Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[havok579257]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290389959' post='2188473']
"The only moral/intrinsically good sexual act is natural sexual relations (unitive), of a married male and female (marital) open to life (procreative)."

I don't need a catechism lesson from you regarding marriage. I've been through theology of the body about a dozen times and facilitated it twice. This is not violated in my senario. Sorry. The couple is fully open to life. The intention of the senario that I present is NOT to prevent pregnancy! Therefore it is an unintended consequence. Much like a woman having a medical procedure to have a tumor removed that ends in the loss of her child. You make the latex rather than what goes on in the heart and mind of the men and women the sin, the evil. Granted I don't have much respect for condoms but they are not wherin lies the evil. By the way in my mind the way you are presenting this a man and a woman spacing children through NFP are participating in an intrinsically evil act as well. Otherwise the latex is the sin. Otherwise the latex is the sin.
[/quote]


uh, no. definatly no. no according to catholic church teaching.

[kafka]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1290397350' post='2188508']
uh, no. definatly no. no according to catholic church teaching.
[/quote]
concurred.

[Destroyer of Heretics]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1290353861' post='2188345']
What the pope is saying is that condoms are not intrinsically evil, contraception is. [b]

WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING WARNING: "I TOLD YOU SO" COMING[/b]

I got a lot of grief from a few folk who when I said the same thing in the past, accused me of being liberal and not following Catholic doctrine. But the Holy Father is stating that things (like condoms) cannot hold any intrinsic value. Actions (like contraception) can! So I say

NEENER NEENER NEENER NEENER!


Now let's return to our regularly scheduled discussion.
[/quote]## [size="3"]And to think there has been all that fuss and bother - why couldn't he have said all that stuff years ago ? Still, not to worry - Father Federico Lombardi is not quite his Alistair Campbell

http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/press-and-how-not-to-do-it/

[/size]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290397467' post='2188509']
concurred.
[/quote]

Am I surprised.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1290335117' post='2188330']
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.
[/quote]

Nor was I saying that he was. I'm just saying that something like contraception isn't an argument for absolutes.

[Ed Normile]

It seemed to me that in the example the Pope used, a male prostitute, that the sex and sin was a given judging by the males occupation and his statement that the use of a condom may be the first step in realizing the sin and addressing in this manner may be the start towards the cessation of the act itself, as in the act of recognizing the possible outcome, spread of HIV, may lead to taking personal responsibility a step further negating the sex act completely.

Does it really surprise anyone here that most of the media outlets create the news to fit their purpose? If so I guess you missed the last few election cycles !

ed

[Ash Wednesday]

It all kind of reminds me of how I never understood people that got so upset about the Church's contraception ban and accused it of contributing to the spread of AIDS in places like Africa. As if the church somehow approved of people having sex wherever and whenever, and with whoever they wanted...as long as they weren't using a condom. (facepalm)

[MithLuin]

Here's [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253679/deflating-nyt-condom-scoop-george-weigel?page=1]George Weigel's response[/url]

The Church's consistent teaching on human sexuality is that you are not to use another person. Concern for someone else's health is the first step towards not being completely selfish about the situation. [i]Not committing adultery[/i] would be a much better and more moral choice than wearing a condom while doing so, though.

[Brother Adam]

POPE IGNITES DEBATE OVER CONDOMS

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the pope's recent remarks on condoms:

Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges that condoms may make sense in preventing the transmission of disease, and he immediately sets off a firestorm. But he never said condoms are an acceptable means of birth control, nor did he say that they are the answer to HIV/AIDS. Indeed, he said he opposed the widespread use of condoms because that "implies the banalization of sexuality." He also criticized the "fixation" on condoms as a means of combating AIDS.

While what the Holy Father said is newsworthy, it was not revolutionary. Even with regards to the birth control pill, the Catholic Church has allowed for exceptions. In his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI said, "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Moreover, the Church accepts the use of hormonal contraception to treat endometriosis.

We have been asked by the media what the Catholic League's position is on this issue. This misunderstands our role: we don't have a position on any Church teaching—we simply accept their wisdom and defend the right of the Church to have its voice heard with respect in the public square. We therefore stand proudly behind the pope's comments on condoms.

From Father Z:

First, keep in mind that Papa Ratzinger was talking to a guy who had a microphone. How is that the same as an official act of the Vicar of Christ exercising his magisterium?

Also, he was asked if the Church is opposed in principle to the use of condoms. He responded – and it may be important to read all the words. My emphases:

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.

“Of course” means that the Church’s teaching is pretty clear. Also, just as the Pope clarified in a presser on an airplane on his way to make an apostolic visit, condoms are not a real solution because they fail both to prevent disease and conception. They are not a “real” solution. They are not a “moral” solution because of the motive for their use in most cases. Nevertheless, sin is also wrapped up with “intention” in individual cases. Furthermore, there is a human way to respond to the problems for which some people claim condoms are the answer. Condom use is a more human way in individual cases such as that which the Pope identified in his non-magisterial interview. That doesn’t mean that it is yet a good way. It is simply better than the disastrous way employed before a decision was made to move towards a more human way. Also the word human implies that the acting subject is a person, an image of God.

That is a quick glance at what the Pope said.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290398061' post='2188513']
Am I surprised.
[/quote]

Are you surprised that he was [i]right[/i]? He was dead-on.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=427467&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=aids&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=34&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Fr. Stephen Torraco, PhD, on EWTN[/url]

[url="http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=284"]National Catholic Bioethics Center[/url]

I think you owe an apology to both Kafka and Havok. If you don't recognize the reason[i]s[/i] why, that's a problem.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290368543' post='2188392']
I would disagree with your assessment here. If the unintended consequence of the use were that procreation is suppressed I don't think this would have to be immoral. Let's say a young couple intends to have a family. The father gets in an accident and gets aides through a blood transfusion. Their every diesire would be to have children but he now has aides and does not want to give his wife this horrible disease. Do you say they must be celibate the rest of their life?
[/quote]

Myself, I still fear that condoms are nothing more than "risk reduction", rather than 100% protection. I love my fiancée, and would be worried that if I had AIDS from a blood transfusion as you put forward, that I would still run the risk of infecting Emily, even with a condom. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but at some point ... I just don't know. In this hypothetical situation, I would rather be celibate than run the risk of infecting Emmy. It just feels like a game of Russian Roulette, with her life on the line and not mine. And I can't have that.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1290463492' post='2188645']
Myself, I still fear that condoms are nothing more than "risk reduction", rather than 100% protection. I love my fiancée, and would be worried that if I had AIDS from a blood transfusion as you put forward, that I would still run the risk of infecting Emily, even with a condom. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but at some point ... I just don't know. In this hypothetical situation, I would rather be celibate than run the risk of infecting Emmy. It just feels like a game of Russian Roulette, with her life on the line and not mine. And I can't have that.
[/quote]

The most important fact is that "sex" with a condom is no longer an act of sexual intercourse. Any more than rape or sodomy is an act of sexual intercourse. This is [i]the[/i] reason the Catholic Church would allow a non-abortifacient contraceptive in case of rape.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290464469' post='2188651']
The most important fact is that "sex" with a condom is no longer an act of sexual intercourse. Any more than rape or sodomy is an act of sexual intercourse. This is [i]the[/i] reason the Catholic Church would allow a non-abortifacient contraceptive in case of rape.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Yes, I agree with the words that you teach. Emily and I are adamant about not contracepting. However, I was replying to someone who's argument was much less about morality as it was about fear of the prospect of remaining celibate. I responded to that fear with another: who REALLY wants to trust a thin piece of latex to protect a life?

[kafka]

how was his comment not about morality?

this is beating a dead horse, but I came up with a simplified form for that scenario: An intention is basically a knowing choice. One cannot knowlingly choose an openess to life, while at the same time choosing a moral object lacking the very openess to life which is knowlingly chosen (by means of contraception). One cannot choose moral object which is both good and evil at the same time.

One can choose a good moral object with some evil consequences which are not inherent to the act itself. But even then the good consequences of the good moral object, have to outweigh the bad consequences in order for the overall act to be moral.



in any case in response to the articles Brother Adam posted, I disagree with Donahue's assessment,
Father Z's post on the otherhand is closer to the assessment I agree with which has already been expressed here. Edited November 23, 2010 by kafka

[rkwright]

Looks like B16 commented further on this today. His comments today indicate that this applied to more than just male prostitutes... my head is spinning on this one...

[quote]Vatican: Condom use less evil than spreading HIV

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON and NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press
Tue Nov 23, 6:20 pm ET

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.
The development came on a day when U.N. AIDS officials announced that the number of new HIV cases has fallen significantly — thanks to condom use — and a U.S. medical journal published a study showing that a daily pill could help prevent spread of the virus among gay men.
"This is a great day in the fight against AIDS ... a major milestone," said Mitchell Warren, head of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
Theologians have debated for years whether it could be morally acceptable for HIV-infected people to use condoms to avoid infecting their partners. The Vatican years ago was reportedly preparing a document on the subject, but it never came out.
The groundbreaking shift, coming as it does from the deeply conservative pontiff, would appear likely to restrain any public criticism from Catholic conservatives, who insisted Tuesday that the pope was merely reaffirming the church's moral teaching.
Conservatives have feared that a comment like this would give support to Catholics who want to challenge the church's ban on artificial contraception in an environment where they feel they are under siege from a secular, anti-Catholic culture.
George Weigel, a conservative Catholic writer, said the Vatican was by no means endorsing condom use as a method of contraception or a means of AIDS prevention.
"This is admittedly a difficult distinction to grasp," he told The Associated Press in an e-mail. What the pontiff is saying is "that someone determined to do something wrong may be showing a glimmer of moral common sense by not doing that wrong thing in the worst possible way — which is not an endorsement of anything."
Benedict's comments come at a time when bishops in the United States are intensely focused on upholding the strictest views of Catholic orthodoxy, emphasizing traditional marriage, natural family planning based on a woman's menstrual cycle and making abortion the most important issue.
In the book, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times," Benedict was quoted as saying that condom use by people such as male prostitutes indicated they were moving toward a more moral and responsible sexuality by aiming to protect their partner from a deadly infection.
His comments implied that he was referring primarily to homosexual sex, when condoms aren't being used as a form of contraception.
However, questions arose immediately about the pope's intent because the Italian translation of the book used the feminine for prostitute, whereas the original German used the masculine.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to apply only to men. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, the important thing was that the person took into consideration the life of another.
[b]"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this: ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."
"This is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. ... The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said.[/b]
Those comments concluded the press conference, and Lombardi took no further questions about how broadly this interpretation could be applied.
The clarification is significant.
UNAIDS estimates that 22.4 million people in Africa are infected with HIV, and that 54 percent — or 12.1 million — are women. Heterosexual transmission of HIV and multiple, heterosexual partners are believed to be the major cause of the high infection rates.
Benedict drew harsh criticism when, en route to Africa in 2009, he told reporters that the AIDS problem couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms. "On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.
In Africa on Tuesday, AIDS activists, clerics and ordinary Africans applauded the pope's revised comments.
"I say, hurrah for Pope Benedict," exclaimed Linda-Gail Bekker, chief executive of South Africa's Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation. She said the pope's statement may prompt many people to "adopt a simple lifestyle strategy to protect themselves."
In Sierra Leone, the director of the National AIDS Secretariat predicted condom use would now increase, lowering the number of new infections.
"Once the pope has made a pronouncement, his priests will be in the forefront in advocating for their perceived use of condoms," said the official, Dr. Brima Kargbo.
Lombardi said Benedict knew full well that his comments would provoke intense debate. Conservative Catholics have been trying to minimize what he said since excerpts were published this weekend in the Vatican newspaper.
The Rev. Tim Finnegan, a conservative British blogger, said he thought the pope's comments were unwise. "I'm sorry. I love the Holy Father very much; he is a deeply holy man and has done a great deal for the church," Finnegan said on his blog. "On this particular issue, I disagree with him."
Lombardi praised Benedict for his "courage" in confronting the problem.
"He did it because he believed that it was a serious, important question in the world of today," Lombardi said, adding that the pope wanted to give his perspective on the need for greater humanized, responsible sexuality.
Luigi Accatoli, a veteran Vatican journalist who was on the Vatican panel that launched the book, put it this way:
"He spoke with caution and courage of a pragmatic way through which missionaries and other ecclesial workers can help to defeat the pandemic of AIDS without approving, but also without excluding — in particular cases — the use of a condom," Accatoli said.
The launch of the book, which includes wide-ranging comments on subjects from the sex abuse crisis to Benedict's belief that popes should resign if physically unable to carry out their mission, drew a packed audience. Making a rare appearance, Benedict's secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, sat in the front row — an indication of the event's significance.
In the book, the pope reaffirms Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception, as well as the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.
But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope was saying that condom use is a lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner, even when pregnancy is possible.
"We're not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We're now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth," Martin said.
Individual bishops and theologians have applied the lesser evil theory to the condom-HIV issue, but it had previously been rejected at the highest levels of the Vatican, Martin said.
Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert on the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil.
"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told the AP. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."
He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted, and the church's teaching hadn't been clear. There is no official Vatican policy about condoms and HIV, and Vatican officials in the past have insisted that condoms not only don't help fight HIV transmission but make it worse because it gives users a false sense of security.
"This pope gave this interview. He was not foolish. It was intentional," Suaudeau said. "He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it's true that the church sometimes has not been too clear."
Lombardi said the pope didn't use the technical terminology "lesser evil" in his comments because he wanted his words to be understood by the general public. Vatican officials, however, said that was what he meant.
"The contribution the pope wanted to give is not a technical discussion with scientific language on moral problems," Lombardi said. "This is not the job of a book of this type."
___

[/quote]