Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[hope4thenew]

searched and didn't find this yet...the "news" broke this morning...

here is jimmy akin and the national catholic register on it...

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-condoms/"]The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms??? [/url]

[kafka]

here is Conte's commentary:

http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4563

[CatherineM]

I imagine that it is for married couples only, where one has HIV, as a form of the principal of double effect.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1290310750' post='2188293']
I imagine that it is for married couples only, where one has HIV, as a form of the principal of double effect.
[/quote]
no, the use of condoms in that scenario would be immoral, because the sexual act lacks the procreative meaning, thus making the moral object which is the second font of morality inherently evil and so the overall act immoral. A sexual act must have all three meanings, unitive, marital, procreative to be moral, inherently good. So the Pope would never teach this, not even in an interview, which is where the media distorted what the Pope answered.

Double effect is an analysis of the circumstance/consequences of the chosen act, the third font of morality, but use of condoms concerns the moral object of the sexual act which is the second font of morality. The first font of morality is intention/purpose/motive.

So for a sexual act to be moral it must have:

a good intention.
it must be truly unitive, marital, and procreative
and the good consequences of the act must outweigh the bad consequences.

Edited November 21, 2010 by kafka

[Jaime]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1290310750' post='2188293']
I imagine that it is for married couples only, where one has HIV, as a form of the principal of double effect.
[/quote]

You will be a bit surprised at the example actually used

[CatherineM]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1290313096' post='2188298']
You will be a bit surprised at the example actually used
[/quote]
You're right. I was quite surprised. We were discussing this issue in Bioethics last week. This week should be a humdinger.

[kafka]

it is the media distorting the Pope's words and using them to spread a false doctrine. That is the long and short of it.


another good blog post analyzing what happened:
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/pope-on-condoms/

The Pope was merely pointing out that a particular intention, to avoid disease transmission, is a good intention. He hopes that such a good intention might lead the person to a better understanding of morality and a turning away from immoral acts. He was not approving of contraception, nor was he approving of the use of condoms by homosexuals (i.e. cases where the condoms are not contraceptive).

The Pope’s comments do not imply that the intrinsically evil act of contraception might be moral with a good intention, such as to avoid disease transmission.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

[Jaime]

I have not seen any examples of the media distorting what the Holy Father is saying. This is what Time is saying

[quote]Benedict's so-called condom concession was not a huge one. He still proscribes the use of condoms as contraception (as he does the birth control pill). His specific example, that of a male prostitute choosing to use a condom in a conscious choice to prevent HIV infection, is couched as "a first step in the direction of 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." Benedict seems to imply a scale of good and bad intentions — from the indiscriminate use of condoms and other contraceptives to the idea of preventing the spread of AIDS to following the teachings of the Catholic Church. Condoms are not the ultimate solution or the prescribed Catholic way, he reiterates, though Benedict allows that there is little the church can do to prevent anyone from acquiring condoms. Still, he insists that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality... the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love."[/quote]

[cmaD2006]

I agree how this pans out in the end should be quite interesting ....

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290311131' post='2188295']

a good intention.
it must be truly unitive, marital, and [b]procreative[/b]
and the good consequences of the act must outweigh the bad consequences.
[/quote]
I have a question! Could someone please explain to me how family planning which is specifically to allow the sex act to occur but not procreation is not considered as contraceptive? And what bad consequences occur out of contraceptives that don't occur out of family planning? Just for my info.

[Semper Catholic]

Wait you mean to tell me the Pope thinks there isn't a black and white answer to one of the most divisive questions in the Catholic faith? Shocking. Only took 100 years.

[Skinzo]

 This thing is being totally distorted. Kafka is right. Janet Smith has an excellent commentary on it:

[url="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"]http://www.catholicw...r2010&Itemid=70[/url]




He was saying only that a person who uses a condom might have a good intention. Read the whole statement especially this part :


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

"[b]She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution[/b]"

Then he says" 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."


All that means is that the person using the condom may have a good intention, NOT that the Church endorses condom use, which the first part of his statement obviously rejects. 




S. 
 

Edited November 21, 2010 by Skinzo

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1290334356' post='2188327']
Wait you mean to tell me the Pope thinks there isn't a black and white answer to one of the most divisive questions in the Catholic faith? Shocking. Only took 100 years.
[/quote]

You must not have read the above article in context. In no way was he promoting contraception. He said that using a condom to protect the infection of disease to another is wrong, but the fact that one is concerned about the wellbeing of another person is the FIRST step on the road to conversion. Eventually, if this mentality is being fully followed through, the person will realise that the act of sex outside of the context of a marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life is in the end, not for the well-being of the other person. So it is a BABY STEP.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1290333819' post='2188326']
I have a question! Could someone please explain to me how family planning which is specifically to allow the sex act to occur but not procreation is not considered as contraceptive? And what bad consequences occur out of contraceptives that don't occur out of family planning? Just for my info.
[/quote]
Quickly: NFP is about knowledge, at its core. It lets the couple know when the woman is potentially fertile or is infertile, and that knowledge can then be used to achieve pregnancy, postpone pregnancy (if there's a just reason), or to help diagnose a medical condition. Nothing is done to thwart the woman's or man's fertility, though. Contraceptives seek to thwart the couple's fertility through barriers or altering the woman's hormones to prevent ovulation, fertilisation and/or implantation of the embryo.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1290333819' post='2188326']
I have a question! Could someone please explain to me how family planning which is specifically to allow the sex act to occur but not procreation is not considered as contraceptive? And what bad consequences occur out of contraceptives that don't occur out of family planning? Just for my info.
[/quote]

Mark, if you really want to understand the natural law aspect connected to Church teaching on this subject, Janet Smith has an excellent CD, called, "Contraception: Why Not?" It thoroughly covers that question, and dozens of others.

Short answer: NFP is [i]open[/i] to the possibility of life. It is saying, "If it is your will that we have a child, Lord, we are open to it." A condom says "Buzz off, God. We don't care what you might want. If you want us to have kids, God, you can surely break the condom, in your mightiness. We'll probably kill the kid, anyway, because we've already become so deadened and accustomed to separating the means of sex from the ends of sex."

The contraceptive mentality itself is what carries with it the worst consequences. Catholics are not bound to have sex only during the most fertile periods, but the intent to exclude any possibility of the purposes of the sexual act is gravely sinful. The act of wearing a condom to have sex, no matter how people may deny it, is in itself an act that objectifies the other person as merely an object of sexual pleasure, [i]even if the other person wants the other person to wear a condom. [/i]

~Sternhauser

Edited November 21, 2010 by Sternhauser