FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Clarification" on Pope's Condom Remarks
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I was giving His Holiness the benefit of the doubt when this story first broke, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this newest "clarification" can be squared with Catholic teaching.  Does anyone have a link for this newest "clarification" that doesn't come from an uber-liberal newspaper?

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/hea...vckD8EQDUJ
Quote:In the book, the pope was not justifying or condoning gay sex or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. Elsewhere in it, he reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use is a lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner.

While that concept has long been a tenet of moral theology, the pope's book "Light of the World" — a series of interviews with a German journalist — marked the first time a pope had ever publicly applied the theory to condom use as a way to fight HIV transmission.

Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican's bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the idea in church teaching — long practiced by some church officials with regards to condoms — that there are degrees of evil.

"Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst," he told The Associated Press. "Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility."

He said the pope broached the topic because questions about condoms and AIDS persisted.

Well, there you go. The way is paved.
What does the Pope mean by the "humanization of sexuality"?

How can human sexuality be any more humanized?

And what about the "first step in the direction of a moralization"?  What the heck does that mean?

All these bloody modernists speak in riddles.
How do you explain away a failure to condemn 'mitigated' vice ("the intention to prevent the spread of disease is the first step towards humanizing sexual activity, even if the act is still immoral") instead of offering the virtuous solution (i.e. continence)?

I think I understand why he's said it, but there isn't an issue of urgent necessity for STD-carrying people to have immoral sex, so I fail to see how the principle of double effect would even begin to apply in such a 'situation'.

I think the ceiling fan needs a thorough cleaning...  sad

Pray
Things will only get worse. I expect anything from now on.
This is getting ridiculous.  Why is the Pope even speaking about this at all?  What good can possibly come about talking about "humanization" this and "degrees of evil" that?  Since he is speaking only as a private theologian, none of what he says changes Church teaching by one iota, but he has to know that the media will spin these comments as "Church changes teaching on condoms."

At the end of the day, I think that these statements can still be interpreted as in accord with Catholic teaching if one tries hard enough, just as the Vatican II documents can.  The problem is that a Catholic shouldn't need a secret decoder ring in order to determine what the Pope really means.

Quote:But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.  - Matthew 5:37
I am looking at this from a positive perspective.

The worse it gets the closer we are to the intervention of God.

Koreas shelling each other.  The western nations bankrupt.  Foreign subs firing sub-orbital missiles off the coast of the US.  And now the Pope saying some very dicey stuff.

Things appear to be converging to a global crisis at which point all these crazy crap is sorted out and we get a whole new set of problems (perhaps).

What I fear is another 40 years of these modernist creeps ruling the roost.  That will REALLY make me despair.

I've dusted off my sandwich board and now I am just waiting for the black swan with big sharp teeth to pop the balloon.
(11-23-2010, 12:20 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]What I fear is another 40 years of these modernist creeps ruling the roost.  That will REALLY make me despair.

Yes, I think that is the absolute worst that can possibly happen to us and it is a distinct possibility!! And a lot more souls falling into Hell!!
sad  sad
Here's one way I've seen it explained.

A chronic alcoholic comes to realize being drunk in front of his children is hurting them.  When he promises not to drink at home he has just made a step towards a higher morality and may be on the road to recover.  Getting drunk in the neighbourhood pub and coming home after the children are in bed is still a sin, but his consideration of others shows he has the capacity to see his actions as sinful which is better than not thinking there is any problem with being drunk in front of one's children.

Had he used this example instead, the secular media and his other opponents would write the headlines: Pope Says It's OK To Get Hammered Daily 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8