Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Pope's condom revolution


As His Grace foretold, the 'clarification' on condom usage is being further clarified, and the Thomist doctrine of the 'lesser evil' is seeping through the chinks in the hitherto impregnable wall of Humanae Vitae.

The Vatican's spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has said that the Pope intended that the change of policy should apply to anybody with HIV/Aids, on the basis that preventing another person from being infected was the lesser of two evils, even it meant averting a possible pregnancy.

Did you get that?

"...even it meant averting a possible pregnancy."

Fr Lombardi's precise words: "I personally asked the Pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine. 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 woman, a man, or a transsexual. We're at the same point."

Did you get that?

The gender is immaterial.

Now then.

His Grace would like to know why the only STI apparently covered by this compassionate provision is HIV/AIDS?

Why may one not wear a condom to avoid infecting someone with chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, viral hepatitis, herpes...?

In Africa, one may not conveniently pop along to one's GP for a dose of antibiotics: STIs which may be relatively benign in the West can undoubtedly be fatal in other parts of the world.

It may take a while for that one to seep through.

But let us consider further.

Fr Lombardi has reiterated Pope Benedict's comments that the motive is to save life.

If the death which would ensue from unprotected sexual intercourse is an aborted baby, why may one not use a condom to avoid the manifestly greater evil of abortion?

It may take quite a few decades for that one to seep through.

Unless we have a few more rational, intelligent, compassionate popes like Benedict XVI.

35 Comments:

Blogger Bryan D said...

I think I need a clarification on papism.

23 November 2010 at 18:59  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Perceptive comments, Cranny.

23 November 2010 at 19:14  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Benedict is perhaps conscious of the fate of the last Pope who wanted to introduce wholesale, unambiguous birth-control measures!

Pope John-Paul, the First, died after only thirty-three days into his Pontificate, in 1978.

Not only did he wish to ease the burden upon the poor by restricting child-birth, but he also wanted to redistribute some of the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church, towards the poor.
Not everyone agreed!

It is interesting to note, that at that time, the Vatican held strong financial interests in certain pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the birth-control pill.

One wonders if they still do; or have they now moved into the manufacture of condoms too?

Either way, it has to be of some improvement, regardless of ambiguity.

23 November 2010 at 19:24  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Your Grace,

Are you able to offer a link to a Vatican source, as opposed to second hand sources, for this quote from Lombardi?

His formal statement is here:
http://www.zenit.org/article-31024?l=english. I know that's not original either but short of time and this is reliable.

Note it does not include the words you quote, which are clearly a poor reflection of the Pope's actual words - in fact, rather miss the point.

There is a lot of misinformation swimming around right now. Even the Lombardi official statement seems to go further than the Pope's actual words would justify. Important to get it right, I feel.

This seems pretty sound:

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

Sorry, I don't know how to do those clever link thingees.

In haste.

23 November 2010 at 19:26  
Blogger Jakian Thomist said...

Your Grace,

Alas, Pope Benedict has not provided any "compassionate provision". He has merely restated the age-old truth (by a provocative example certainly)that not all harms are equal... and how our responses should recognise that fact.

You are indeed correct to state that other STIs are as lifethreatening as AIDS in poorer countries... although your question would only stand on your assumption that Pope Benedict was adopting a "compassionate provision"...

To answer your pressing question:
"If the death which would ensue from unprotected sexual intercourse is an aborted baby, why may one not use a condom to avoid the manifestly greater evil of abortion?"

It's based on a Non-sequitur - abortion is not a direct consequence of pregnancy, there is a choice to be made there...or is the choice a foregone conclusion in Cranmer's eyes?? Is this the official Anglican view...?

23 November 2010 at 19:35  
Anonymous philip walling said...

I agree with Mr Jakian Thomist,

Your comment about abortion following sexual intercourse without a condom is illogical. The direct consequence of pregnancy is the birth of a baby, surely, not the contraction of a disease?

23 November 2010 at 20:15  
Anonymous len said...

"If the death which would ensue from unprotected sexual intercourse is an aborted baby, why may one not use a condom to avoid the manifestly greater evil of abortion?"

Indeed ,why not! If the reason of using condoms is to prevent unnecessary deaths.
How many thousands of deaths by abortion could be prevented?

Seems the pope is playing God with peoples lives?

23 November 2010 at 20:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is pure fantasy, Oswin, to think John Paul I would have changed the teaching of Humanae Vitae. If you were to read his Opera Omnia and not Yallop, Gregoire, and other fiction authors of their sort, you'd realize that.

This blog, meanwhile, totally misunderstands the present pope as do all the worldly. He is not counselling a lesser evil to be practiced, but stating something speculatively -and not as Pope but in a private opinion. This is not a statement ofthe Magisterium.

But, the Anglican Church was born of sexual immortality, so naturally its children (to be kind) will want to extend the use of condoms.

Thus, to avoid confusion,
the pope's private opinion is that it if someone with HIV decides to engage in a fornication, adultery, or sodomy (NB the Pope did not speak of marital relations!), a use of a condom to prevent the other from contracting the DEADLY (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, viral hepatitis, herpes... not being deadly were not mentioned) disease, may indicate a growing moral awareness in the lustful person. Perhaps such moral awareness will develop whereby the same will realize there is no fulfillment in sexual sin and even the slightest risk of transmitting a deadly disease (since condoms do fail) is to be avoided.

In any case, the best defense against sexually transmitted disease is Christian chastity and abstinence. But, the worldly have little tolerance for Christ's teaching on sexual morality.

-Bruce T.

23 November 2010 at 20:23  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The synod address seems all too conciliatory , how indeed is it that we can read the same scripture and go off and do different things ? The church used to know what it was about , it could ask the right questions about culture , poltics even religion . Now what , further questions on vaugue matters that do not help serve the people any further .
Christian scholars used to be the very stones of the church , now it seems they are transforming into lefty university campus , anyone fancy a bit of contempory theology , should perhaps replace the sunday notice boards "10am sunday modern chat and discourse , communion available for those still practising any faith!"

So we are looking at a church becomming fragmentory in the indegestion of liberal interpretations ?

Then along comes his holiness and hes had a re think (right in some ways ) about the use of condoms .
Of course the poor and suffering may indeed be found in countries suffering aids epidemics , perhaps it is a form of ministry , perhaps more lives can be changed with these more modern words in outreach .

If the synod cannot shake off the slumber of the cultural destruction going off , if it cannot see it is distinct and valuable , rather than the melting pot currently underway , we too may have choose the lesser of two evils , a naval gazing church of England trying to erase apostollic or the see of the rome

23 November 2010 at 20:27  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Messrs Philip and Jakian, you might try reading what Cranny acually wrote before commenting:

'If the death which would ensue from unprotected sexual intercourse is an aborted baby, why may one not use a condom to avoid the manifestly greater evil of abortion?'

Notice that: ...If...?

Cranny is positing a situation in which an unwanted baby would certainly be aborted. He is not suggesting that such is always the case. You do your position no good by misreading or misrepresenting him.

23 November 2010 at 20:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Bruce T (20:23)—the Anglican Church was born of sexual immortality

Thank you, although it must be admitted that King Henry VIII’s immortal sex drive failed him when confronted by Anne of Cleves.

23 November 2010 at 20:40  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Pope Benedict is moving on, as fast as the Vatican possibly can, from some ill-considered pronouncements by previous pontiffs. The Vatican is notoriously slow. It took 400 years of rentless pressure by the Jesuits to get them to admit that Galilieo's theological conjectures were right. (The nonsense about his astronomy was sectarian misinformation.) And who forced it through? Gosh it was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Gerard Tibercross

23 November 2010 at 22:56  
Blogger Chelliah Laity said...

Gerard, I agree with you. Heliocentrism has been solved but birth control is the modern equivalent of it.

23 November 2010 at 23:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chelliah, yes, there are parallels. After the disgraceful sentence on Galileo, the Vatican quietly backtracked on its geocentric error. It didn't take long for that gross error to be buried (although some protestants like to dig it up, wave it about, and embarrass Rome with it every now and again). Pope Benedict is trying to do the same over birth control. I can foresee a time, 400years in the future, when protestants dig up the birth control issue and wave it about to embarrass Rome.

And so I suspect can Pope Benedict.

Gerard Tibercross

23 November 2010 at 23:51  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

My above comment was clearly not intended to be anonymous.

Gerard Tibercross

23 November 2010 at 23:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His Grace would like to know why the only STI apparently covered by this compassionate provision is HIV/AIDS?"

easy, its the only one thats almost certainly going to kill you (once the funds run out to pay for all the meds) and cant be cured.


Mike (England)

23 November 2010 at 23:54  
Anonymous Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti said...

Your Grace,

You ask:

``If the death which would ensue from unprotected sexual intercourse is an aborted baby, why may one not use a condom to avoid the manifestly greater evil of abortion?"


This sets up a false dichotomy between two evils and ignores the option of abstinence.

Nor would condoms avoid the greater evil. Most women who are aborting do so after contraceptive failure. A women whose partner uses condoms for one year has a 15% chance of pregnancy. The probability rises to more than 50% over 5 years. Thus, it is the very encouragment of condoms which leads, via a false sense of security, to the manifest evil of abortion.

Full text of Pope's statements

24 November 2010 at 03:57  
Anonymous Rowan Welshie said...

So all the catholics posting on this blog are now arguing with their so called infallable Pope? This is very rich and if I may say amusing.

24 November 2010 at 07:15  
Anonymous berenike said...

No, we're not arguing with the Pope. We're trying to explain what he said to people who're apparently only interested in YES CONDOMS! or NO CONDOMS!.


If anyone's actually interested, you could try this little guest post at Reuters.

24 November 2010 at 07:37  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

What a nasty little man the Pope is.

He has allowed millions to die of Aids due to his campaign against condoms

He has ensured that millions of children have been born suffering from this dreadful infection

He has forced millions of the poor and dispossessed to live in extreme poverty because they have been forced to have large families that they cannot afford to sustain

But surprise, surprise, now he has changed his mind and we are supposed to be grateful!

Catholicism is second only to Islam in its contempt for human life and yet many here have convinced themselves that this contemptible man still has “moral” authority. Shame on you.

24 November 2010 at 08:45  
Anonymous LDS said...

YG

I hope you can pick this up, did you hear an extraordinary interview on Today 10 minutes or so ago with one Jim Wallis (?) who appears to be an Obama supporting evangelical US pastor. Wild assertions such as I think I quote "there would not be a T party if there was not a black man in the White House". Virtually unchallenged by one of the softest interviewers I have ever heard.

24 November 2010 at 08:52  
Anonymous Linus said...

A useful letter in today's Irish Times

Madam, – Confusion has been caused by one sentence taken from the Pope’s latest, book-length interview with a German journalist. This confusion was caused not by the media but by the incompetence of those entrusted with the translation of the German text into Italian. Contrary to widespread reports in the media based on the Italian translation, the Pope did not say (in the original interview) that using condoms may sometimes be justified to stop the spread of Aids (World News, November 22nd).

What did he say? After pointing out that, in the approach to dealing with Aids, the fixation on the condom implies a trivialisation of sex, against which we must fight, the Pope added (in the American translation which is an accurate rendering of the German text): “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 moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way towards 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 only really lie in a humanization of sexuality.” In Italian, the opening phrase was translated as: “Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati . . .” (“certain cases may be justified”). The term “justified” is misleading, since it means that the act (using a condom) thereby takes on a positive moral quality, which it has not got. It is still a gravely sinful act. There is no mention of using the condom to stop the spread of Aids.

The Pope goes on to affirm explicitly that this is not a real or moral solution to the problem, 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.”

All the Pope is saying is that, for an individual living a life of sexual abandon (prostitution), the use of a condom might, just might, set off a process of self-reflection in that person which might lead to a more responsible attitude to the use of his sexuality. This is not a case of “justifying” the use of a condom.

Claims that the church has changed her teaching are unfounded. – Yours, etc,

Rev Dr D VINCENT TWOMEY SVD,

Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology,

Divine Word Missionaries,

Maynooth,

Co Kildare

24 November 2010 at 09:03  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous @ 20.23

Thank you for correcting my fanciful thinking ... how silly of me! (has no desire to be poisoned, or found hanging from BlackFriars Bridge!)

24 November 2010 at 18:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

GD, you're always good for a laugh so I shall indulge. *Ahem*...

"He has allowed millions to die of Aids due to his campaign against condoms"

Your unsupported claim fails to take notice of the statistics. Let's see shall we...

http://www.unaids.org/documents/20101123_2010_HIV_Prevalence_Map_em.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

See that strange border on the South where the HIV/AIDS level shoots up? That's where Catholicism ceases to be the major religion and Protestant sects take over. Funny that isn't it? Especially since the Protestants have been allowed to use condoms for 80 years now. Perhaps your statement is based on bad theory and dogma rather than fact. The church teaches abstinence and chastity as the way to prevent HIV spread. Considering its 100% effectiveness compared to the 80% (each time) effectiveness of condoms when they are used perfectly under sterile conditions (which I admit is really easy to do in the poorest areas of Africa). Do the maths my friend; it means that condom use with an untreated (this is important because modern treatment can vastly reduce this chance) sufferer will still make you prone if you have sex just 3 times (3.11 actually). Give people free rein to have sex and tell them that condoms will protect them will have the same effect in African HIV rates as it does with Western teen pregnancy rates. Condom failure is the leading cause of teen pregnancy in this country, not unprotected sex. False sense of security leads to contempt for risk! When will the sex education lobby get this into their dogmatic heads?

"He has ensured that millions of children have been born suffering from this dreadful infection"

I assume you mean allowed rather than ensured. Otherwise it sounds a bit silly. Semantics, yes; but important ones. Actually mother to child transmission is generally preventable with treatment. The Pope has not denounced HIV treatment so your argument is invalid.

"He has forced millions of the poor and dispossessed to live in extreme poverty because they have been forced to have large families that they cannot afford to sustain"

Why YES! How dare we let poor people breed!

It's a silly mistake to think that African nations are full of stupid people. They know where babies come from and the best way of preventing it. They are not forced to have sex. You'll find that in places where there are no old age pensions, people need children to feed them when they can no longer work. This is even without mentioning that these children can work, providing much needed income. More children; more chance of being able to feed oneself. The population control lobby are mischievous and many are closet racists. Ever wonder why the first abortion clinics in the UK and US were set up in predominantly black areas? I think it's about time we stopped trying to project our insanely low birth-rate on the poor. If you want to see what happens when a country has a western birth rate and a third world mortality rate, just look to Russia. It's not a pretty statistic.

"But surprise, surprise, now he has changed his mind and we are supposed to be grateful!"

*sigh* he hasn't changed his mind. He says lesser of two evils not moral solution (he says it's neither real (practical) or moral). He's saying that, despite it being sinful, it marks a change in someone's thinking that takes into account the consequence of one's actions. The hope is that this thinking grows until that person decides that actually promiscuity is not a moral thing.

24 November 2010 at 20:14  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

GD, you're always good for a laugh so I shall indulge. *Ahem*...

"He has allowed millions to die of Aids due to his campaign against condoms"

Your unsupported claim fails to take notice of the statistics. Let's see shall we...

http://www.unaids.org/documents/20101123_2010_HIV_Prevalence_Map_em.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

See that strange border on the South where the HIV/AIDS level shoots up? That's where Catholicism ceases to be the major religion and Protestant sects take over. Funny that isn't it? Especially since the Protestants have been allowed to use condoms for 80 years now. Perhaps your statement is based on bad theory and dogma rather than fact. The church teaches abstinence and chastity as the way to prevent HIV spread. Considering its 100% effectiveness compared to the 80% (each time) effectiveness of condoms when they are used perfectly under sterile conditions (which I admit is really easy to do in the poorest areas of Africa). Do the maths my friend; it means that condom use with an untreated (this is important because modern treatment can vastly reduce this chance) sufferer will still make you prone if you have sex just 3 times (3.11 actually). Give people free rein to have sex and tell them that condoms will protect them will have the same effect in African HIV rates as it does with Western teen pregnancy rates. Condom failure is the leading cause of teen pregnancy in this country, not unprotected sex. False sense of security leads to contempt for risk! When will the sex education lobby get this into their dogmatic heads?

"He has ensured that millions of children have been born suffering from this dreadful infection"

I assume you mean allowed rather than ensured. Otherwise it sounds a bit silly. Semantics, yes; but important ones. Actually mother to child transmission is generally preventable with treatment. The Pope has not denounced HIV treatment so your argument is invalid.

"He has forced millions of the poor and dispossessed to live in extreme poverty because they have been forced to have large families that they cannot afford to sustain"

Why YES! How dare we let poor people breed!

It's a silly mistake to think that African nations are full of stupid people. They know where babies come from and the best way of preventing it. They are not forced to have sex. You'll find that in places where there are no old age pensions, people need children to feed them when they can no longer work. This is even without mentioning that these children can work, providing much needed income. More children; more chance of being able to feed oneself. The population control lobby are mischievous and many are closet racists. Ever wonder why the first abortion clinics in the UK and US were set up in predominantly black areas? I think it's about time we stopped trying to project our insanely low birth-rate on the poor. If you want to see what happens when a country has a western birth rate and a third world mortality rate, just look to Russia. It's not a pretty statistic.

"But surprise, surprise, now he has changed his mind and we are supposed to be grateful!"

*sigh* he hasn't changed his mind. He says lesser of two evils not moral solution (he says it's neither real (practical) or moral). He's saying that, despite it being sinful, it marks a change in someone's thinking that takes into account the consequence of one's actions. The hope is that this thinking grows until that person decides that actually promiscuity is not a moral thing.

24 November 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

GD, you're always good for a laugh so I shall indulge. *Ahem*...

"He has allowed millions to die of Aids due to his campaign against condoms"

Your unsupported claim fails to take notice of the statistics. Let's see shall we...

http://www.unaids.org/documents/20101123_2010_HIV_Prevalence_Map_em.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

See that strange border on the South where the HIV/AIDS level shoots up? That's where Catholicism ceases to be the major religion and Protestant sects take over. Funny that isn't it? Especially since the Protestants have been allowed to use condoms for 80 years now. Perhaps your statement is based on bad theory and dogma rather than fact. The church teaches abstinence and chastity as the way to prevent HIV spread. Considering its 100% effectiveness compared to the 80% (each time) effectiveness of condoms when they are used perfectly under sterile conditions (which I admit is really easy to do in the poorest areas of Africa). Do the maths my friend; it means that condom use with an untreated (this is important because modern treatment can vastly reduce this chance) sufferer will still make you prone if you have sex just 3 times (3.11 actually). Give people free rein to have sex and tell them that condoms will protect them will have the same effect in African HIV rates as it does with Western teen pregnancy rates. Condom failure is the leading cause of teen pregnancy in this country, not unprotected sex. False sense of security leads to contempt for risk! When will the sex education lobby get this into their dogmatic heads?

"He has ensured that millions of children have been born suffering from this dreadful infection"

I assume you mean allowed rather than ensured. Otherwise it sounds a bit silly. Semantics, yes; but important ones. Actually mother to child transmission is generally preventable with treatment. The Pope has not denounced HIV treatment so your argument is invalid.

"He has forced millions of the poor and dispossessed to live in extreme poverty because they have been forced to have large families that they cannot afford to sustain"

Why YES! How dare we let poor people breed!

It's a silly mistake to think that African nations are full of stupid people. They know where babies come from and the best way of preventing it. They are not forced to have sex. You'll find that in places where there are no old age pensions, people need children to feed them when they can no longer work. This is even without mentioning that these children can work, providing much needed income. More children; more chance of being able to feed oneself. The population control lobby are mischievous and many are closet racists. Ever wonder why the first abortion clinics in the UK and US were set up in predominantly black areas? I think it's about time we stopped trying to project our insanely low birth-rate on the poor. If you want to see what happens when a country has a western birth rate and a third world mortality rate, just look to Russia. It's not a pretty statistic.

24 November 2010 at 20:20  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

"But surprise, surprise, now he has changed his mind and we are supposed to be grateful!"

*sigh* he hasn't changed his mind. He says lesser of two evils not moral solution (he says it's neither real (practical) or moral). He's saying that, despite it being sinful, it marks a change in someone's thinking that takes into account the consequence of one's actions. The hope is that this thinking grows until that person decides that actually promiscuity is not a moral thing.

"Catholicism is second only to Islam in its contempt for human life and yet many here have convinced themselves that this contemptible man still has “moral” authority. Shame on you."

I'm sure the Thuggees agree my friend. Atheist philosophies such as nihilism and utilitarianism are far more likely to have compassion for the weak, certainly. The Catholic contempt for human life also explains their opposition to abortion and euthanasia, their charity and mission works, and their belief in the sanctity of human life.

I can understand why Dwakins refuses to argue with creationists. I wonder whether I should make the same pledge with fundamentalist atheists...

24 November 2010 at 20:21  
Anonymous Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti said...

Lakester91, Excellent post. Thank you for the links. Here are some numbers from the 2003 World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence Agency. showing HIV/AIDS rates as a function of Catholic population.

Country         Religion         % Aids Infection
Burundi         62% Catholic         6%
Angola           38% Catholic         3.9%
Ghana           63% Christian         3.1%
Uganda         33% Catholic         4.1%
Botswana       5% Catholic         37.3%
South Africa   6% Catholic         21.5%

All of this has been pointed out to GD in many previous threads. He seems unwilling, or perhaps unable, to understand the math. —More

25 November 2010 at 00:19  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Lakester91, excellent post. Interesting links.

The following table (pennance.us/?p=100) based upon data from the 2003 World Factbook of
the US Central Intelligence Agency shows HIV/AIDS rates as a function of Catholic population.

Country          Religion           % Aids Infection
Burundi          62% Catholic          6%
Angola          38% Catholic          3.9%
Ghana          15% Catholic           3.1%
Uganda           33% Catholic           4.1%
Botswana          5% Catholic          37.3%
South Africa 6% Catholic 21.5%

All of this has been pointed out to GD on many previous threads. He seems unwilling or unable to understand the math.

25 November 2010 at 00:44  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Country          Religion           % Aids Infection
Philipines       85% Catholic       0.1%
Thailand       0.6% Christians     0.8%

Despite massive promotion of condoms, the AIDS rate in Thailand is 800% higher than in the Philipines.

25 November 2010 at 01:02  
Anonymous len said...

If the 'lesser of two evils' is to use a condom to prevent aids why in Heavens name is it not ok to use a condom to prevent abortion?
Is not abortion evil?

The unborn child is the unwilling participant in the crime of abortion does the unborn child not need protection? Those participating in sexual acts are both presumably compliant and bear equal responsibility for any after effects?

28 November 2010 at 09:25  
Anonymous len said...

CSPB,
You seem to be arguing against the 'infallible' Pope?

28 November 2010 at 09:27  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

len,
Father Fessio offers up a helpful analogy:

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. Complete article

28 November 2010 at 15:57  
Anonymous len said...

CSPB,
you lost me on that one!
The logic used (seems) to be the same as, instead of totally banning firearms everyone ( or some in certain cases) should be given a bullet proof vest (perhaps)as long as this didn`t contradict any previous declaration regarding bullet proof vests.And as as long as they didn`t use it to prevent knives, or spears, or arrows, only bullets it would be acceptable.
The previous declaration that people wearing bullet proof vests stand more chance of being shot at still stand , we haven`t done a u turn on that one........yet.

I hope this makes sense to you.

28 November 2010 at 21:27  
Anonymous cspb said...

len,

The logic is clearly different ...

e.g. everyone ( or some in certain cases) should be given....

I do think that, given the propensity for media distortion, the Popes choice of words might not have been the most prudent. However, I see no way that his words can be construed as a change to the magisterium. In reality, any change to Church teaching on this issue will lilely cause many deaths.

29 November 2010 at 03:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older