the whole comment is completely shocking, regardless of the clarifications that are put out.  The suggestion that condoms could be a viable option to prevent the spread of disease and as a “step” towards a more moral view of sexuality is akin to advising a serial killer to use a large caliber gun to kill his victims quickly as opposed to some other method of killing that causes more pain to the victim (indicating that the killer has at least some sort of compassion still within himself.)

I’m just glad the pope was not speaking Ex Cathedra. 
AMDG.

Add condoms to the Third Secret of Fatima and the Medjugorje “apparitions” as items the Pope/the Vatican cannot get correct.

Everyone is on her/his own.

Supposing a husband had aids and his wife did not.  Would using a condom be moral then? The purpose would not be to prevent birth, but to protect the life of his wife. The church allows a woman to have, for example, a hysterectomy for medical reasons and although the end result is sterilization, the intent was to save her life.  I think the Holy Father is thinking along those lines in this instance.

The analogy of husband and wife doesn’t work the same as a hysterectomy because the woman will not die if she doesn’t have sex with her husband. This is where the pope is really up to mischief. He shouldn’t talk about the details of sinful behavior, what makes it more or less sinful.
“He should just say something like, there are lessers of two evils, but it is all still evil and people should stay away from it.”

Why did it take the Vatican so long to issue any clarification?Were they not aware that this would cause mis-understanding and confusion worldwide.Shouldn’t the Vatican Paper breaking the embargo have alerted them to be on the ball?Another great PR atrocity care of the Vatican!

I agree with Scott as far as how that analogy doesn’t work.  The highest good in that situation, and in situations that would call for the use of a condom, is abstinence, either completely or as part of NFP (for married people).  Moral theology teaches us that a good intention doesn’t stop an evil action from being evil, but only lessens the culpability.  You can’t take something that is intrinsically wrong and make it right just because you have a good intention.  But the fact that someone uses a condom shows that they are aware of their actions and the consequences, which is the first step toward someone acknowledging the correct course. THIS I believe is the point the Pope was trying to make but it got lost.

His language is convoluted and involves a level of theology many people aren’t accustomed to anymore (sadly), and certainly not non-Catholics looking to see the Pope slip up or come onto their side of the issue.  I think the Pope is still accustomed to the academic sphere and spoke like he was still there, which ended with him speaking over everybody’s heads and leading to this debacle.  In fact, if I wasn’t thinking along the lines of moral theology myself, I would have thought the Pope was allowing the use of condoms as well!

His Holiness should have just said in clear, simple language that the use of condoms are always wrong but the fact that people use them shows that they are aware of the consequences of their actions, which is the first step toward choosing to do the right thing: abstinence and right living.

And I am becoming more of the thought that His Holiness should keep his private opinions to himself.  Not that his private opinion doesn’t have merit, because it does, but because people outside the Church (and many within) mistake a Pope’s private opinion for Church teaching, which leads to confusion like this and possibly to the extreme of unintentionally causing someone to sin.

Add my name to the list of the totally confused.

I agree with much of what Suzanna said.  I don’t think what the Pope said goes against any prior moral teaching on contraception.
The “debacle,” however, has less to do with the Pope’s comments and more to do with the fact that much of the Christian family has turned moral and ethical dilemmas into simplified black or white issues.  I, for one, am happy to see that my Christian leader has the capacity to understand shades of morality.  Most serious moral/ethical questions do not have black or white answers.  Of course there must be rules to guide us, but the application of those rules is less clear than many of us would like them to be.
So, in my humble opinion, this “debacle” has less to do with what the Pope said and more to do with the discomfort of having the reality of muddy moral/ethical questions brought to light.  I welcome more of this understanding from the top.

Great post, Suzanna. Good clarification, Scott.

Sadly, it doesn’t matter what the pope says on any subject that will make its way to the public in the manner in which is is intended. Today’s secular journalists will find a way to distort, confuse or spin his remarks to suit their own secular philosophy and trip him up.

This game of “gotcha” reminds me so much of the people in the New Testament who consistently tried to trip up Jesus with questions they thought would give him no out. Those who favor indiscriminate sex outside marriage will do their best to find a crack in church teaching in the hope it will open the floodgates or make the church look foolish and inconsistent. Today’s news sources are pushing an agenda, not reporting truth.

It is amazing with all the people in our society who shun religion and any religous guidance in their actions that with the sensatiolism of the media this has become such a big statement.  Unless one is Catholic they rally do not care what the Pope says. In my opionion this guidance has been blown out of proportion. My first reading of the news release made me believe it was directed at the male homosexual community in their relationships. Now this has been expanded to speak of societies with great aids issues. In a Christian walk all mortals sin and if the use or not use of a condom is the only failure of a person then they are walking a pretty faithful path in life. Knowing that so many people are waiting to hear every word of the Pope is actually a testament to his position, policies and views.

Wow. I am shocked and appalled by the comments made here.  I simply have no words for how insane this conversation is.  Questions of morality are questions of happiness and suffering. 

‘Sins’ are merely crimes against a god, they have no bearing on morality.

Reading the explosion of deliberately distorted commentaries and the sensational coverage of the Pope’s message by secular media on just one item of the whole interview, it is patently clear how the secular media and Catholic-haters look for any chance to ridicule the Church. Gladly, genuine Catholics know when the Holy Father is voicing his personal opinions on topical issues, when he is expounding on an important intellectual, political or global social subject and when he is speaking as the Shepherd of Christ’s Flock - Peter the Rock. No matter how much our detractors try to make the Holy Father look foolish or confused, we understand who he is and we love him just the way he is.  The Holy Spirit never makes a mistake.  God is Truth and Truth is Life.  Sin, of whatever nature, is anti-God and destroys the dignity of man by separating him from his Creator in whose image and likeness he was created.

Non-catholics care what the Pope says because of the reach of his influence.  Were the Pope to abolish the censure of condom use, there would be an immense reduction of the spread of AIDS in Africa. There would also likely be a commensurate easing of the overpopulation of that country, with a concomitant reduction in suffering related to overpopulation.

This is why the ‘secular media’ cares about this tiny little part of the book.  Because it’s impact is so wide-reaching.

Charles L, I understand distinction between morality and sin.  I am curious to know whether you would agree with this statement: Condom use is always a sin; not everyone who uses a condom is equally culpable.  To me, that illustrates a distinction between sin and morality.  It is easy to see something as always sinful (which in this case it is).  It is less easy to see that not all sin is equal even within the same behavior (which, I think, is what the Pope was saying).

Charles L: Statistics show that increased condom availability goes hand-in-hand with an increase in all STD infections, including AIDS, while abstinence education has a higher success rate (i.e., lower infections).
Both are advocating changes in behavior - but when is it easier to make your choice - before or after the passions get all heated up?

@Therese60640: I would need to see your statistics, regarding abstinence-only sex-ed programs, it is my understanding that these tend to delay sex in teens by about 18 months, while those same teens are significantly more likely to engage in oral and anal sex and to NOT use any form of protection.  Regardless, the decision is made before passions become heated if you do not have a condom.

@Richard: I am not qualified to speak on whether something is a ‘sin’ or not.  I find the whole idea of sin to be terribly silly.

Witchcraft:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

The Demand for a sign
MATTHEW 12:38-42
The New American Bible

Palm reading:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

JOHN 6:26
The New American Bible

“Scott” wrote:
“The analogy of husband and wife doesn’t work the same as a hysterectomy because the woman will not die if she doesn’t have sex with her husband. This is where the pope is really up to mischief”.

I assume that “Scott” is a Catholic. For a Catholic to say that the Pope is “up to mischief” is quite discourteous, if not outright obstinate. The Pope represents the “magisterium”, the highest teaching authority of the Church. We need to give him a respectful hearing without judging him to be mischievous or what not. The Pope expounds an important principle, that we should never overlook the “intent” of the moral agent in any situation. Thus, the hysterectomy case and the condom case are do have an analogy.

Posted by Scott on Monday, Nov 22, 2010 2:09 AM (EDT):The analogy of husband and wife doesn’t work the same as a hysterectomy because the woman will not die if she doesn’t have sex with her husband. This is where the pope is really up to mischief. He shouldn’t talk about the details of sinful behavior, what makes it more or less sinful.
“He should just say something like, there are lessers of two evils, but it is all still evil and people should stay away from it.”

The Holy Father is a very very intelligent individual.  (PR may not always be his strength, however, also consider that perhaps the Vatican as a group of people may not be functioning as a healthy organization at the moment.) I think that it is clear that Benedict must have put much thought into putting this comment in writing.  I expect that the response of the world and of the media are not surprising to him. I think the Holy Father wants to give the message to the world that sex, love, and responsibility are ultimately tied together.  Condoms will never be a solution to the worlds HIV problem, because ultimately the world needs to understand that sex should not be a selfish act.  I don’t think the Vatican will ever come out and say that condoms may be used to stop Aids, because the Church doesn’t believe that condom usage is the way to lead the world to chastity. I agree that in considering individual cases, perhaps condom usage is a step towards responsibility and love…(and I don’t think this is an application of double effect or the choice between two evils.)  I’m beginning to think some more choices aren’t so clearly categorized and that correct decisions become tough when there aren’t easy solutions.

A similar issue arises when a woman is told by doctors that if she has another baby that she will likely die (as in the case of multiple c-sections).  I have read that many Catholic theologians/philosophers, are of the opinion that because the woman’s life isn’t at risk as such, that she cannot have a hysterectomy.  So, if this is correct, are we then saying that the married couple either has to be celibate or practice NFP with the chance of becoming pregnant. Then if the woman becomes pregnant, what is to be done?  What really is the difference in this case between having the potential of being pregnant and having a life threatening situation, and actually being pregnant and having a life threatening situation.  Is it right to say that the woman must not have a hysterectomy, and rather put her life at risk.  That seems like a strange solution.

I want to respond to Charles Rehmann on his Post on 22nd November.  Charles, in South Africa, where condom distribution was stepped up and the distribution networks and outlets are widespread countywide, HIV infections have hit the 80% mark!!!!.  And remember, here, abortion on demand has been legalized and the vacuum method of abortion is practiced widely.  In short, the proponents of the ASSERTION THAT CONDOM USE REDUCES HIV INFECTION IS A BLATANT FALLACY. On the other hand, when President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda decreed that the abstention and fidelity in marriage methods be adopted in the country, the HIV infection rates fell to a whooping 50%. These are the facts for you and everyone else that CONDOMS DO NOT REDUCE HIV or STD infections.  They are not mean to do that. On the contrary, condoms encourage promiscuity and infidelity in families, resulting in the most rapid spread of the HIV virus and deaths.  Then the Catholic Church is left with the burden of caring for the sick and the orphans.  When you take into account that, due to poverty, infant mortality in most African countries account for 75% of deaths of children under 5 years, you then begin to understand the heinous hidden agenda of the proponents of the use of Condoms,legalization of abortion on demand,introducing children from 10 years old into sex and contraceptives and abortion without the consent of parents, infidelity in marriage disguised as a protected “Human Right” for the spouse to have other sexual partners outside marriage without hindrance from their partners, acceptance of same-sex liaisons and demand they they be recognized as marriages enjoying the same rights and privileges of normal marriages.  And the purpose is very, very clear.  All these campaigns are the aimed at decimation of the population - especially in Africa - wholesale genocide of unborn children, the destruction the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Family Unit as designed by God between one man and one woman, and and introduction of total moral decadence leading to dehumanization of mankind created in the Image and Likeness of God.  This evil must be seen for what it is and resisted at all costs, always and everywhere.  Mankind must turn round, reject this Satanic doctrine of Death and protect its morality, sense of dignity and abhor the culture of a Godless, hedonistic lifestyle of dehumanized humanity beholden to the god of carnal gratification.