Sex Ed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so how much, if any, does the pope's new teaching on contraception change the approach for most 'good catholics' regarding contraception and sex education?

the old mindset of most catholics. 'this mindset is wrong: 'if you're gonna do it, at least be safe' so we're not going to teach it'. but doesn't the popes teaching open up this as a possibility now? it's the lesser of all evils- arguably what the pope himself said, 'if you're gonna do i at least be safe'. at least, if one doesnt say it shoudl apply to all premarital sex, shoudn't it at least apply when the person's motivations are to prevent STDs? or, at the very least, shouldn't it apply when the people know they one of them have AIDS or some sort of deadly or STD? (and do only STDs that are deadly count... and do you have to know they're STDs?)

under what circumstances should the pope's teaching change the approach of most 'good catholics' now regarding 'if you're gonna do it, at least be safe'' that currently exists?

notice the specific questions... 'how much is changed' and 'in what circumstances should this apply to our own country and cultural issues'.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Where do you get off saying its a new teaching? TO me it's more a speculation on the mindset of the people committing the sins and are they headed back toward God. I hardly think the Church is going to start passing out pills and condoms or approve of such actions for those who are going to do it anyway.

Further I don't see this as going in to any catechism anywhere. My guess is he got sucked in to throwing the press a bone.

Edited November 24, 2010 by thessalonian

[Archaeology cat]

Yeah, not a new teaching, and shouldn't change sex ed.

[thessalonian]

Janet Smith does a better job of explaining what I have tried to point out to you.

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. [EMPHASIS ADDED]


This was an interview where he was speculating. No way can it be called a new teaching.

[1catholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1290622587' post='2189050']
so how much, if any, does the pope's new teaching on contraception change the approach for most 'good catholics' regarding contraception and sex education?

the old mindset of most catholics. 'this mindset is wrong: 'if you're gonna do it, at least be safe' so we're not going to teach it'. but doesn't the popes teaching open up this as a possibility now? it's the lesser of all evils- arguably what the pope himself said, 'if you're gonna do i at least be safe'. at least, if one doesnt say it shoudl apply to all premarital sex, shoudn't it at least apply when the person's motivations are to prevent STDs? or, at the very least, shouldn't it apply when the people know they one of them have AIDS or some sort of deadly or STD? (and do only STDs that are deadly count... and do you have to know they're STDs?)

under what circumstances should the pope's teaching change the approach of most 'good catholics' now regarding 'if you're gonna do it, at least be safe'' that currently exists?

notice the specific questions... 'how much is changed' and 'in what circumstances should this apply to our own country and cultural issues'.
[/quote]



If you are angry at someone, decide not to kill them b.c this is going to far, and wreck their car instead, you are beginning to recognize that human life has dignity but you still aren't doing the good thing, nor should kids be taught to take their anger out on other ppls cars b/c they are bound to get angry and we don't want them killing

[dairygirl4u2c]

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. [EMPHASIS ADDED]

this could be said about my initial post too, though. insert the above in regards to the sex ed stuff.
perhaps one shouldn't go so far as to start handing out condoms or whatever. but it's still officially hedging.
it's the sort of hedging that even catholic parents would do, sure. 'don't do it. but if you're going to... yknow. hedge hedge hedge'. i suppose one might try to down play the quote as him just philoophizing about the culpabilty and the bigger picture, and not condoning or even hedging the use as a lesser evil. but that doesn't seem to be his gist, especially given his comments from hte follow up interviews. it seems more like, at best, 'hedge hedge hedge'. i'll grant that perhaps it's not more than that, so as to say 'if you're going to at least do X', but it's at best doing the hedging that even many good catholics would say is wrong.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, to clarify, i'm not saying it's a 'new teaching' in terms of a contradiction. i'm saying it's a development, proper even perhaps. one could say it's just philohpsizing as i said in my last post, but that doesn't seem to the be case. it seems mostly a development.

[MithLuin]

No. The pope was not saying, 'if you're going to be a prostitute, at least use condoms.'

The pope said that, in a case where a prostitute uses a condom to protect the other person from infection, there is an indication that the prostitute cares about the life of someone else and is starting to see some glimmer of humanity in that person. And that this may be a step away from a life of prostitution.

The pope was considering a situation where people have made a sinful choice, but are starting to see the light.

Sex ed is meant to [i]be[/i] the light.

[dairygirl4u2c]

For more information on the book, please visit the book’s website: www.LightoftheWorldbook.com, or to read commentary on the book by various experts, visit http://lightoftheworldbook.blogspot.com/.

http://eva-news.com/books/religion/popes-new-book-available-now-contraception-and-homosexuality-views-revealed/2386403/

[TeresaBenedicta]

Seriously. Read the Pope's statements. He's pretty clear.

Pope Benedict doesn't even begin to make a moral statement until he says that the use of condoms is "[b]not[/b] a moral or real solution."

His comments on the prostitute using a condom was nothing but an observation. An observation that, during an objectively evil act, the use of a condom may be an indicator of the beginning of some sort of moral awareness. There is no difference in act between a person who commits an evil act with an evil intention and a person who commits an evil act with a good intention (because intention doesn't change the morality of an act). BUT the person who committed an evil act with a good intention shows more signs of moral awareness than does the person with an evil intention. Both still committed immoral and evil acts. But with one we can observe a more of a likeliness of, and perhaps even the first step toward moral conversion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Actually, the Bishop of Rome didn't say anything about condoms being a "lesser evil" at all. He stated that "there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this [using a condom] 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. [b]But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. [/b]That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality"

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/11/24/abc-cbs-inaccurately-report-popes-condom-remarks-change-policy#ixzz16G0hZ6KJ[/quote]


HARRIS: In chapter 11 of 'Light of the World,' a new book based on interviews with Pope Benedict, the pontiff says condom use by people, like male prostitutes, is a lesser evil, if it would protect their partners from getting a deadly infection like AIDS. Today, his spokesman said he had personally asked the Pope if he meant just men, and the Pope told him, no, he meant women, too, even if it means preventing a possible pregnancy.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/11/24/abc-cbs-inaccurately-report-popes-condom-remarks-change-policy#ixzz16G1Yyr2w



As for papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi's remarks on the issue, which he gave during a Tuesday press conference at the Vatican, the Catholic News Agency reported that 'he told the press conference that while the Pope had used the example of a male prostitute using condoms, the point could apply to men, women, and even transsexuals engaged in prostitution. 'Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point,' Fr. Lombardi said. 'The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person.'" Father Lombardi was trying to echo what the Pope said earlier in the interview, though CNA also quoted from leading U.S. Catholic theologian Dr. John Haas, who pointed out that Fr. Lombardi may have inadvertently caused further confusion with his answer.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/11/24/abc-cbs-inaccurately-report-popes-condom-remarks-change-policy#ixzz16G1jmSul

Edited November 25, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

"is a lesser evil,"

Dairy, you need to read more. Maybe you should join the press. The article you sight refutes the putting of these words in the Pope's mouth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am aware that it was helping the catholic argument. i was just stating it to state it for what it is, the truth of the situation.
i bolded the part that i did, because i wanted to draw attention to it. there's debateable ways to deconstruct many things that the pope said, but that quoted letter is key. the tone sounds like 'if you're goinngo to do it, at least...'. not necessarily.
with that said, i admit all the badly cited press articles skewed my understanding... but it's still a reasonable interpretation of what the pope said. that's probably why the media is acting as it is, even if it's exaggerating it all.
and, with that said, it's also telling that so many catholics here never cited what the pope said, and i assume they just on faith took it that people must be skewing what the pope said... not much better than i was doing given what the press articles presented as a burden to be overcome. what i read seemed pretty reasonable to put the burden on catholics, i wuldnt argue if you said it's on me making the accusations, but. as far as just 'taking things with so little' im def not the only one... not that that makes it right, it's just that we should all keep an attitude of seeking truth.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I think the statement that condoms are "not a moral solution" is pretty self-explaining... Not moral. That means immoral.

[Brother Adam]

No one in their right mind can read anything more into the Holy Fathers words than orthodox teaching. He maintains the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years. If that comes as a surprise to the media or anyone else, it just means they need to learn what it is that the Church teaches.