Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[Ice_nine]

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

Well yes I do understand that, but can't people be aware of their own biases before interpreting things? It would make the world run a whole lot smoother imo

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

that is a very well said, impressively written post.
and catherine was just sticking up for the pope when she knew no better, but props for her faith. even if it was leading her into errors of a messed up inconsistent moral system... seriously tho i mean the props stuff.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290349213' post='2188341']
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
[/quote]

it's a technical botomline when we say 'it's open to life as a matter of intention ut condoms are not'. as a matter of intention, NFP is said to e more effective than contraceptives, and a person can use condoms with sensitivity to not objecifying people.... what's the difference? a technical matter of intention that doesn't amount to anything as a practical matter, and maybe a natural way of regulating the sexual cycle?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1290349213' post='2188341']
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
[/quote]

it's a technical botomline when we say 'it's open to life as a matter of intention ut condoms are not'. as a matter of intention, NFP is said to e more effective than contraceptives, and a person can use condoms with sensitivity to not objecifying people.... what's the difference? a technical matter of intention that doesn't amount to anything as a practical matter, and maybe a tecnically more natural way of regulating the sexual cycle?
in fact it could e said to e more pure, more divine, when people talk about their sexuality instead of just talking aout the cycle. it's been said that 'talking aout it' is given with th cycle, but it's not the only way talking happens. this can forc people to talk, sure, but that's more a human problem if they don't talk, than anything. maybe for the masses who can't articulat things so much except to the most ase 'so when are ya gonna e good to have sex with' etc etc.
and not only this... NFP can and is abused as even the popes say. it can still be about objectifying people. it doesn't have to e as the popes say, and shuldn't be, but can be. just like condoms can be, ut dont have to be.
there's no real reason for why NFP is so superior. in fact the arguments for it are weaker and more base, without taking a matteer of principle aout it all that doesn't add up to much more than mere ideologies and nothing of true substance.

Edited November 26, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290610994' post='2189034']
[b]rk wright[/b], it is true that contraception is a nonissue when speaking of homosexual behavior.

But it is [i]also[/i] true that human beings are all sinners. All of us. So, the Church has some business of addressing the question of whether or not a female prostitute is being more 'moral' by forgoing the condom. The answer is...no, of course not. Prostitution is gravely wrong, and introducing a condom into the picture doesn't make the action any more or less wrong. I don't see how anyone could construe the pope's words as 'two wrongs make a right!' - at what point did he suggest that prostitution was okay?

[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on this, though I open to correction...

A female who engages in prostitution with a condom has committed two sins - the female who engages in prostitution without a condom has only committed one sin. Though both have committed grave sins (assuming all things equal) one has sinned twice and thus worse (I think we've had a big debate on that at one point...)

We all agree that the good intention does make the condom use moral. So my point was that when the Pope says that a female using a condom might be a step in recognizing morality, it seems to me to be condoning sin in some way.

The other way I see it, is that no action is devoid of all goodness, and the Pope is simply pointing the limited goodness in preventing spreading HIV - which does not negate the sinfulness of the act.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290741196' post='2189334']
I have to disagree with you on this, though I open to correction...

A female who engages in prostitution with a condom has committed two sins - the female who engages in prostitution without a condom has only committed one sin. Though both have committed grave sins (assuming all things equal) one has sinned twice and thus worse (I think we've had a big debate on that at one point...)

We all agree that the good intention does make the condom use moral. So my point was that when the Pope says that a female using a condom might be a step in recognizing morality, it seems to me to be condoning sin in some way.
[/quote]

I agree. And rather then the condom being a step in recognizing morality might condom use give the prostitute a false sense of safety? Might it make them more likely to continue as prostitutes? Is that really taking a step towards responsibility?

[MithLuin]

Well, next time you are discussing condom use with a prostitute, you can ask that person and see which mindset is in the forefront.

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290741196' post='2189334']
A female who engages in prostitution with a condom has committed two sins - the female who engages in prostitution without a condom has only committed one sin. Though both have committed grave sins (assuming all things equal) one has sinned twice and thus worse (I think we've had a big debate on that at one point...)

We all agree that the good intention does make the condom use moral. So my point was that when the Pope says that a female using a condom might be a step in recognizing morality, it seems to me to be condoning sin in some way.
[/quote]
the problem with this interpretation is that the Pope was merely commenting on the intention of the person, not the means of the act, the nature of the deliberately chosen act or the overall act. There might be something good in the intention, even though the nature of the act and overall intention is immoral, so he is clearly not condoning a sin.

The person might have a good intended end of preventing the transmission of disease, but this good intended end must have a good intended means for the overall act to be moral. The intended means is a contraceptive act, which is immoral, therefore the whole intention is not good, but there is in part some goodness in the intention, even though the overal intent is evil. And this goodness might spark a conversion.

Like you implied a person cannot intend evil for the sake of evil. An immoral intention is always directed at an end which is a lesser good in contradiction to a greater good, or an apparent good. So the prostitue who intends the end of preventing disease is intending a real tangible good in the midst of intending the immoral means of a contraceptive act. The intented end and means of the preventing of the transmission of disease is part of a set of acts which are also immoral, selling sex for money.

Making money off of sex is of course an evil intented end, with an evil intended means. Using a condom is an evil intended means however the intended end of preventing transmission remains good without changing the nature intrinsically evil act of contracepted act as a means, and without changing the essential nature of the next intrinsically evil act which is the selling of sex.

And the good consequence of preventing the transmission of the disease remains good, and the good consequence of making money remains good in spite of the evil consequences in the overal act and set of acts which outweigh these two good consequences. And even though the two intended means are evil, and the two overall intentions are evil. What is good remains good, what is evil remains evil in the set of acts.

Catholic ethics can be subtle and complex and difficult.

In the end the Pope is not condoning any sin.
This is my last post here. I cant make everyone see the truth of what the Pope said.

Edited November 26, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

I had to edit my above post a couple of times, so it may not have made sense for the past ten minutes.

I think I have gotten to caught up in all of this.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1290741062' post='2189330']
it's a technical botomline when we say 'it's open to life as a matter of intention ut condoms are not'. as a matter of intention, NFP is said to e more effective than contraceptives, and a person can use condoms with sensitivity to not objecifying people.... what's the difference? a technical matter of intention that doesn't amount to anything as a practical matter, and maybe a natural way of regulating the sexual cycle?
[/quote]
The difference is a matter of how it works. A condom seeks to thwart the man's fertility and to thwart true unity (doesn't matter if it's effective or not, that is what it's used for). NFP does not seek to thwart the couple's fertility or unity. Can it be used selfishly? I'm sure it can, and that wouldn't be right, either.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290746679' post='2189343']
the problem with this interpretation is that the Pope was merely commenting on the intention of the person, not the means of the act, the nature of the deliberately chosen act or the overall act. There might be something good in the intention, even though the nature of the act and overall intention is immoral, so he is clearly not condoning a sin.

The person might have a good intended end of preventing the transmission of disease, but this good intended end must have a good intended means for the overall act to be moral. The intended means is a contraceptive act, which is immoral, therefore the whole intention is not good, but there is in part some goodness in the intention, even though the overal intent is evil. And this goodness might spark a conversion.

Like you implied a person cannot intend evil for the sake of evil. An immoral intention is always directed at an end which is a lesser good in contradiction to a greater good, or an apparent good. So the prostitue who intends the end of preventing disease is intending a real tangible good in the midst of intending the immoral means of a contraceptive act. The intented end and means of the preventing of the transmission of disease is part of a set of acts which are also immoral, selling sex for money.

Making money off of sex is of course an evil intented end, with an evil intended means. Using a condom is an evil intended means however the intended end of preventing transmission remains good without changing the nature intrinsically evil act of contracepted act as a means, and without changing the essential nature of the next intrinsically evil act which is the selling of sex.

And the good consequence of preventing the transmission of the disease remains good, and the good consequence of making money remains good in spite of the evil consequences in the overal act and set of acts which outweigh these two good consequences. And even though the two intended means are evil, and the two overall intentions are evil. What is good remains good, what is evil remains evil in the set of acts.

Catholic ethics can be subtle and complex and difficult.

In the end the Pope is not condoning any sin.
This is my last post here. I cant make everyone see the truth of what the Pope said.
[/quote]

Kafka, No need to get too worked up over all this - I think you did a good job explaining it. And your explanation seems to be correct.

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290794826' post='2189387']
Kafka, No need to get too worked up over all this - I think you did a good job explaining it. And your explanation seems to be correct.
[/quote]
yes you were right, I was getting worked up last night. Am better now.

Hopefully some good will come of this: more Magisterial teachings against contraception, more Magisterial teaching on Catholic sexual ethics, more Catholics getting interested in Catholic ethics, more wisdom, more refinement of thought, etc.

Edited November 27, 2010 by kafka

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290746200' post='2189342']
Well, next time you are discussing condom use with a prostitute, you can ask that person and see which mindset is in the forefront.
[/quote]

I don't think that's ever going to happen... But I do know that the "sexual revolution" really took off once birth control became more available and popular. So I would assume that contraception and condoms might lead to more prostitution -- rather than just 'safer' prostitution.

And I'm not really really dumb, but I'm not super smart either, and when I first heard the comments made by the Pope I thought that he was condoning the use of condoms. But after a lot of thought -- and reading a lot of posts -- I can see another point of view. However I think that most people are like me and their impression was that the Pope was condoning condom use. Perhaps he needs to remember that a lot of us are not all that smart and we can take things the wrong way if he's not careful.

Edited November 27, 2010 by southern california guy

[kafka]

here is one more good article from catholicculture.org explaining the origin of the controversy:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

quotes:

"Then, incredibly, the Vatican’s own newspaper violated the embargo [journalistic emargo for those who received the book in advance for review/promotion]. Betraying the publishers and breaking trust with all the other journalists who were fulfilling their promises, L’Osservatore Romano reproduced a passage from the Pope’s interview. And not just any passage. The Vatican newspaper reproduced—without explanation or comment—a passage in which Pope Benedict reflected on the possibility that in some extreme cases, the impulse to use a condom might show a flickering of unselfishness in a seriously corrupted conscience."


"Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign."

[kafka]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1290823808' post='2189455']
Perhaps he needs to remember that a lot of us are not all that smart and we can take things the wrong way if he's not careful.
[/quote]
he never could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of his extemporaneous remarks taken out of context, the fabrication of a controversy, etc. Plus what he said was true, so he isnt responsible for people distorting his words, manufacturing controversies, spreading false doctrines, etc. And he is not responsible for personal human ignorance, and the weakness of people placing their trust in secular mass media.

He has throughout his life selflessly and successfully devoted himself to teaching the Faith.

Edited November 27, 2010 by kafka