTUALLY SAID.

**

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

If we were given the choice to legally ban the production of condoms entirely, the Church would call for banning them… No if’s and’s or but’s about it.

The condoms are just rubber balloons with a special shape. there are balloons of every shape and size so it would be difficult to define.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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?

It would not surprise me if eventually the Catholic church started allowing contraception. But I have to ask, why would a married couple even want to use condoms?

 

[Rocky24]

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!

The Church isn’t going to move into that direction. That is NEVER going to happen. The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and it isn’t here on earth to encourage the world’s disgusting practices. It is here to abolish them and teach us to live how Christ wants us to live. Liberals have got to stop twisting the Pope’s words around to suit their own ends.

 

[SwizzleStick]

It would not surprise me if eventually the Catholic church started allowing contraception. …

Never going to happen.

…But I have to ask, why would a married couple even want to use condoms?

I would guess for the main reason an unmarried couple wants to use condoms (prevent pregnancy), though that is not the only reason unmarried people use condoms (reduce the risk of spreading STDs, mythical “safe sex”).

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Never going to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see.

I would guess for the main reason an unmarried couple wants to use condoms (prevent pregnancy), though that is not the only reason unmarried people use condoms (reduce the risk of spreading STDs, mythical “safe sex”).

I get why unmarried people use them. They are cheap, effective, and prevent STDs as well as pregnancy. I just don’t get why two people in a monogamous, committed relationship where STDs aren’t a concern would pick something so uncomfortable that comes between them over any of the other million bc methods.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see…

We will see that it is not going to happen. Holy Mother Church will never okay contraception.

…I get why unmarried people use them. They are cheap, effective, and prevent STDs as well as pregnancy. I just don’t get why two people in a monogamous, committed relationship where STDs aren’t a concern would pick something so uncomfortable that comes between them over any of the other million bc methods.

You listed the reasons why. We’ve all heard that condoms are cheap and effective if used properly and used every time, and they reduce the risk of the spread of STDs and support the popular myth of “safe sex.” But, they also reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy without chemicals, without minor surgery, without implantation, without risk of side effects, etc.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

We will see that it is not going to happen. Holy Mother Church will never okay contraception.

You listed the reasons why. We’ve all heard that condoms are cheap and effective if used properly and used every time, and they reduce the risk of the spread of STDs and support the popular myth of “safe sex.” But, they also reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy without chemicals, without minor surgery, without implantation, without risk of side effects, etc.

But there are other ways of doing that without having a piece of latex come between the couple. That’s what I have a hard time grasping; why a loving, committed couple would choose to use a condom.

 

[SwizzleStick]

We will see that it is not going to happen. Holy Mother Church will never okay contraception.

You listed the reasons why. We’ve all heard that condoms are cheap and effective if used properly and used every time, and they reduce the risk of the spread of STDs and support the popular myth of “safe sex.” But, they also reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy without chemicals, without minor surgery, without implantation, without risk of side effects, etc.
BlueEyedLady;9647858:

But there are other ways of doing that without having a piece of latex come between the couple. That’s what I have a hard time grasping; why a loving, committed couple would choose to use a condom.

Without chemicals, surgery, implantation, insertion? Okay. Didn’t know that. Hubby and I use NFP and have for years, so I don’t know about the options out there.

 

[Actaeon]

It would not surprise me if eventually the Catholic church started allowing contraception.

Will not happen for two reasons:

1. the fact that contraception is gravely wrong is a matter of declared doctrine, and doctrine cannot be changed.
2. If the church DID change that doctrine, it would be a hellish nightmare: all of the best, good, and loyal catholics would take one look at that statement, realize that if doctrine is maleable that all the claims the church has ever made are completely unassured of truth, and would abandon the church. The church would only be left with its most unreliable and “define doctrine the way I want it” members. Personally, because my stake in God is tied to my stake in the Catholic Church, I would probably become either an agnostic or a jew at that point.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Will not happen for two reasons:

1. the fact that contraception is gravely wrong is a matter of declared doctrine, and doctrine cannot be changed.
2. If the church DID change that doctrine, it would be a hellish nightmare: all of the best, good, and loyal catholics would take one look at that statement, realize that if doctrine is maleable that all the claims the church has ever made are completely unassured of truth, and would abandon the church. The church would only be left with its most unreliable and “define doctrine the way I want it” members. Personally, because my stake in God is tied to my stake in the Catholic Church, I would probably become either an agnostic or a jew at that point.

And 3) According to natural law it is wrong. Natural law is proven by reason, so if the Church okayed contraception they’d be going against natural law.

Like you if something like that ever happened it would be evidence to me that Catholicism is not the true Church and I’d probably become a Protestant.