Catholic's....have you heard this recent news from the Pope?

[Mama2Many4]

My husband just told me about this and I'm having a hard time adjusting to what I just read. I just can't see the condom issue changing one day because they now believe that it's a "lesser evil" in certain situations. Wrong should be wrong, and not change. I have been a faithful Catholic all 32 years of my life, but I am seriously questioning my faith now. The church is trying to hard to take a "modern" stance on some topics that I don't agree with.

 

What do other Catholics think about this?

 

Are you happy about the changes that so frequently happen in our faith?

 

I'm not trying to start a debate or rile anyone up or anything, I'm just curious what you all feel about this.

 

 

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004795.htm

[cathmom]

I'm pretty sure the media is not understanding this - they never report Catholic news correctly. I haven't really investigated it yet.

[Mama2Many4]

I'm pretty sure the media is not understanding this - they never report Catholic news correctly. I haven't really investigated it yet.

 

 

I certainly hope not, I'm pretty devastated about it. I could be reading into it wrong, but condoms are wrong for my DH and I who are joined in union before God. I have complications with carrying babies but still respect my faith and use NFP. So the thought that condoms would be acceptable for a prostitute trying to avoid contracting HIV is just mind blowing!

[Renee in NC]

I would like to read the Pope's comments in his own words (and the context they were used in - the whole conversation) than to accept a reporter's synopsis. The interview was done as part of the Pope's trip to Africa, where AIDS is a serious problem - how did it come up overall? However, I will comment in general.

 

It goes back to the purpose or intent of the action, not just the action itself. The example given was a married couple in which one person was HIV-positive and the other was not. The purpose of condom use in this case is to prevent infection, not conception. The Catholic Church is not changing its stance on artificial bc at all that I can tell.

 

As for the male prostitute example, I think what he was trying to say is that it would be a sin on top of another sin to not use a condom if the prostitute knows he (in this example) was HIV-positive. To conciously choose the moral responsibility of not infecting another person purposely is removing one of the sins. The "step" is that actually acknowledging his responsibility towards others and awareness of how sin affects others. It wouldn't matter if it was a man or a woman, though, as either infecting another person knowingly would be a sin.

 

I haven't been a Catholic long, but I am not one who hopes the Catholic Church will change, so I am not coming from that perspective at all. I just think that some things just aren't as simple as they may seem and that often words get twisted to give a wrong impression.

[Spy Car]

The Pope (wisely) recognized that condom use might save lives and that their use might be the moral course of action for people at high risk of spreading the HIV/AIDS virus.

 

It is a pro-life decision, and a good and decent position for the Pontiff to have taken IMO.

 

Bill

[love2read]

"The Pope did not endorse the use of condoms" I read excerpts of what the Pope said yesterday along with several commentaries. Read up on it and follow the logic.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

Many other solid commentaries on it elsewhere, this is just a quick and easy one to follow. This is outside of the context of procreation.

Edited November 22, 2010 by love2read

[Trish]

Well, I'd be more likely to question the Pope than my faith, per se. Christian faith is a gift, and the Pope is just a guy. A very IMPORTANT guy, to Catholics, nonetheless still just a guy in a fancy outfit. (This was not a pronouncement made ex cathedra, i.e. "from the chair of Peter," so certainly subject to being wrongly stated or interpreted.) And didn't Peter himself suggest in the Bible that he felt gentiles must be circumcised, and St. Paul disagreed? (and prevailed) So the guy at the top has been known to make a misjudgment.

 

I'm not saying this one is a misjudgment, either, and I can certainly see what you mean about his statement calling certain things into question. After all, if condoms are "the lesser of two evils" for a male prostitute, why not something similar for a family with a physical or financial difficulty that would preclude more children? I could answer that, but I'd probably bore everyone including myself.

 

It sort of reminds me of when they decided people could eat meat on Friday. It seems to me a lot more bad came from that than good. First of all, not many people know that the requirement wasn't simply dropped, it was EXPANDED to allow people to choose other forms of penance INSTEAD of abstaining from meat on Fridays. Somehow that aspect got lost, and all people understood is that the rule no longer existed (and therefore made everyone wonder why they bothered having such a rule in the first place.)

 

In other words, you must STILL abstain from meat on Fridays unless you're performing another form of penance. Admittedly, that is extremely vague. And it certainly works against the spirit of solidarity (and convenience) that Catholics once had in observing the Friday rule together.

 

And of course now no one bothers to tell people that the Friday penitential rule still exists, even in its altered form. (I for one did not learn that in Catholic school, only much later as an adult.)

 

So the condom thing is going to require a huge amount of explanation, and then people will probably still come away with the idea that "the pope said condoms are okay."

 

But hey, if the sexual abuse scandals haven't shaken my faith, then nothing will. (it has shaken my faith in the humans running the church, not my faith in Jesus Christ and His special presence in the world and in our church.)

 

TMI?

Edited November 22, 2010 by Trish

[Mama2Many4]

"The Pope did not endorse the use of condoms" I read excerpts of what the Pope said yesterday along with several commentaries. Read up on it and follow the logic.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

Many other solid commentaries on it elsewhere, this is just a quick and easy one to follow. This is outside of the context of procreation.

 

 

Thanks for the link. I'll read up on it.

[Mama2Many4]

Well, I'd be more likely to question the Pope than my faith, per se. Christian faith is a gift, and the Pope is just a guy. A very IMPORTANT guy, to Catholics, nonetheless still just a guy in a fancy outfit. (This was not a pronouncement made ex cathedra, i.e. "from the chair of Peter," so certainly subject to being wrongly stated or interpreted.) And didn't Peter himself suggest in the Bible that he felt gentiles must be circumcised, and St. Paul disagreed? (and prevailed) So the guy at the top has been known to make a misjudgment.

 

I'm not saying this one is a misjudgment, either, and I can certainly see what you mean about his statement calling certain things into question. After all, if condoms are "the lesser of two evils" for a male prostitute, why not something similar for a family with a physical or financial difficulty that would preclude more children? I could answer that, but I'd probably bore everyone including myself.

 

It sort of reminds me of when they decided people could eat meat on Friday. It seems to me a lot more bad came from that than good. First of all, not many people know that the requirement wasn't simply dropped, it was EXPANDED to allow people to choose other forms of penance INSTEAD of abstaining from meat on Fridays. Somehow that aspect got lost, and all people understood is that the rule no longer existed (and therefore made everyone wonder why they bothered having such a rule in the first place.)

 

In other words, you must STILL abstain from meat on Fridays unless you're performing another form of penance. Admittedly, that is extremely vague. And it certainly works against the spirit of solidarity (and convenience) that Catholics once had in observing the Friday rule together.

 

And of course now no one bothers to tell people that the Friday penitential rule still exists, even in its altered form. (I for one did not learn that in Catholic school, only much later as an adult.)

 

So the condom thing is going to require a huge amount of explanation, and then people will probably still come away with the idea that "the pope said condoms are okay."

 

But hey, if the sexual abuse scandals haven't shaken my faith, then nothing will. (it has shaken my faith in the humans running the church, not my faith in Jesus Christ and His special presence in the world and in our church.)

 

TMI?

 

 

Thank you! You have presented that in such a way that I understand not to let anything take my faith away. :iagree:

[Amy loves Bud]

So the thought that condoms would be acceptable for a prostitute trying to avoid contracting HIV is just mind blowing!

 

For me, the idea of being a prostitute just to survive is mind-blowing. I think the pope has opened a door to faith for a lot of suffering people with this statement.

[Mama2Many4]

For me, the idea of being a prostitute just to survive is mind-blowing. I think the pope has opened a door to faith for a lot of suffering people with this statement.

 

Well, I guess that's where my personal opinions differ from others. I don't believe that anyone has to sell their body to survive. There are many shelters and food pantries available. Many people are out of work right now, and the prostitution job market is not on the rise. I can see what he is saying, and YES we do need to stop the aids epidemic. It's just that as Catholics we are taught one way, and to one day say that something once wrong is now okay for some but not all, raises some flags for some of us.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm not Catholic, but I thought this was saying that lapsed Catholics could go this route, but only as a step in the right direction. Sort of like, imo, saying that a drug addict can take particular drugs in order to break their addiction.

[helena]

I look forward to following this thread..

My mom is a Catholic, and I appreciate the chance to better understand what these type of things truly mean.

 

:bigear:

[Amy loves Bud]

Well, I guess that's where my personal opinions differ from others. I don't believe that anyone has to sell their body to survive. There are many shelters and food pantries available. Many people are out of work right now, and the prostitution job market is not on the rise. I can see what he is saying, and YES we do need to stop the aids epidemic. It's just that as Catholics we are taught one way, and to one day say that something once wrong is now okay for some but not all, raises some flags for some of us.

 

I wasn't aware of the food pantries and shelters in Africa.

[Renee in NC]

For me, the idea of being a prostitute just to survive is mind-blowing. I think the pope has opened a door to faith for a lot of suffering people with this statement.

 

Or, as the other link posted mentioned, a woman who lives in a country where rape is a regular occurance. I like how someone put it in the comments on that blog - prostitution is a grave sin already, adding a condom to the prostitution does not make it a *more* grave sin.

 

We are so fortunate to live in a country where we don't ever have to face these kind of things. Some might say that a woman who has to turn to prostitution to survive should choose death (by starvation) for herself and her children instead of the sin of prostitution. That would be easy for me to say, because I don't live in the same kind of world. Can we even get into a "whose sin is worse" conversation when a situation exists where the community is refusing to take care of its widows and orphans and (in this example) men are using women for their own selfishness instead of providing for the poor? I, for one, am eternally thankful that I don't have to make the decisions about these things.;)

 

Even if he *did* say all of a sudden that condoms were okay for everyone in every situation (including for bc), I can't see how it takes my faith away. Only the pronouncements made "ex cathedra" are considered infallible, not everything a Pope ever says.

[LibraryLover]

Condoms-shmondoms.

 

Kittens are dying.

[sagira]

As someone who's pregnant right now because we are not using birth control, I am all ears :bigear:

 

I do NOT want any more children. In fact, I thought two was enough. I've come to terms with having my third child (a girl), and I understand the Catholic position, but I do NOT want any more children. Still trying to figure this out (I want a permanent solution) without actually using bc. NFP works well for us as long as I'm not nursing (which leaves a gap of about 3 years that only abstinence could fill) :glare:. Dh is still conflicted about a vasectomy. He can't reconcile it with his faith at this point. It seems abstinence for a few years is the only way then :confused:

[lionfamily1999]

Kittens are dying.

:lol: I didn't notice it until you said something.

[ktgrok]

I have no problem with the use of condoms to prevent disease prevention. The purpose is disease prevention, a side effect is birth control. That kind of stance has ALWAYS been permissible. For instance, although birth control pills to prevent pregnancy are immoral, using them to treat endometriosis is ok, even though there is a side effect of birth control. This is not really a new stance, just an elaboration of something that already existed.

Edited November 22, 2010 by ktgrok

[Spy Car]

As someone who's pregnant right now because we are not using birth control, I am all ears :bigear:

 

I do NOT want any more children. In fact, I thought two was enough. I've come to terms with having my third child (a girl), and I understand the Catholic position, but I do NOT want any more children. Still trying to figure this out (I want a permanent solution) without actually using bc. NFP works well for us as long as I'm not nursing (which leaves a gap of about 3 years that only abstinence could fill) :glare:. Dh is still conflicted about a vasectomy. He can't reconcile it with his faith at this point. It seems abstinence for a few years is the only way then :confused:

 

From my understanding the Holy Father has specifically not left an opening for the use of condoms for birth control purposes.

 

Bill

[Renee in NC]

As someone who's pregnant right now because we are not using birth control, I am all ears :bigear:

 

I do NOT want any more children. In fact, I thought two was enough. I've come to terms with having my third child (a girl), and I understand the Catholic position, but I do NOT want any more children. Still trying to figure this out (I want a permanent solution) without actually using bc. NFP works well for us as long as I'm not nursing (which leaves a gap of about 3 years that only abstinence could fill) :glare:. Dh is still conflicted about a vasectomy. He can't reconcile it with his faith at this point. It seems abstinence for a few years is the only way then :confused:

 

As far as this issue is concerned, the Pope's comments have absolutely nothing to do with birth control/pregnancy prevention at all. As for your situation, :grouphug: because I totally understand your feelings. Do you have a trusted priest you and your dh can speak with?

[Trish]

It seems the pope said this in reference to a male prostitute? In that case there wouldn't be any issue of conception, so condom use wouldn't be a moral issue at all. I would think. But, if he's calling condom use a "step toward moralization" for a prostitute (meaning they're on a path to a more holy life), it seems that could apply to lots of sins. Couldn't anything be a "step toward moralization" if you had the right attitude toward it? ("I'm gonna donate a percentage of my drug or Mafia money to the orphanage...")

 

I'll say this, I know plenty of people who have undergone significant hardship in keeping to the "no artificial contraception" rule. If it seems like the pope is backtracking on that, or making exceptions for some types of sins and not others, I can see how people would have a "What the heck is going on here?" moment in trying to understand this.

[Violet Crown]

The Church has never said condoms are immoral. The Church has consistently taught that contraception is immoral.

 

The concrete, highly qualified example he gave was of a male prostitute, thus presenting a situation in which contraception was not an issue, because conception is not possible. The use of condoms to which he was referring is not contraceptive.

 

What he said was that, in such a situation, a person engaging in an already immoral action might show that he has an interior disposition that is tending away from immorality by a concern to prevent spread of infection. Like a bank robber deciding not to use a loaded weapon, it's an indication of a turn of heart away from a wrong action.

 

Honestly; does it really seem likely that a 2000-year-old prohibition on contraception would be changed via leaked excerpts from a book interview? This is a tempest in a teapot; there was no change in teaching about contraceptives.

[Aubrey]

From my understanding the Holy Father has specifically not left an opening for the use of condoms for birth control purposes.

 

Bill

 

Right. Abstinence (NFP) if you're married; condoms if you're a male prostitute.

 

(Where's that 10' pole?)

[Aubrey]

It seems the pope said this in reference to a male prostitute? In that case there wouldn't be any issue of conception, so condom use wouldn't be a moral issue at all. I would think. But, if he's calling condom use a "step toward moralization" for a prostitute (meaning they're on a path to a more holy life), it seems that could apply to lots of sins. Couldn't anything be a "step toward moralization" if you had the right attitude toward it? ("I'm gonna donate a percentage of my drug or Mafia money to the orphanage...")

 

I'll say this, I know plenty of people who have undergone significant hardship in keeping to the "no artificial contraception" rule. If it seems like the pope is backtracking on that, or making exceptions for some types of sins and not others, I can see how people would have a "What the heck is going on here?" moment in trying to understand this.

 

Wait. Why would there by no issue of conception? Maybe it's not the *intention,* but that hardly makes it a non-issue.

 

ETA: Oh! Oh. :svengo:

[OrganicAnn]

Live long Catholic here. This doesn't bother me at all, but I don't think it necessary has much impact except as a discussion point. If you are a HIV positive prostitute, then you have more problems that what the Pope thinks of condoms. Unless it will allow some aid agencies to distribute condoms that didn't previously. I'm not sure that it really affects your average married Catholics. (Just got a mental picture of SNL skit with someone saying in a whining voice 'gosh why do HIV prostitutes have all the luck. They get all the condoms and we don't get any' but I always like to find the laugh in everything).

 

 

Aubrey I think it is because they are talking about male prostitutes.

[Renee in NC]

Wait. Why would there by no issue of conception? Maybe it's not the *intention,* but that hardly makes it a non-issue.

 

ETA: Oh! Oh. :svengo:

 

Because in general, male prostitutes are meeting with other males - hence the no contraception issue. There is very little "Deuce Bigalow" going on in the world.:lol:

 

ETA: Ha! Didn't see your edit until after I posted.:tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

It seems the pope said this in reference to a male prostitute? In that case there wouldn't be any issue of conception, so condom use wouldn't be a moral issue at all. I would think. But, if he's calling condom use a "step toward moralization" for a prostitute (meaning they're on a path to a more holy life), it seems that could apply to lots of sins. Couldn't anything be a "step toward moralization" if you had the right attitude toward it? ("I'm gonna donate a percentage of my drug or Mafia money to the orphanage...")

 

 

Bad analogy, I think. The Pope is recognizing that the action of the prostitute (while still sinful) at least prevents or reduces the chance they will pass on the HIV/AIDS virus, which is still a death-sentence in much of the world. It is good not to place lives in needless jeopardy. Not being a prositute would be even better, but this is a "step toward moralization." I don't see how one could argue with the Pope's reasoning.

 

Bil

Edited November 22, 2010 by Spy Car

[Aubrey]

Aubrey I think it is because they are talking about male prostitutes.

 

Yep. I understood that end of the equation. It was the other side that escaped me.

 

ETA: How do y'all just *know* this stuff? I've been stewing over this story all weekend, waiting for someone to mention it, & here I've been stewing over the wrong scenario *entirely.*

 

ETA: Um. Does that need clarification?

[Violet Crown]

But, if he's calling condom use a "step toward moralization" for a prostitute (meaning they're on a path to a more holy life), it seems that could apply to lots of sins. Couldn't anything be a "step toward moralization" if you had the right attitude toward it? ("I'm gonna donate a percentage of my drug or Mafia money to the orphanage...").

If you look carefully at the remarks, he wasn't calling condom use a step toward moralization, but rather a step forward in "awareness" and "intention." That is, the action itself isn't moral or an increase in morality, but is an action that indicates an interior awakening of morality; but that actually the use of a condom is not the way to deal with infection. He's talking about how it can indicate a turning of the heart, even though it's not the right way to go about dealing with the harm.

[sagira]

As far as this issue is concerned, the Pope's comments have absolutely nothing to do with birth control/pregnancy prevention at all. As for your situation, :grouphug: because I totally understand your feelings. Do you have a trusted priest you and your dh can speak with?

 

Thanks for the answer, Bill and Renee, and thanks for the hug! I needed it :001_unsure: :grouphug:

 

(Sorry, third trimester pregnancy is wreaking havoc with my emotions - which are usually nice and stable - not a weepy person at all :tongue_smilie:)

[Sputterduck]

Well, I guess that's where my personal opinions differ from others. I don't believe that anyone has to sell their body to survive. There are many shelters and food pantries available. Many people are out of work right now, and the prostitution job market is not on the rise. I can see what he is saying, and YES we do need to stop the aids epidemic. It's just that as Catholics we are taught one way, and to one day say that something once wrong is now okay for some but not all, raises some flags for some of us.

 

Was he speaking specifically about American prostitutes?

 

While I don't know any personally, I can see a person starving in a country with no social programs whose only option may be to prostitute to survive. Now, I personally, would go to death on that one because of my faith. It seems that wrong to me. But I can certainly see someone being in that position. Most people in the world, struggling to survive or not, do not have access to food pantries if needed.

[Spy Car]

The Church has never said condoms are immoral. The Church has consistently taught that contraception is immoral.

 

The concrete, highly qualified example he gave was of a male prostitute, thus presenting a situation in which contraception was not an issue, because conception is not possible. The use of condoms to which he was referring is not contraceptive.

 

What he said was that, in such a situation, a person engaging in an already immoral action might show that he has an interior disposition that is tending away from immorality by a concern to prevent spread of infection. Like a bank robber deciding not to use a loaded weapon, it's an indication of a turn of heart away from a wrong action.

 

Honestly; does it really seem likely that a 2000-year-old prohibition on contraception would be changed via leaked excerpts from a book interview? This is a tempest in a teapot; there was no change in teaching about contraceptives.

 

Right. The reports I've read the acceptance of condom use would revolve around "intent." Condom use could pass muster for men (and female partners) if the intent was to prevent (or substantially reduce) the transmission of disease, but would be disallowed is the intent was birth control.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

Was he speaking specifically about American prostitutes?

 

While I don't know any personally, I can see a person starving in a country with no social programs whose only option may be to prostitute to survive. Now, I personally, would go to death on that one because of my faith. It seems that wrong to me. But I can certainly see someone being in that position. Most people in the world, struggling to survive or not, do not have access to food pantries if needed.

 

What if it was the only way to feed your children? Would you let them starve rather than become a prostitute? That is the question many of these women face. I think God would rather I commit a sexual sin than let one of his children die.

[Violet Crown]

Right. The reports I've read the acceptance of condom use would revolve around "intent." Condom use could pass muster for men (and female partners) if the intent was to prevent (or substantially reduce) the transmission of disease, but would be disallowed is the intent was birth control.

 

Bill

Well, I hate to disagree with you when you're being so nice about the Pope (heaven knows we papists need the good press these days), but it's not so simple as that.

 

Sexual intercourse is only acceptable under Catholic teaching under certain conditions, including (a) within marriage and (b) if the physical act is ... let's be delicate here ... completed in the normal way. A condom, even if used for a permissible intention, physically prevents the completion, if you know what I mean, and so is never permissible as part of sexual intercourse. It wouldn't be an additional sin in the instance of homosexual relations, however, as it can't prevent the completion of the act. If you see what I mean.

 

The commentators you're reading are misunderstanding what the Pope is saying if they're getting out of it "anyone can use a condom as long as the intention isn't contraceptive."

[Renee in NC]

What if it was the only way to feed your children? Would you let them starve rather than become a prostitute? That is the question many of these women face. I think God would rather I commit a sexual sin than let one of his children die.

 

Once again I am grateful and thankful that this is not my reality or the reality that my girls will face (not likely anyway.) Can you even imagine?

[Sputterduck]

What if it was the only way to feed your children? Would you let them starve rather than become a prostitute? That is the question many of these women face. I think God would rather I commit a sexual sin than let one of his children die.

 

If I was going to starve, I would let myself die. And I did, in a very horrible circumstance, chose to die rather than do something I considered wrong and come very close to death. So, yes, I can confidently say that.

 

If my child were going to starve, I would prostitute myself, after exhausting all available options and praying harder than I ever have. Dunno how God feels about that one, but there it is.

[Spy Car]

Well, I hate to disagree with you when you're being so nice about the Pope (heaven knows we papists need the good press these days), but it's not so simple as that.

 

Sexual intercourse is only acceptable under Catholic teaching under certain conditions, including (a) within marriage and (b) if the physical act is ... let's be delicate here ... completed in the normal way. A condom, even if used for a permissible intention, physically prevents the completion, if you know what I mean, and so is never permissible as part of sexual intercourse. It wouldn't be an additional sin in the instance of homosexual relations, however, as it can't prevent the completion of the act. If you see what I mean.

 

The commentators you're reading are misunderstanding what the Pope is saying if they're getting out of it "anyone can use a condom as long as the intention isn't contraceptive."

 

I do not mean to suggest the Pope is condoning sexual acts outside marriage. My understanding (perhaps flawed) is that he is recognizing it is more moral (a step towards morality) to use a condom to prevent infecting another with HIV/AIDS than it would be have the illicit sex (illicit sex either way) without the condom when the risks of infection are high.

 

I'm open to the idea I may have this wrong. But it seems to me like a legitimate position for a Catholic Pontif. In any case, I'm sure Pope Benedict will make his position plain in coming days.

 

Bill

[Sugarfoot]

Here's a link from my email inbox. I don't know if it'll help you at all...

 

http://http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

Edited November 22, 2010 by Sugarfoot
link

[asta]

BERLIN — Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

 

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

 

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

 

The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.

 

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

 

Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

 

To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

 

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.

 

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."

Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. "More must happen," he said.

 

"Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug."

source

 

 

a

[Soror]

Others have already explained this better than I can. He did not say condoms are fine, not even close to that. It makes me so completely furious the way the news media botches everything up, they have no concept of morality and shouldn't even try to interpret anything the Pope says.

 

I think I seen this up thread, but just in case again the link to the explanation:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

 

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

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality...........................

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. ........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is much more explanation in the article itself.

 

http://www.zenit.org/article-31024?l=english

 

Here is another article that gives the facts without totally butchering the Pope's position.

[jld]

The Pope (wisely) recognized that condom use might save lives and that their use might be the moral course of action for people at high risk of spreading the HIV/AIDS virus.

 

It is a pro-life decision, and a good and decent position for the Pontiff to have taken IMO.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

I think Pope Benedict may be more progressive than some may have thought, at least in some ways. When John Kerry was running for president in 2004, the current pope, known then as Cardinal Ratzinger, said that Catholics could vote in good conscience for John Kerry if they felt voting for him was the better overall choice than voting for George Bush. However, they could not vote for JK if they wanted to vote pro-choice, as that would be immoral. I'm not sure how Catholic leaders in America felt about that, as they seem now to believe there is only one correct choice (is that true? Did I misunderstand something?).

[lionfamily1999]

If you look carefully at the remarks, he wasn't calling condom use a step toward moralization, but rather a step forward in "awareness" and "intention." That is, the action itself isn't moral or an increase in morality, but is an action that indicates an interior awakening of morality; but that actually the use of a condom is not the way to deal with infection. He's talking about how it can indicate a turning of the heart, even though it's not the right way to go about dealing with the harm.

You put that so well. You make it sound like such a beautiful thing.

What if it was the only way to feed your children? Would you let them starve rather than become a prostitute? That is the question many of these women face. I think God would rather I commit a sexual sin than let one of his children die.

God would not put me in that situation. There are plenty of scriptural references for God opening doors, God creating safe places, God creating food. So, as a Christian, it's a moot point. I would never prostitute myself, because God would never put me in a situation where I had to.

[Violet Crown]

One last point. Putting aside for a moment the question of what Pope Benedict actually said or was trying to say, and whether it's a good or bad thing (and adding that I'm not fool enough to give my own opinion on what I think he was in fact saying)....

 

This whole episode shows how deep-rooted and prevalent is the belief, certainly among the media and many non-Catholics, and even (alas) among many Catholics, that the Catholic faith is a matter of "doing what the pope says."

 

Thus we see announcements of a "U-turn," or "a softening of the pope's hard-line stance," etc., as if the faith consisted of what the current holder of the See of Peter happens to think that day.

 

But that's nonsense. The pope has no "hard-line stance" to soften; the Church has an ancient teaching, rooted in Scripture and Tradition. The pope's only job is to clarify it when necessary and protect it constantly. The idea that the pope may wake up on Wednesday and announce that from now on Catholics may marry their toasters, and it would hey presto! be Catholic teaching that appliance relations are licit, is an old slander that I keep hoping the media will get past.

 

If Pope Benedict had announced in that book interview that the prohibition on contraception was no longer for today's Catholic, and that all could contracept away without qualms, it would not change the teaching on contraception. It would only tell us that the pope was, quod Deus avertat, a heretic.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The Pope (wisely) recognized that condom use might save lives and that their use might be the moral course of action for people at high risk of spreading the HIV/AIDS virus.

 

It is a pro-life decision, and a good and decent position for the Pontiff to have taken IMO.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[Ellie]

Here's another article you might find helpful.

[Mama2Many4]

Was he speaking specifically about American prostitutes?

 

While I don't know any personally, I can see a person starving in a country with no social programs whose only option may be to prostitute to survive. Now, I personally, would go to death on that one because of my faith. It seems that wrong to me. But I can certainly see someone being in that position. Most people in the world, struggling to survive or not, do not have access to food pantries if needed.

 

 

Yeah, I totally forgot that they were talking about protitutes in Africa, I was referring to here in the States were help is available. Heck, today is one of the easiest to get help from the government in the form of food stamps, cash stipend, etc..

[Danestress]

God would not put me in that situation. There are plenty of scriptural references for God opening doors, God creating safe places, God creating food. So, as a Christian, it's a moot point. I would never prostitute myself, because God would never put me in a situation where I had to.

 

God would not put you in that situation. God wanted to put you in a garden of perfection where you would have perfect communion with him.

 

Unfortunately, we live in a world that is broken by sin, and while God would not put you in that situation, he would probably allow you to be in that situation, put there by the sin of the world. We know this from experience, don't we? We watch children die, sometimes of starvation. In America, we don't see much starvation, but other places DO see it. I have a friend who lived for years in a refugee camp, and she has had the hard misery of watching children die of starvation. I think God loves her. I think God loved those children. Perhaps in the economy of God, death is not the worst thing that could ever happen, and perhaps we are would be called as Christians to watch our children die, knowing that he loves them and is sovereign.

 

I have to admit, though, that I probably would do anything I could to save them. Starvation is slow and agonizing.

 

My guess is that the Pope is very sensitive to this. Most of his flock does not live in America. Most of his flock does not have western wealth. He is probably aware than many thousands of his flock live in countries where the AIDS rate is is over 20%. And in some of those places, wives are not well able to say "no" to their infected husbands, or they don't want to say "no" but they also don't want AIDS and perhaps also don't want to have babies who they themselves might infect.

[Parrothead]

One last point. Putting aside for a moment the question of what Pope Benedict actually said or was trying to say, and whether it's a good or bad thing (and adding that I'm not fool enough to give my own opinion on what I think he was in fact saying)....

 

This whole episode shows how deep-rooted and prevalent is the belief, certainly among the media and many non-Catholics, and even (alas) among many Catholics, that the Catholic faith is a matter of "doing what the pope says."

 

Thus we see announcements of a "U-turn," or "a softening of the pope's hard-line stance," etc., as if the faith consisted of what the current holder of the See of Peter happens to think that day.

 

But that's nonsense. The pope has no "hard-line stance" to soften; the Church has an ancient teaching, rooted in Scripture and Tradition. The pope's only job is to clarify it when necessary and protect it constantly. The idea that the pope may wake up on Wednesday and announce that from now on Catholics may marry their toasters, and it would hey presto! be Catholic teaching that appliance relations are licit, is an old slander that I keep hoping the media will get past.

 

If Pope Benedict had announced in that book interview that the prohibition on contraception was no longer for today's Catholic, and that all could contracept away without qualms, it would not change the teaching on contraception. It would only tell us that the pope was, quod Deus avertat, a heretic.

Exactly.

 

Don't stress over any of the news reports. Nothing has changed for the average Catholic.

[asta]

One last point. Putting aside for a moment the question of what Pope Benedict actually said or was trying to say, and whether it's a good or bad thing (and adding that I'm not fool enough to give my own opinion on what I think he was in fact saying)....

 

This whole episode shows how deep-rooted and prevalent is the belief, certainly among the media and many non-Catholics, and even (alas) among many Catholics, that the Catholic faith is a matter of "doing what the pope says."

 

Thus we see announcements of a "U-turn," or "a softening of the pope's hard-line stance," etc., as if the faith consisted of what the current holder of the See of Peter happens to think that day.

 

But that's nonsense. The pope has no "hard-line stance" to soften; the Church has an ancient teaching, rooted in Scripture and Tradition. The pope's only job is to clarify it when necessary and protect it constantly. The idea that the pope may wake up on Wednesday and announce that from now on Catholics may marry their toasters, and it would hey presto! be Catholic teaching that appliance relations are licit, is an old slander that I keep hoping the media will get past.

 

If Pope Benedict had announced in that book interview that the prohibition on contraception was no longer for today's Catholic, and that all could contracept away without qualms, it would not change the teaching on contraception. It would only tell us that the pope was, quod Deus avertat, a heretic.

 

This has to be the #1 theological irk I have (besides the "Catholics aren't Christians" thing and the convenient dismissal from other denominations that it was Catholic Monks who penned the first bibles - but I digress). It flat out isn't that hard to get proper information on the Catholic Church! They have a website for goodness sakes! In multiple languages, with a search engine!

 

SO many people seem to think that, if a pope opens his mouth and says anything for any reason, the very religion itself... shifts. Uh uh. Like a PP said, if, while sitting ex cathedra, he makes a pronouncement, that is something different. And guess what? There aren't very many of those.

 

Almost every single thing the world hears out of the vatican and out of the pope is akin to something a wise economist would do: plant a seed of an idea and let the "market" run with it. You don't tell someone to buy a car, you lower prices. People buy them. Then they buy other stuff. You don't tell the Archbishop of Ireland that you're going to fire his @ss if he doesn't get his house in order due to the pedophile scandal, you simply tell the press that you will be making unannounced formal visits to Ireland within the next year to "see how things are going".

 

It is a management method that works more effectively (and faster) than sitting around and waiting for the paperwork to be drawn up. Sure, there will be an encyclical before it is all said and done, but in the mean time, lives are saved. Ratzinger wasn't called God's Bulldog for nothing.

 

 

a