Pope Benedict on condoms in "Light of the World"

Jester Minute

Web exclusive

What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?

By Dr. Janet E. Smith

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

GO READ IT! Then come back and discuss it.

The book will be published very soon. Mine is on pre-order at Amazon!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-World-Church-Signs-Times/dp/1860827098/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290312512&sr=8-1

-

chucken1

{snip}

Post deleted as it made little sense and appeared to make an extremely scurillous accusation with no supporting evidence.

Maybe the poster might want to think again and express his/her thoughts a bit more coherently.

Festus

While I have yet to read to book I have read the reports in the news media on what the Pope says about condoms. There is no controversy there and essentially there is nothing fundamentally new.
What he appears to be saying is nothing more than what has probably been said in confessionals all over the world since HIV and AIDS became an issue.

What is disturbing, though expected, is the way various "Catholic" reform groups and "pro-homosexual" or "pro-sexual-liberalisation" groups are already mis-interpreting what the Pope has said to bolster and support their own agendas while skipping the spiritually relevant parts.

alex73

Nothing at all in the Churchs teaching has changed. The churchs teaching on contraception remains the same.

What the church is doing is stating the obvious, if a person with aids is not capable of restraining themselves then they must us a comdon to avoid a greater sin of passing aids to another person. Using a condom being the lesser of 2 evils.

Problem is the media has blown the whole thing out of proportion and out of context.

Churchs texting on using conceptives has not changed.

What the Pope is saying is, if you are going to Sin, then don't do a greater sin of passing you infection to others.

Manach

For myself, I'll adopt a cautious wait and see approach, reading the Pope's book (as linked by Jester) prior to commenting OT - Pity its not on Kindle.

Jester Minute

Manach wrote: »

For myself, I'll adopt a cautious wait and see approach, reading the Pope's book (as linked by Jester) prior to commenting OT - Pity its not on Kindle.

If you want it on Kindle, let the publisher know by clicking on this link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/digital/fiona/detail/request-kindle-edition/ref=dtp_dp_su_1860827098?ie=UTF8&a=1860827098

I read an analogy of what the Pope meant. If you are a terrorist intent on blowing up Belfast city centre, you might go ahead and do it without warning. That would be gravely immoral. However, after a couple of bombings, you have a change of heart. You are still intent on terrorism, but in future, you resolve to phone through warnings to the PSNI. Whilst still gravely immoral, your decision to give warnings in advance signals some change, some realisation that not everything is acceptable. Whilst still gravely immoral, your decision is a step towards a more humane approach. Of course, the authentic approach is to give up the bombs, but if the person is intent on doing evil, then warnings would seem to be appropriate.

Likewise, the decision for a man to engage in sexual activity with another man knowing full well that he has AIDS and risks infecting the other person is gravely immoral. However, if one decided to use a condom to try to protect the other person, whilst still gravely immoral, it is a step on the way to realising that not everything is acceptable. It is a small step in the right direction. The better step would be to live a chaste life.

It is important to note that the Pope did not say condoms were OK, in fact he said they were not a moral means to resolve the AIDS issue. He has been misinterpreted and misquoted, but this is a big mess as all the mainstream media outlets have reported that the Church has changed its stance and condoms are now OK. I look forward to reading his comments in full and in context.

Some context is provided here in this book excerpt:
http://catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:pope-benedict-xvi-discusses-condoms-and-the-spread-of-hiv&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

Fr Z has some comment here:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-pope-did-not-endorse-the-use-of-condoms/

alex73

Exactly Jester Minute,

The Pope said the word condom and the worlds media rushs to let everyone know the teaching has changed. Nothing has changed, but that is the media for you.

Festus

Jester Minute wrote: »

It is important to note that the Pope did not say condoms were OK, in fact he said they were not a moral means to resolve the AIDS issue. He has been misinterpreted and misquoted, but this is a big mess as all the mainstream media outlets have reported that the Church has changed its stance and condoms are now OK. I look forward to reading his comments in full and in context.

Hopefully it will lead to some interesting water cooler and coffee break moments.

Even though the book is not yet published to use this as a way out of a discussion is not a defence. The Church has not changed her position and she is not condoning condom use as you and alex have said, and if engaged we must make sure that is clear.

Jester Minute

At the end of chapter ten [note: in the English edition, chapter eleven] of the book Light of the World, the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of condoms, questions which refer back to the discussons which followed some words spoken by the pope on the subject in the course of his trip to Africa in 2009.

The pope clearly reaffirms that he had not meant [in 2009] to take a position on the problem of condoms in general, but simply wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more has to be done: prevention, education, help, council, and staying close to the people – both so they don’t become sick, but also when they are sick.

The pope observed that even in non-ecclesial environments, there’s a similar awareness, such as that of the so-called “ABC” approach (abstinence – be faithful – condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are far more determinative and fundamental for the struggle against AIDS. Meanwhile the condom, in the final analysis, seems like a shortcut when the other two elements are missing. It must be clear, therefore, that condoms are not the solution to the problem.

The pope then broadens the focus, insisting that to concentrate solely on condoms is tantamount to making sexuality into something banal, losing its meaning as an expression of love between persons, and turning it into a sort of “drug.” Struggling against the banalization of sexuality is “part of a great effort to see that sexuality is positively understood, and can exercise its positive effect on the human person in his or her totality.”

In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality, and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that “naturally the church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

Thus the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by placing it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.

In that sense, the reasoning of the pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift. Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions. Nevertheless, it’s true that until now they have not been heard with such clarity from the mouth of the pope, even if it’s in a colloquial rather than magisterial form.

Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution of clarification and deepening on a question that has long been debated. It’s an original contribution, because on the one hand it remains faithful to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in rejecting “faith in condoms” as an illusory path; on the other hand, it shows a comprehensive and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering the small steps – even if they’re only initial and still confused – of a humanity often spiritually and culturally impoverished, towards a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.

Translation by NCROnline (dissenting 'Catholic' newspaper).

Jester Minute

The Pope in his own words
In an extraordinarily candid interview with Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI discusses the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church, papal fallibility, the saints he calls friends, and a fondness for old films

What was going through your head in the so-called Room of Tears [the small red room in the Vatican next to the Sistine Chapel where the elected pope dons his cassock for the first time], where so many new pontiffs are said to have broken down? Does one wonder: why me? What does God want of me?

Actually, at that moment, one is first of all occupied by very practical, external things. One has to deal with the robes and such. Moreover, I knew that very soon I would have to say a few words out on the balcony, and I began to think about what I could say. Besides, even at the moment when it hit me, all I was able to say to the Lord was simply: “What are you doing with me? Now the responsibility is yours. You must lead me! I can’t do it. If you wanted me, then you must also help me!” In this sense, I stood, let us say, in an urgent dialogue relationship with the Lord: if he does the one thing, he must also do the other.

More excerpts here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8148975/The-Pope-in-his-own-words.html

Festus

Found this slight more balanced take on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319

In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."
For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope's interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.
Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a "revolution," who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.

Dewdropdeb

More excerpts from the Pope's book here: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12590

He mentions the Irish crisis too. Can't wait to read the whole thing.

Festus

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

More excerpts from the Pope's book here: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12590

He mentions the Irish crisis too. Can't wait to read the whole thing.

indeed

It is bad enough when public opinion polls become the criterion of political decisions and when politicians are more preoccupied with “How do I get more votes?” than with “What is right?”

Dewdropdeb

Festus wrote: »

indeed

lollol... nicely done!

Blueboyd

This old text is an interesting read too

Especially the comments of the local people.

Makes one understand that it is a completely different world out there in Africa

Jester Minute

Remembering that this thread is about the Pope's Book and his comments on condoms, I think this is interesting for those still interested in sound coverage:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/fr-fessio-on-what-pope-benedict-really-said-useful-analogy-alert/

Fr Fessio wrote:

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said.

Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging.

The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

ISAW

alex73 wrote: »

What the church is doing is stating the obvious, if a person with aids is not capable of restraining themselves then they must us a comdon to avoid a greater sin of passing aids to another person. Using a condom being the lesser of 2 evils.

I disagree. That is your interpretation. I don't think it is church teaching. Two wrongs can not make a right. One can not do a "lesser evil" so that good may come of it!
That is the church position as far as I know.

One then hads to consider context.

for example does the church think guns are evil? -NO!
Does it think silencers on guns are evil? -NO

doe sit preach that one should not use a gun to kill people ? -YES!

Does it preach that if you are going to kill someone anyway that it is a lesser evil to use a silencer? -NO

At the same token the church does not say guns or silencers should never exist or never be used against people to kill them. there are circumstances where violence might be justified. But the problem with guns is one of greed and abuse and isn't solved by saying "use a silencer" . That has not changed.

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

Does it preach that if you are going to kill someone anyway that it is a lesser evil to use a silencer? -NO

I think the analogy is closer to it is wrong to kill people, whether you use guns or anything else, but if use guns and you use a silencer to protect your ears and that of your victim such that should they not die then at least neither is a risk of being deafened then the use of the silencer is a step in the right direction towards realising that killing people is wrong

Jester Minute

Originally Posted by alex73
What the church is doing is stating the obvious, if a person with aids is not capable of restraining themselves then they must us a comdon to avoid a greater sin of passing aids to another person. Using a condom being the lesser of 2 evils.

No, that is not what Pope Benedict said during his sit-down interview with a journalist (which is not a Magisterial action, by the way).

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter”, which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “ [eine] Prostituierte”, which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete”, and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] 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” (italics mine).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified”. That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

-- http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/23/guestview-did-the-pope-%E2%80%9Cjustify%E2%80%9D-condom-use-in-some-circumstances/

A similar analogy is that of padded pipes. imagine the headlines:

“Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging”

There is no change in the Church teachings, not only because an interview with a journalist is not a Magisterial act, but that nothing of what Benedict said contradicts or changes any Church teaching.

The lesser of two evils argument is irrelevant to this condom-AIDS thing.

Note Fr Fessio again:

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified”. That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

Jester Minute

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/so-what-exactly-did-pope-say-about-condoms

The problem line in their article:

On the subject of condoms the Pope says that in certain cases a condom can be used where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease such as HIV/AIDS and not to prevent pregnancy.

That is not what the Pope said.

So, they can't even get that much right. How disappointing, considering how we have posted about the issue here. We got it right, how come they get it wrong?

Festus

Jester Minute wrote: »

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/so-what-exactly-did-pope-say-about-condoms

The problem line in their article:


That is not what the Pope said.

So, they can't even get that much right. How disappointing, considering how we have posted about the issue here. We got it right, how come they get it wrong?

maybe someone on their staff is an American Catholic or has an agenda ?

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/so-what-exactly-did-pope-say-about-condoms

The problem line in their article:


That is not what the Pope said.

So, they can't even get that much right. How disappointing, considering how we have posted about the issue here. We got it right, how come they get it wrong?

I'm getting nowhere trying to figure out what the pope said/you say he said. That may be entirely my fault. So can you spell it out as simply as possible?

It sounded like it was a sin to have homosexual sex, and a further sin to infect your partner with HIV, so if one used a condom one was committing only one sin, not two. The decision to do so would then represent a start on the way back to morality.

_________________________________________________________________
John 8:10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm getting nowhere trying to figure out what the pope said/you say he said. That may be entirely my fault. So can you spell it out as simply as possible?

It sounded like it was a sin to have homosexual sex, and a further sin to infect your partner with HIV, so if one used a condom one was committing only one sin, not two. The decision to do so would then represent a start on the way back to morality.

_________________________________________________________________
John 8:10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Best explanation is from Fr Fessio or Dr Janet Smith above.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

Best explanation is from Fr Fessio or Dr Janet Smith above.

So I got it right, then?

If so, would that not apply to heterosexual acts where one risks passing on an infection? If one has contracted HIV, hepatitis, herpes or any VD, innocently or not, the right thing to do is:
A. If unmarried, abstain from sex.
B. If married, use a condom.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, use a condom.

Any problems with the above?
_________________________________________________________________
Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Jester Minute

"Holiness, in the current media environment, would you not think a book like this is a huge risk?"

Apparently, Lombardi's concern was met with the "knowing smile of a Pope who knew what he was doing"; he knew that his words could be misinterpreted and that he was going to talk about condoms anyway. Beltramo feels that the great value of the Light of the World is its humanity and candour, and that nobody needs to worry about danger to the papal magisterium because Pope Benedict has given the Church a particular gift, that of affirming that Popes have an opinion outside of the magisterial office and that in such matters they can be wrong.

More here: http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/11/molotov-cocktail-of-planetary-magnitude.html

There is fascinating comment and insight there!

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

So I got it right, then?

If so, would that not apply to heterosexual acts where one risks passing on an infection? If one has contracted HIV, hepatitis, herpes or any VD, innocently or not, the right thing to do is:
A. If unmarried, abstain from sex.
B. If married, use a condom.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, use a condom.

Any problems with the above?

The Pope confirmed that his condom comments could be applied to male, female, transgender - whatever.

What he didn't do was OK condoms under any circumstances. All he said was, that the decision to use a condom might indicate some moral awakening that one couldn't just do whatever one wanted. However, the Pope said condoms were neither a real nor effective solution to the problem. All he was really talking about was the intention of the person to reduce harm to another person.

Again, the best analogy is Fr Fessio's padded pipes analogy:

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said.

Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging.

The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Jester Minute

Not a bad article from the Irish Times. Makes a pleasant change.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1124/1224284027315.html

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

The Pope confirmed that his condom comments could be applied to male, female, transgender - whatever.

What he didn't do was OK condoms under any circumstances. All he said was, that the decision to use a condom might indicate some moral awakening that one couldn't just do whatever one wanted. However, the Pope said condoms were neither a real nor effective solution to the problem. All he was really talking about was the intention of the person to reduce harm to another person.

Again, the best analogy is Fr Fessio's padded pipes analogy:

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said.

Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging.

The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Yes, that's what I gathered. But just to make sure, are my conclusions correct?
If one has contracted HIV, hepatitis, herpes or any VD, innocently or not, the right thing to do is:
A. If unmarried, abstain from sex.
B. If married, use a condom.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, use a condom.


_________________________________________________________________
Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Jester Minute

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that's what I gathered. But just to make sure, are my conclusions correct?
If one has contracted HIV, hepatitis, herpes or any VD, innocently or not, the right thing to do is:
A. If unmarried, abstain from sex.
B. If married, use a condom.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, use a condom.

No. Let's set out the orthodox Catholic conclusion in the case of those infected with AIDS:

A. If unmarried, abstain.
B. If married, abstain.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, do what you will. (the Devil's moto). Condoms may hhelp to prevent the spread of disease, but as the Pope said, they are neither a real nor moral solution to the problem of AIDS.

The big uproar among faithful Catholics is this: the Church is in the business of saving souls. The Church is not in the business of advising sinners on how to sin in a more socially aware fashion. That is the work of social workers. The Catholic Church cannot advise people how to sin or how to engage in illicit and dangerous sexual activity. If people want to sin, they will sin, and as the Pope says, they will get condoms anyway. It is not for the Church to be handing out condoms. That is not appropriate, although some agencies are doing exactly that.

Here is some critical commentary of what the Pope said:

http://www.cfnews.org/b16bombshell.htm

Jester Minute

More interesting articles on this kerfuffle:

The Pope and Prophylactics
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1130-the-pope-and-prophylactics.htm

The Pope as Conversationalist
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1130-ferrara-pope-conversationalist.htm

g5fd6ow0hseima

As a matter of interest, would any of you posters actually view the pope as a moral authority?

Jester Minute

Gunner Better Temperance wrote: »

As a matter of interest, would any of you posters actually view the pope as a moral authority?

Yeah, he is the Vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter.

Whilst what he said is not problematic as regards Catholic faith and morals, many Catholics are upset at the confusion that has been caused as a result of the Pope's comments in his book.

I've had to set several Catholics straight, because they had been misled by the MSM coverage. In a way, I don't blame the media, because, apart from any opposition to the Church and her teachings, the point the Pope was trying to make was quite complex and therefore lost on most people, including most Catholics.

Jester Minute

I have a soft spot for the Society of St. Pius X. I think they make a lot of good points. I look forward to the day when they are regularised and when SSPX priests sit on parish and diocesan councils...

So here are some interesting comments from the SSPX on the Pope's comments:

As opposed to a weaning process that would lead from a sin that is “more mortal” to one that is “less mortal”, evangelical teaching clearly affirms: “Go and now sin no more” (John 8:11) and not “go and sin less”.

Go and read the whole article here (it is not long):
http://www.dici.org/en/news/note-on-the-remarks-of-benedict-xvi-concerning-condom-use/

There is also an interesting article here:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/12/critics-and-criticisms-of-benedict-xvi-and-his-condom-comments/

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

No. Let's set out the orthodox Catholic conclusion in the case of those infected with AIDS:

A. If unmarried, abstain.
B. If married, abstain.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, do what you will. (the Devil's moto). Condoms may hhelp to prevent the spread of disease, but as the Pope said, they are neither a real nor moral solution to the problem of AIDS.

The big uproar among faithful Catholics is this: the Church is in the business of saving souls. The Church is not in the business of advising sinners on how to sin in a more socially aware fashion. That is the work of social workers. The Catholic Church cannot advise people how to sin or how to engage in illicit and dangerous sexual activity. If people want to sin, they will sin, and as the Pope says, they will get condoms anyway. It is not for the Church to be handing out condoms. That is not appropriate, although some agencies are doing exactly that.

Here is some critical commentary of what the Pope said:

http://www.cfnews.org/b16bombshell.htm

That clarifies it well. The RC teaching is that condoms cannot be used in any sexually moral way.

It's always good to get a straight answer. Thank you.:)
_________________________________________________________________
Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Jester Minute

In case that didn't work, watch the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO-PasgkeP0

amz5

Give a listen to Fr. Shay Cullen's opinion about condom use and his reaction to the Pope's announcement (founder of PREDA). Fr Shay is an Irish priest who founded an organisation which frees children from abuse in the Philippines.


http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/ (scroll to interview with Fr Shay)

Jester Minute

(CatholicCulture.org)

Pope Benedict’s remarks in Light of the World do not represent a change in the Church’s teaching regarding the use of condoms, the Vatican has confirmed.

A December 21 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) warns against “a number of erroneous interpretations” that have arisen from the Pope’s words. The statement charges that “the thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated.”

“In reality, the words of the Pope-– which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119)-– do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church,” the CDF says.

The statement notes that in the passage that has provoked a worldwide controversy, the Pontiff “was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception.” Therefore, the CDF reasons: “The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.”

Full article and a link to the CDF statement: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8658