Yet another thread about the Pope's remarks

[coolduude]

Hi all,

Just saw this article:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

VATICAN CITY – In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.

The position was an acknowledgment that the church’s long-held anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn’t justify putting lives at risk.

“This is a game-changer,” declared the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

The new stance was staked out as the Vatican explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms and HIV in a book that came out Tuesday based on his interview with a German journalist.

The Vatican still holds that condom use is immoral and that church doctrine forbidding artificial birth control remains unchanged. Still, the reassessment on condom use to help prevent disease carries profound significance, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant.

“By acknowledging that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms,” said Martin, a liberal-leaning author of several books about spirituality and Catholic teaching.

Seems fishy to me, especially from what I’ve been reading about the press being a propaganda machine

At least the article acknowledges one truth:

The Vatican still holds that condom use is immoral and that church doctrine forbidding artificial birth control remains unchanged

So, what does everyone say to this article? Somewhat confusing; I also haven’t read the Catholic side, so perhaps that is why I’m confused

Thanks,
coolduude

 

[NPC]

Hi all,

Just saw this article:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

Seems fishy to me, especially from what I’ve been reading about the press being a propaganda machine

At least the article acknowledges one truth:

So, what does everyone say to this article? Somewhat confusing; I also haven’t read the Catholic side, so perhaps that is why I’m confused

Thanks,
coolduude

No - the article and the Jesuit priest quoted therein are wrong. The Vatican did not say that condoms are the lesser of two evils.

Firstly, the Pope’s book is the result of an interview - it is not a Vatican document, it is not published by the Vatican, and it has no doctrinal or canonical power: i.e. it simply cannot alter the Church’s teaching on the matter, which are clear.

Secondly, if the Church, as the document claims, says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of AIDS, while simultaneously teaching that condom use is immoral, does that mean the Church is abandoning the fundamental principle of never doing evil so that good may come of it?

The point is that Pope Benedict makes it clear in his book that the opinions expressed are his personal views and that the Pope can hold personal views which can be wrong - he made a similar remark in “Jesus of Nazareth” (though, funnily enough, the media were not claiming that the Church was introducing new teachings on Jesus).

Overall, while the Pope is giving his personal opinions, it is clear that he is actually only reinforcing the Church’s position that condoms are not a moral solution to the AIDS problem. That point is crystal-clear if one reads the full comments on the matter, which can be viewed HERE, with commentary from George Weigel, who wrote the foreword for the book.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Media Condomania!

Congratulations, George Weigel, on coining this funny expression!

 

[mlund]

Rev. Martin is, with all due respect, an off-the-reservation liberal Jesuit writer. He’s the cultural editor for America Magazine. He’s not a Vatician official or a Church Doctor or anyone particularly qualified to clarify the Pope’s position on this matter.

A simple reading of the portion of the interview in question in Light of the World makes it clear that the Pope is not condoning the use of condoms in illicit sexual activity in any way. He is not endorsing choosing any sort of “lesser evil” or any illicit means to good ends. He has merely made the charitable observation that “perhaps” someone using a condom to protect another person could be at the beginning of a moral awakening based on concern for the life of another, and that such an awakening might lead them away from their wicked ways and towards a truly human and moral sexuality - one without illicit sexual acts and condoms.

After all, the idea that one should not wrong others is a foundation point to understanding why extramarital sexual acts are completely wrong and morally impermissible.

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Media Condomania!

Perhaps on this forum, too?

I count nine separate threads on condoms … as of yet.