Partly because of this article in the Tablet and partly from the logical analysis of the Pope’s statements:
Pope’s condom comments extend to female prostitutes
24 November 2010
Pope Benedict XVI …Seewald suggested that the Pope’s words could be interpreted as permitting condom use for couples when one is HIV-positive. “The Pope indicates that, beyond the single case, there are further cases where one can imagine that condom use is a step towards a responsible approach to sexuality in this area to avoid further infection,” he said.
So as I see the Popes comments, and what I think you are agreeing to, is that sex outside of marriage is wrong and intrinsically evil. Which is church teaching. I do not believe that any Dogma or teaching in the recent press has been changed by any statements? Although some might be trying to say they have?
I also believe, and think you and most other Catholics believe as well, that if an HIV positive rapist, homosexual or prostitute decides to wear a condom in order to protect the person that they are already violating or servicing that somewhere deep in their being they are at least acknowledging that the persons life they are morally violating, or corrupting, does have worth that needs to be valued? That is what I believe the Pope meant in his recent writing and through statements from the Vatican, and if that is what you believe then I too agree with you and I think you understand the Popes points.
If on the other hand you are trying to say that the Pope believes this TINY acknowledgment that a partners life by the condom wearing HIV partner is good, or that a condom would allow them enough grace to counter balance the inherent selfish and evil nature of their selfish sex act when the act, with or without a condom, is putting a partners physical life, as well as eternal life at risk, then I think you are way off the mark.
IMHO an HIV homosexual person that is acting out his or her lifestyle, or prostitutes, are already leading a selfish lifestyle as they have accepted the twisted expression of creation or sold the expression God holds for a married Man and Wife. If they are Catholic then they fully understand that through their actions they are putting a supposed “Loved” one or customer’s soul at risk by and through their actions. Wearing a condom or not only effects this mortal life as they may have already participated in the damnation of their “Loved” ones, or customers eternal soul. The HIV positive rapist is at least protecting a life, and although what he is doing is intrinsically evil his actions are not putting the eternal soul of his victim at risk. He is only putting his own soul at risk through his evil actions.
I would think that a married couple is no different and in some respects I actually think an HIV spouse wearing a condom is worse then a rapist wearing a condom. If an HIV man or woman puts their own pleasure above the life of their spouse and well being of their children are they showing love (Agape)? NO! they are showing selfish desire. Their spouse is showing love (Agape) by risking themselves for the simple pleasure that they would feel to satisfy their spouse. They may be guilty of risking their children’s well being over that of their spouse that they will then have to answer to God for. If they actually willingly participate in a sex act with a condom on and they have children how is that not selfish? One might argue that they are, or need to express with their spouse the unitive portion of sex by wearing a condom, and yet they put at risk the union? This act might leave children without parents? When balanced against the fact that it does not create life, but can potentially only end life and possibly make life worse on innocent children it is simply morally wrong. It is selfish and therefore IMHO evil. How can you defend an act that only puts innocent people at risk? What is the gain but selfish pleasure? The ONLY good that could come from an HIV positive union is the potential CHANCE of a new life not corrupted with the virus, but wearing a condom prevents that. If they are wearing a condom they obviously have no intent on participation in the creation of life? So it truly is ONLY for the pleasure of the HIV positive spouse or even both, but pleasure and maybe a temporary increase in the unitive portion of the marriage, but again it threatens to end the marriage through death and leave any children parent less. SELFISH!!. How selfish that a spouse would put their mate and children at such risk… PATHETIC, SELFISH, and in my opinion evil they are. I believe that abstinence in the case of a married couple is showing TRUE love (agape) for that life and benefit of the spouse and children.
It appears Seewald has ignored the intrinsically selfish nature of a CONDOM when worn by a couple at ALL times. When one is HIV positive it only makes a condom more and expression of SELFISH love then before. When a condom is worn by two healthy people they are both being selfish by denying life. When worn when one is HIV positive it twists the marriage act into a bestial act of pure self pleasure and lust. I wonder if he has an agenda? Do you think he may be trying to make some greater good linkage that will ultimately lead to him saying that all condom usage in marriage is good and that then when they fail abortion too is OK? I wonder where is Satan in these arguments? Which side of the fence do you think he is on? Which side does he profit more throwing his weight behind? Where does Planned Parenthood stand on this?
