Pope's remarks on condoms sow widespread confusion

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Pope's remarks on condoms sow widespread confusion - Yahoo! News-

Some Roman Catholics are confused. Some are angry. Others just don't believe the pope meant what it seems he said.

Days after the release of Pope Benedict XVI's comments that condoms can be justified to prevent the spread of HIV, there is widespread confusion about exactly what he was trying to say. The remarks have put some of the strictest defenders of church teachings in the awkward position of potentially disagreeing with the pontiff.

Many church officials worldwide have been conspicuously silent. Some bishops are even seeking clarification from the Vatican.

"It's a mess," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, which advises church leaders, hospitals and Vatican offices. "I'm not ready to say that the pope said what (papal spokesman Rev. Frederico) Lombardi said."
 
i'm not sure i follow this idea of widespread confusion. most people seem pretty clear that it applies to everyone and that he has effectively opened the door to interpretations that permit the use of condoms in order to *prevent putting yourself or someone else at risk*. this, in my opinion, is a very clever way to do it - it does not say that using them is all right, with all that that implies to him about promiscuity and sex outside marriage, but it does say that there are some things that are more important, namely the harm it causes by prohibiting them.

not before time, but at the very least he deserves to go down for this as one of the great papal reformers. he's already taken some big steps to deal with the paedophile scandal, so roll on an end to celibacy and women priests, i say. i now have greater confidence that some of these issues might in fact be addressed and good on the pope for having the balls to take steps like this.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I wouldn't go so far as to call this Pope a reformer, but we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. But his willingness to upset even the official vatican spokesman tells us this Pope may have some surprises for us yet.
 
The 'confusion' follows a series of interviews released by "L'Osservatore Romano", the Vatican newspaper ... everything else aside, I would take the Vatican Press Office to task, and teach them to dance ... they need to seriously get to grips with the meaning and value of 'timing' as a concept in communications.

(Let alone the tendency for the bureaucracy to work contrary to the will and wishes of the pope.)

On the cause of the 'confusions' ... you don't get senior executives of global corporations acting this way, so why they should in the Church, I have no idea. Perhaps a briefing to all involved which starts 'Read the book' from which the extracts were taken might be a useful place to start?

So might a refresher in moral theology ... as ever, Benedict is both bang on doctrine, whilst exploring the meaning more fully ... if people choose to be confused by good theology, perhaps that's an indicator that there's a dearth of the same around.

+++

At the election of Benedict XVI, the world media hoped for more salacious reporting when, in their eyes, an ex-nazi 'rotweiller' was elected to the Office of Peter — sadly for them, a self-inflicted Catholic 'Kristallnacht' never ensued — instead, the media, to my experience, divides into two: those who have met the pontiff, and those who have not.

+++

Concentrating only on the condom means trivializing sexuality, and this trivialization represents precisely the dangerous reason why so many people no longer see sexuality as an expression of their love, but only as a sort of drug, which one administers on one's own. This is why the struggle against the trivialization of sexuality is also part of the great effort so that sexuality may be valued positively, and may exercise its positive effect on the human being in his totality. 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.
Click to expand...
Benedict is actually following John-Paul IIs line on 'The Theology of the Body' ... and the use of condoms by male prostitutes, as well as the first step towards moral responsibility as outlined above, is also in line with prior moral issues regarding the use of condoms to protect one's partner when one has an HIV infection ... so John Haas should catch up on current Catholic bioethics.

I'm happy to discuss any of the issues raised ...

Thomas
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Days after the release of Pope Benedict XVI's comments that condoms can be justified to prevent the spread of HIV, there is widespread confusion about exactly what he was trying to say.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Pope was actually addressing priests and bishops of whom a large number have tested HIV positive.

An article published by the Kansas City Star reported that Catholic priests are dying at a rate 4 times that of the general U.S. public. The report also found that hundreds have died of AIDS and hundreds more are living with the virus that causes AIDS. The findings of the report were published in almost all of the large mainstream newspapers, magazines and Catholic publications.

I am not blaming all HIV victims. However, the Catholic Church's tolerance of paedophilic homosexualy and priest on priest homosexuality is unwise. Condoms could possibly help stem the spread.

Amergin
 
Amergin, that's hilarious. The Pope won't let 'normal people' protect themselves against aids, but he is quick to protect his own priests? Who would've thought it to be possible?
 
Amergin said:
Perhaps the Pope was actually addressing priests and bishops of whom a large number have tested HIV positive.

An article published by the Kansas City Star reported that Catholic priests are dying at a rate 4 times that of the general U.S. public. The report also found that hundreds have died of AIDS and hundreds more are living with the virus that causes AIDS. The findings of the report were published in almost all of the large mainstream newspapers, magazines and Catholic publications.

I am not blaming all HIV victims. However, the Catholic Church's tolerance of paedophilic homosexualy and priest on priest homosexuality is unwise. Condoms could possibly help stem the spread.

Amergin
Click to expand...
A link or two to your "articles" would be appreciated.
 
I feel great sorrow for all sufferers of AIDS or HIV with the sole exception of men who are known carriers (HIV+) but continue to practice homosexual acts with partners being uninformed of the risk. Condoms for priests is a seriously necessary tactic to reduce transmission of AIDS.

The Church's rule of unnatural celibacy is emotionally stressful to the priests with homosexual tendencies. The Roman Catholic Church is clearly guilty of aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal disease.

Obviously all HIV carriers should either abstain from sexual activity or at least wear a condom which is not 100% protective.

Amergin
 
"Condoms for priests is a seriously necessary tactic to reduce transmission of AIDS."

--> What about the idea they are supposed to be celibate in the first place, and their priesthoods are based on a lie?
 
Hi Amergin —

Your argument raises a number of points

My first is that I would suggest that many in the Catholic Church would, I think, actually support a review of the vocation process. Personally, I think the Orthodox model is a better model, in which married men are accepted into the clergy, although one is not allowed to marry once one has taken orders. Married clergy stay at that position, as priest within the community; they cannot become bishops.

The next point is that a priest who is sexually active, straight or gay, has broken his vows. As I have argued elsewhere, a priest's sexual orientation is, really, immaterial to the question of vocation ... it's when a priest becomes active that questions arise.

The third, and perhaps most painful, is that there is now evidence to affirm that the radical liberalisation of the seminary process in America that took place in the 70s created an ideal environment for the gay male who wished to remain anonymous, and now the Catholic Church in America is reaping the fruit of that decision.

This is not to say that the seminary was seen as a place of gay meeting, but rather the orders of priesthood removed the question of relationships and sexual activity. I think some gay men went into the priesthood as a means of cover and denial of their sexuality ... but nature will out.

The seminary system needs to be overhauled, and lay advisers need to be incorporated into the process.

No-one should be under any doubt that the Pope is endorsing the use of condoms by gay priests — to do so would be encouraging them to break their vows — but we should not let the hysteria that surrounds this debate overshadow the essential truths:

As long as sex is seen purely as a recreational practice, then the body is reduced in both meaning and value, it becomes commodified, along with everything else in society.

Free condoms and free abortions are not the solution. In the UK, the most secular of European countries, the rates of youth pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease increases by bounds, in a culture where birth control is freely and discreetly available to teenagers, and where the solution to the problem seems to be to throw more of what is evidently failing at the question.

Free condoms will not prove to be the solution in Africa either, where the use on condoms is seen as 'unmanly', and where such nonsense as 'sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV' ...

So whilst condoms might help, they will not solve the question, rather, the whole issue is to sidetrack attention away from the root causes, and the root solutions.

Thomas
 
Gee weez, I get so many infractions! Its like the demerits I always got at catholic school.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

How to be celibate [what I learnt at the ashram since 1979]:

One cannot remain celibate if they eat meat, inaddition to:
No meat, fish, nor eggs.
No garlic (except as temporary medicine).
No onions, vinegar.
No mushrooms.
No products containing these elements.

These guide lines are 99% of the problem's origins.

And, No private alone time with opposite gender.

Control of the Tongue's urges preceed control of all other bodily desirables.

That is the secret of worldly aloofness.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just defragment the system and rid un-usable programs.
 
bhaktajan said:
Gee weez, I get so many infractions! Its like the demerits I always got at catholic school.
Click to expand...

Demerits? You were lucky ... I got demerits, detentions and corporal punishment!

I like your notes on celibacy, though.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Hi Amergin —

Your argument raises a number of points

My first is that I would suggest that many in the Catholic Church would, I think, actually support a review of the vocation process. Personally, I think the Orthodox model is a better model, in which married men are accepted into the clergy, although one is not allowed to marry once one has taken orders. Married clergy stay at that position, as priest within the community; they cannot become bishops.

The next point is that a priest who is sexually active, straight or gay, has broken his vows. As I have argued elsewhere, a priest's sexual orientation is, really, immaterial to the question of vocation ... it's when a priest becomes active that questions arise.

The third, and perhaps most painful, is that there is now evidence to affirm that the radical liberalisation of the seminary process in America that took place in the 70s created an ideal environment for the gay male who wished to remain anonymous, and now the Catholic Church in America is reaping the fruit of that decision.

This is not to say that the seminary was seen as a place of gay meeting, but rather the orders of priesthood removed the question of relationships and sexual activity. I think some gay men went into the priesthood as a means of cover and denial of their sexuality ... but nature will out.

The seminary system needs to be overhauled, and lay advisers need to be incorporated into the process.

No-one should be under any doubt that the Pope is endorsing the use of condoms by gay priests — to do so would be encouraging them to break their vows — but we should not let the hysteria that surrounds this debate overshadow the essential truths:

As long as sex is seen purely as a recreational practice, then the body is reduced in both meaning and value, it becomes commodified, along with everything else in society.

Free condoms and free abortions are not the solution. In the UK, the most secular of European countries, the rates of youth pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease increases by bounds, in a culture where birth control is freely and discreetly available to teenagers, and where the solution to the problem seems to be to throw more of what is evidently failing at the question.

Free condoms will not prove to be the solution in Africa either, where the use on condoms is seen as 'unmanly', and where such nonsense as 'sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV' ...

So whilst condoms might help, they will not solve the question, rather, the whole issue is to sidetrack attention away from the root causes, and the root solutions.

Thomas
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points here. However, I would still encourage the use of condoms for those unable to control their urges. They are flawed people, but their lack of control does spread HIV. I agree with you on the Orthodox model and not the celibacy that was not part of original Catholic priesthood. Celtic Catholic priests could marry until the 12th century when "Roman Catholic" Normans invaded the Celtic Lands.

If you run for Pope, you will have my vote.

Amergin
 
The classic Catholic mother who has male children, desires most that a son be a doctor, lawyer, or a priest. "My son the doctor" or "My son the priest" are equally prestigious.

My hypothesis is that in this setting, a heterosexual son is urged to marry and give Mum a grandchild. A son with homosexual urges and lack of interest in girls, finds the pressure to date or marry is stressful. The best way to avoid the undesirable heterosexual life while winning Mum's approval is to enter the priesthood. As "my son the Priest" his family is proud of him. He avoids the pressure to date girls or marry. And he finds himself in a seminary with young lads who may be there for the same reason as he is.

The Celibate Catholic Priesthood unfortunately concentrates homosexual leaning boys with each other.

It gives them access to altar boys.

Amergin
 
bhaktajan said:
These guide lines are 99% of the problem's origins.
Click to expand...

i disagree.

I've been in self-imposed celibacy for years and i reject your rules completely

One cannot remain celibate if they eat meat, inaddition to:
No meat, fish, nor eggs.
No garlic (except as temporary medicine).
No onions, vinegar.
No mushrooms.
No products containing these elements.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed this, yet, somehow, I managed... how?

If there is one guideline, its eating less, not eating specific.

When I eat one meal a day, it keeps my desires pinned down to hunger


And, No private alone time with opposite gender.
Click to expand...
This one... is complicated.

There is nothing wrong with spending time alone, per se....

unless she's your friend's girlfriend or someone's wife... that's a bad idea... trust me!

In general though, the problem is that if you're celibate, then you can't offer the girl what she wants, in which case you'll always end up being the "jerk" for keeping your distance... (sometimes though, being a jerk is fun!) or she'll get hurt if she thinks you don't find her attractive... In either case, problems will arise if your mental states get entangled... (especially if you yourself start developing "feelings")

But I still disagree with your rule, because I know guys who can remain "just friends" with girls without problems... There are no simple rules when it comes to male-female interactions... Some people like me, for example, need to be more careful. We have a tendency to... connect, with the opposite sex, and therefore need to keep a distance. (I've learned this the hard way....)

However, if you completely block yourself off, then you might as well join a monastery and live as a monk. If you're looking for perpetual celibacy, then that is what you should do. But if you're just waiting for the right person, then you can't completely cut contact with the opposite sex.

Control of the Tongue's urges preceed control of all other bodily desirables.
Click to expand...
Again, this is incorrect.

Even if you stuff your face with a purely hindu diet, your desires will still run wild. The key is to keep yourself hungry. If you use hunger as a weapon, all your other desires will be neutralized, as hunger is the primary desire which over-rules all others. Foster it, and let it conquer. Plus, you get all the other advantages that go along with a lower BMI (better health, better aesthetic appearance etc.)

That is the secret of worldly aloofness.
Click to expand...
Wrong again

The secret to "worldly aloofness" is the realization that everything that is fleeting, sucks.
 
Wow, interesting discussion. I wonder if these ideas might also be helpful to widowers. There's a lot of loneliness after a man loses his wife. Maybe a controlled diet would help?
 
yeh great thread..they say changes come generationally, or at least build up to that and its been a generation or so since the 60's vatican modernising whatever. the points regarding the priesthood milieu seems realistic and the situation in less developed countries which are the future of catholicism has been needed to be upgraded [pc talk again].
So yeh Benedict has circumnavigated and listened to, doing his tour, all the johnnies on his way. Wish he was reading this enjoying all your posts. And Code, how thin have you become??
 
nativeastral said:
And Code, how thin have you become??
Click to expand...

no worries, im within healthy limits. Once or twice a week i go all out with the junk food to keep things balanced. its still frustrating though, cuz on those days my cravings for everything else are the strongest

... my friends, they're like "you're too hard on yourself" and its "self torture"... but they don't get it (and i don't expect them to.) for me, It's either this, or all out suicidal debauchery... some people are just born like that. which is why i recognize that this stuff is not for everyone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top