Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[Ice_nine]

I've tried to read the Pope's excerpts through sensationalist lenses and I still struggle to see what all the fuss is about. To think the Pope is giving an OK to condoms in certain situation is either intellectual dishonesty or just plain dum.

This is all I have to say.

[kafka]

I know hey? I wish it were this simple.

But we live in a fallen and evil world.
And there are wolves among the sheep.
And there are weeds rising among the wheat.
And there are creepy crawlie long leggedie beasties
who lurk in the darkness.



I missed my nap

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290575036' post='2188993']

maybe AIDS is God's punishment for sexual sins of modern times.
[/quote]

I'm not sure about that. Did God cast us among 'thistles and thorns' in anger and as punishment and then join us to demonstrate how much he loves us and wants us back? I like to think that our 'punishment' is what we chose and that God loves us and wants us to stop choosing that.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290638293' post='2189104']
I know hey? I wish it were this simple.

But we live in a fallen and evil world.
And there are wolves among the sheep.
And there are weeds rising among the wheat.
And there are creepy crawlie long leggedie beasties
who lurk in the darkness.



I missed my nap


[/quote]

[sixpence]

here is what i heard on the radio:

The Pope said that the use of condoms, by prostitutes, in order to prevent the spread of AIDS, might be a good first step towards the direction of "morality"...

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1290640149' post='2189115']
here is what i heard on the radio:

The Pope said that the use of condoms, by prostitutes, in order to prevent the spread of AIDS, might be a good first step towards the direction of "morality"...
[/quote]

It has been said that it is not permissible to sin for the purpose of good. But is the use of a condom by a prostitute who may already be on the pill an additional sin to the one already being committed? The Pope may be saying that in some cases condoms are not sinful and for a prostitute to use one as a means to prevent the transmission of disease is a small step toward morality by it's adoption of responsibility.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1290641977' post='2189121']
It has been said that it is not permissible to sin for the purpose of good. But is the use of a condom by a prostitute who may already be on the pill an additional sin to the one already being committed? The Pope may be saying that in some cases condoms are not sinful and for a prostitute to use one as a means to prevent the transmission of disease is a small step toward morality by it's adoption of responsibility.
[/quote]

Honestly, I don't think the Pope was making [i]any[/i] comment about morality until he said that the use of condoms is "[b]not[/b] a moral or real solution."

Up until that point, all of his remarks about the use of a condom with a male prostitute... That was all just a mere observation. His observation was that there might be some concern for others present. No moral judgment or statement whatsoever. Just an observation that, in an objectively evil act, the use of a condom in attempts to prevent HIV, could be a sign that there is possibility of moral conversion, because there is wrapped up in the evil-doers actions, [i]some[/i] intention [i]somewhere[/i] to do good (stop the spread of HIV). This does not contradict the Church's teaching. One still can't do an objectively evil act even with a good intention. But, the fact that an objectively evil act is done with a good intention might be an indication that the evil-doer has some spark of conscience in him and a desire to good, hopefully leading him on the road to moral conversion.

[holly.o]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1290642473' post='2189124']
But, the fact that an objectively evil act is done with a good intention might be an indication that the evil-doer has some spark of conscience in him and a desire to good, hopefully leading him on the road to moral conversion.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think this is what the Pope's quote boils down to.

As someone pointed out, even if condoms [i]were[/i] moral, they're not a solution to always prevent infection of a deadly disease. As a husband already said, I don't see how anything but celibacy would be the most loving choice if you have AIDS & your spouse didn't.

The media and those who misinterpret the Pope's words are thinking just about sex in a purely physical (& probably only pleasurable) sense; Pope Benedict is addressing the state of the person's soul. Worlds apart, and the people of this world fail to see that wisdom.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1290608076' post='2189027']
I'll take that bet. Million bucks says they don't reverse contraception!!! NO WAY TAKE IT TO THE BANK! The gates of hell shall not prevail much as some would like them to.
[/quote]

I have to say that I find the whole thing rather bizarre.

The media stretched things when they argued that the Catholic church's stand against contraception keeps people from using condoms. People who are promiscuous or engage in sodomy aren't concerned by something as trivial as the Catholic churches stand on contraception.

The Catholic church has never forbidden men from using condoms when they sodomize other men. It's not contraception when it involves two men. So I find the Popes statement a little bizarre.
.
[color="#8B0000"]"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a 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. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. "[/color]

I know it's in the context of a discussion about AIDS in Africa, but it almost sounds like he's trying to say that normally it would be wrong for a man engaging sodomy to wear a condom -- but in this case he's protecting the other person. However it's [b]NOT[/b] contraception! And he's not breaking the rules of the Catholic church by wearing the condom, [b]he's breaking the rules of the Catholic church by engaging in sodomy![/b] And wearing a condom is not a very big step towards assuming responsibility.

So I think that the Catholic church is heading in the direction of supporting condoms as a protection against disease. Continuing in this direction you can argue that condoms protect peoples "health". Health can be expanded to mean not only disease but also unwanted pregnancy. Consequently other contraceptives also protect peoples "health". And if you include "mental health" than you can argue that abortion protects womens "mental health"....


I think that a better response by the Pope would have been that the sexual morality taught by the Catholic church leads to a better life without diseases like AIDS. Contraception led to the sexual revolution -- which led people away from sex within the context of a marriage -- which led to a breakdown of the family -- and exposed people to sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. Condoms do little to protect people against AIDS. So the Catholic way should be promoted over the contraceptive approach.

I didn't write that as well as I wanted to, but you get the idea.

Edited November 25, 2010 by southern california guy

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1290651961' post='2189161']
So I think that the Catholic church is heading in the direction of supporting condoms as a protection against disease. Continuing in this direction you can argue that condoms protect peoples "health". Health can be expanded to mean not only disease but also unwanted pregnancy. Consequently other contraceptives also protect peoples "health". And if you include "mental health" than you can argue that abortion protects womens "mental health"....
[/quote]
It is indeed a slippery slope because it is proportionalist ethics, which were definitively condemned in Fides et Ratio. It's an ethics with no firm basis and ultimately falls into relativism (which consequences do we weigh?), and it's application to the contraception issue was specifically ruled out in the text of Humanae Vitae. That's why I think you have nothing to worry about.

Edited November 25, 2010 by thedude

[kafka]

alright here is one more angle that will help. Some posters here have already implied it.

Catholic teaching is that each distinct sexual act, which is the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, to be moral must be unitive and procreative and marital. The only sexual act that is unitive and procreative and marital is natural marital relations open to life. Natural marital relations is inherently ordered toward a threefold moral object that is unitive, procreative and marital. Any knowlingly chosen sexual act that is deprived of any one or more of these three meanings is an intrinsically evil sexual act. If anyone of the threefold moral objects are missing in a sexual act, it is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

Contraception is any deliberately chosen act which renders the sexual act of unfruitful, or non-procreative. For this reason a non-procreative sexual act is intrinsically evil, due to the deprivation of the procreative meaning in the moral object of the deliberately chosen act. Any sexual act which is not directed toward life is inherently evil. Any sexual act which is not ordered toward procreation is immoral by its very nature.

The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, between two males is non-unitive, non-marital and non-procreative, so the use of the condom has no bearing on the intrinsic nature of the deliberately chosen act. A homosexual act is by nature contraceptive since it has no inherent procreative meaning. It is inherently uncapable of procreation.

But why is a homosexual act inherently uncapable of procreation? Because it is non-unitive. The only sexual act which is inherently capable of procreation is a natural-unitive sexual act, (genital to genital) therefore all unnatural non-unitive sexual acts are by nature non-procreative or contraceptive: masturbation, manipulative sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and sexual acts using devices. All unnatural non-unitive sexual acts are by nature distinct from natural unitive sexual acts since they are not inherently capable of procreation therefore all unnatural sexual acts cannot be justified by another act in the same set, even if that other act is capable of procreation.

If a unnatural non-unitive sexual act precedes, accompanies or follows a natural unitive sexual act it is a distinct immoral act which forms a set of acts. One moral act within a set of acts cannot justify other acts within the same set which are immoral. Each distinct act stands or falls by its own essential nature which is either good or evil before the eyes of God. And this essential nature, defined by the inherent meaning of the act itself is what makes one act distinct from other acts in the first place. Good intention or good consequences cannot change the essential nature of an intrinsically evil act. Therefore a married coupled is not justified in choosing to use unnatural sexual acts which are contraceptive by nature to bring about even a good consequence/effect such as sexual climax or conception because the end does not justify the immoral means of using unnatural contraceptive sexual acts:

"Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberatly contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these." (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 14)

There I knocked a few more birds with that stone This is bound to offend someone. But this thread is starting to run in circles. Time to move forward.

Edited November 25, 2010 by kafka

[holly.o]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1290651961' post='2189161']
Health can be expanded to mean not only disease but also unwanted pregnancy. Consequently other contraceptives also protect peoples "health". And if you include "mental health" than you can argue that abortion protects womens "mental health"....
[/quote]

Ummmmm... no. A life-threatening disease such as AIDS [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] be compared to the creation of a new life with an immortal soul, loved and cherish by God! In addition to taking the life of an innocent child, abortion itself causes major mental issues. There are probably thousands of women who will attest to the mental harm they have suffered from abortion ([url="http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/"]Silent No More[/url]).

To argue that abortion protects women's mental health is to give in to a lie and join the forces of those who disregard both the life of the baby and the mother. The Church will never agree to this stance because it is at its root deceptively evil.

I don't mean to direct this at you, southerncaliforniaguy, as it seems you weren't actually arguing the goodness of such an approach as if it's your own opinion. Like thedude pointed out, you don't have anything to worry about.

But it really upsets me that anyone would compare a deadly virus to an innocent, unborn baby... and I guess this is an argument in the secular world for abortion. This obvious distinction (baby vs. disease) is one of the reasons that the Church won't change Her stance. And a reason for much sorrow and prayer.




P.S. edited to add that that was a good post, kafka!

Edited November 25, 2010 by holly.o

[southern california guy]

[quote name='holly.o' timestamp='1290691400' post='2189248']
Ummmmm... no. A life-threatening disease such as AIDS [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] be compared to the creation of a new life with an immortal soul, loved and cherish by God! In addition to taking the life of an innocent child, abortion itself causes major mental issues. There are probably thousands of women who will attest to the mental harm they have suffered from abortion ([url="http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/"]Silent No More[/url]).

To argue that abortion protects women's mental health is to give in to a lie and join the forces of those who disregard both the life of the baby and the mother. The Church will never agree to this stance because it is at its root deceptively evil.

I don't mean to direct this at you, southerncaliforniaguy, as it seems you weren't actually arguing the goodness of such an approach as if it's your own opinion. Like thedude pointed out, you don't have anything to worry about.

But it really upsets me that anyone would compare a deadly virus to an innocent, unborn baby... and I guess this is an argument in the secular world for abortion. This obvious distinction (baby vs. disease) is one of the reasons that the Church won't change Her stance. And a reason for much sorrow and prayer.

[/quote]

I agree with you. The "mental health" loophole is a position that the Mormon church takes. It's in their Church Handbook of Instructions -- that is given to each member who serves as Bishop. When I was living in Utah and considering joining the Mormon church I went and talked to the bishop. I asked him about the LDS churches position on abortion. He pulled out the Church Handbook of Instructions and handed it to me. They are opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother -- which includes mental health... So basically they are opposed to abortion but if an important members daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock, then they have a loophole. I've also heard similar arguments from NOW and Planned Parenthood.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1290634832' post='2189090']
I've tried to read the Pope's excerpts through sensationalist lenses and I still struggle to see what all the fuss is about. To think the Pope is giving an OK to condoms in certain situation is either intellectual dishonesty or just plain dum.

This is all I have to say.
[/quote]

I'll try to help you see through those lenses.....

According to much of the secular world, the Catholic Church is 'backwards' and 'stuck in the 19th century' when it comes to condoms and contraception. Meaning, any sensible person should be able to see that condoms are good, because they help to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

So, basically, these people are just waiting for the Church to wake up and get with the program. They read the pope's explanation as, 'Finally! He's starting to get it! It's about time....'

Never mind that what he said does not support the position of any of these people, they're gonna take it and run with it....

[kafka]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290703053' post='2189270']

According to much of the secular world, the Catholic Church is 'backwards' and 'stuck in the 19th century' when it comes to condoms and contraception. [/quote]
they will get a big surprise when they see we are from the future as well as from the past.

[kafka]

another new post from Conte. This one analyses the Pope's extemporaneous remarks from a little different angle than I've seen so far, maybe the most complete:

[quote]The Pope's controversial, greatly misinterpreted, comments can be analzed in terms of the three fonts of morality:

Pope Benedict: There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a 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. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection....

Pope Benedict: 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.

There are three fonts of morality: (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) circumstances. In order to be moral, each and every knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is immoral. Every act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

A sinful act might have one or two good fonts of morality. An intrinsically evil act (bad moral object) may have a good intended end and some good consequences. The act remains immoral as long as any one or more fonts is bad. But whatever might be good within the three fonts remains good.

So the Pope was noting that some persons who commit gravely immoral intrinsically evil acts (e.g. prostitution, homosexual acts) might have something good in their intention. But even if a person has a good intended end, such as to prevent the transmission of a disease, the act as a whole is not thereby justified. But the good intended end would of course remain good, even though the act is a sin.

However, a good intended end is not sufficient to make even the first font good. The intended means must also be good, since the end does not justify the means. So the intended end of preventing disease transmission must include a good intended means (such as refraining from illicit sex). If instead the intended means is immoral, then the intention as a whole is not good, even if there is a good intended end.[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4575"]My link[/url]