If sex is sacred, how does using condoms to protect ourselves from each other play into that?

How about we actually act like sex is sacred, and save it for its proper time and place?

I think you’re right. They are taking what B16 said out of context and in fact not even reporting it accurately. But it’s not just them, it’s tons of newspapers. I have a Protestant friend who has no objection to condoms, so to him what the magazines reported the pope as saying just made sense, so he said to me well the pope only said they’re ok if one of the people has hiv or some other disease. But to my friend, there was no ambiguity or need for clarification. That’s the dangerous thing about the media sometimes.

Wow, the zombie metaphor is really appropriate, isn’t it? The fixation is really comparable. “Con-doms ... Con-doms…”

I’m also reminded of that two-panel “Far Side” cartoon with Ginger the dog ... “What we say to dogs / What they hear.” The dog’s owner goes on and on, and all the dog hears is “Blah blah GINGER blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah…”

Likewise, Pope Benedict makes this nuanced point about an awakening conscience, and all the condom zombies hear is “Blah blah CONDOMS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah CONDOMS blah blah…”

Metaphor?

ha ha ha ha

Perhaps I should draw a cartoon. A “Far Side” homage, sort of.

That press release is just plain bad journalism, no doubt about it.  It distorts the facts, misrepresents the truth AND uses biased language, all in one fell swoop!  My Editing professor at St. Thomas would’ve been appalled.

The Pope did not say Condoms are OK under any circumstances. He only identified them as a lesser evil as compared to an extreme evil. To say the Pope endorsed condom use in any way plays into the satanic hands.

After all one could say that jumping off a 10 story building is safer than jumping off a 20 story building but the fact is that both lead to death. But the acknowledgement of that semantic difference is not the same as endorsing jumping off of 10 story buildings.

@ Dave: Actually, as Jimmy has blogged in the past, the pope didn’t even say that condoms were a lesser evil. All he said was that for someone like a prostitute condom use might represent “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,” etc. It’s a statement about subjective moralization and responsibility, not objective greater or lesser evil.

your right steven, it was my interpretation of it that assigned it a lesser evil status. Maybe 19th story vs 20th story type of situation. but my point stands that we should not perpetrate the lie that the Pope opended the door to condom use being proper under any circumstances.

Steven and Jimmy - reminds me of this funny video Thomas Peters put together. Condom obsessed zombies… lol

Mr. Akin, thanks for writing on this.  I received their release last Friday and immediatley sent an e-mail (see below) to the Media POC listed on the release making some “suggestions” that they consider in light of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.  I never did receive any kind of response of course.  They put it out there, but never want to actually discuss their positions.

“Dear Mr. Nolan, I read your press release on the issue of Catholics urging the further use of condoms.  Honestly, I found it very interesting.

“However, not for reasons you would think.  The fact that our current Pope, B XVI, raised the issue in an interview that would be included in a book has no authority or is it binding on Catholics.  This was an interview with the Pope speaking on his personal opinion.  And, yes, the Pope has said contraception is wrong.  An interview written by another is quite different than a Pope writing an encyclical.  And all of this is very different when a pope speaks ex cathedra or in union with his brother bishops.  The Pope said that in a certain situation a condom could save a life not that it would.  It is still immoral to use one though.  He was looking at the human person and how this could be one step toward a moral life.  But again this was just his personal perspective. 

“Also worth mentioning, you state: ‘[a] poll in 2007 found that Catholics from five countries—the US, Mexico, Ireland, Philippines and Ghana—agreed that condom use is in line with Catholic values’ means nothing.  The Church cannot change its stance on birth control.  Its always going to be immoral, which it is, because it is part of the original deposit of faith of the Church taught by the ordinary and universal magisterial (CCC, 2370).  Not to mention the Extraordinary in council (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 51).  The Catechism is a product of the ordinary and universal magisterium as it is the teachings of the Church and Gaudium is part of the Extraordinary in that the Pope and all the Bishops of the Church in the world are in union.  Even if a plurality of Catholics may believe in something, if it contradicts the Church’s teaching it does not make something moral and licit.  To take this line of thinking, it opens up the possibility for every kind of truth to be suspect.  The sensus fidei (sense of the faithful) can never contradict what the Church has taught on matters of faith and morals.  Therefore, there is no such thing as the magisterium of the theologian that could override what has been historically taught on matters of faith and morals.  Theologians can never go against what has been taught by the Church. 

“The Bishops make up the true and only magisterium and have affirmed that contraception is illicit.  Its use is immoral if done to prevent pregancy within a marriage.

“Thank you for your time and attention.”

I think that for ‘Catholics for Choice’, this may turn into a case of ‘careful what you ask for’.  If this approach gets too much press, it may (pray we!!) force Papa Bene to publicly and vociferously clarify his previous point, and to reiterate (for the gazillionth time) the Church’s teaching.

@Steve: Actually, I think that the pope may well have meant that condom use in the case of a prostitute in an AIDS-prone environment is less evil than non-condom use by a prostitute in an AIDS-prone environment. His statement contains ambiguity on this point, and I think that we should not represent it as if what he was saying was absolutely clear and did not include that possibility.

@Matt: Yes! I thought of that video while writing the post!

TEXT OF COMPLETE DOCUMENT DELETED.

HERE’S A LINK TO THE DOCUMENT: LINK.

Ahem.

@“Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Please do not past entire documents into the combox. This constitutes rudeness.

God created hyperlinks as a way of gesturing to whole documents so that they wouldn’t all have to be pasted in.

*sigh*

It’s this sort of infighting, and stigmatizing that drove me away, and keeps me away from the Catholic Church.

Life is simpler outside. When people I know get into arguments, they can be very mean, but they don’t claim that God is on their side.

I don’t know why I read this stuff anymore

BRAINS!...BRAINS!!...BRAINS!!!......I wish these CFC people had BRAINS!!!!

Have they forgotten: “Thous shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”?

I am guessing that God is on the side of the church that he founded.

Sigh!  Not another article with the words “condom” and “pope” in the headline—-Catholics for Choice (oxymoron) are not “Catholic.”

The question arises, if these ” catholics ” can’t live without condoms what are they going to do when their spouce dies?

The zombies have invaded the Philippines as well, via the Reproductive Health Bill pending right now in Congress.  The Pope has been “quoted” all over the place.  And of course, by well-meaning “Catholics”.

Totally agreed, Jimmy, all the way around.

Jimmy: I absolutely agree that the pope may have meant that. It’s a reasonable inference from what he said. I’m just noting that it is in fact ambiguous and we shouldn’t say that he did say it.

Just a week ago I had to correct someone on this point with whom I was having a casual conversation, unrelated to religion or morality.

It totally blew his mind that what he had heard on the news was completely false. I think also felt bad about it. I don’t think he honestly ever doubted what they say on TV.

@ Paul Rimmer: When people stop believing in God’s will and the possibility of knowing it, the result is not a world free of stigma, but what B16 has prophetically called a “dictatorship of relativism.”

In the present case, the immediate question is not who has God on their side (or who is on God’s side), but who has Pope Benedict on their side and who is lying about what he said. For the CFC crowd, it seems the less important question is not what B16 actually said, but what people will believe that he said and how that misperception can be used to further their ends.

Does lying matter or not? Read “Abraham Lincoln”‘s comments above. Reread Jimmy’s blog post. Is an ad campaign deliberately designed to perpetuate a misrepresentation of the pope’s words for their own political ends worth stigmatizing or not? If it were your words that were being misrepresented, you might feel less inclined to sigh heavily and wash your hands of both sides.

There should be some legal way to keep groups from using Catholic as part their name

Pat:
 

“There should be some legal way to keep groups from using Catholic as part their name”

 
FWIW, there is, albeit it’s canon law and no way to enforce it civilly. However, it’s a moot point in this case. “Catholics For Choice” does not use “Catholic” (adjective) but “Catholics” (plural noun), and that makes all the difference. Even if they can’t claim that their group is “Catholic” by charter (which it certainly is not), they can still claim that their group is made up of “Catholics” by church membership (as presumably many of them are, albeit bad Catholics).

“Responsible parties debated precisely what the pope’s meaning was….”

That identifies the major problem that exists when the Pope speaks as a private theologian and not as The Pope.

As soon as those words of his became public he fell into silence and let others do the heavy-lifting of explaining what he really meant and yet apologists continue to pretend that what he said was not ill-advised and that what he said was not worded in such a way as to cause confusion.

The entire episode is an embarrassment, from what he said to the pretense on that part of apologists that everybody knew what he meant

If I understand what the Pope actually said, the argument that the Pope is okay with condoms is ridiculous, as the example he is using is of someone committing a gravely immoral act anyway.  Sex with contraception in marriage is a sin against chastity, as is sex outside of marriage, with or without a condom.  Condom use in the case of the prostitute I would say is a non-issue morally (unless you could argue he’s putting himself and others at risk by not using condoms) as the prior act is already gravely immoral.  Lets use a hypothetical example of something similar the Pope could say.  We all know that murder is a sin, so is causing suffering needlessly.  The reason the military uses full metal jacketed rounds, in addition to having more range, is that they cause less pain and suffering than a round with no jacket that you use for stopping power to keep the deer you are hunting from running off with a bullet in its shoulder.  Let’s say the pope talked on the morality of killing and using full metal jacked rounds.  It would so something like this…

Papal Statement:  Murder is intrinsically evil.  The use of full metal Jacketed rounds, as they cause less pain and suffering than normal lead rounds without casings, can be the first sign that a murderer is using some compassion and can be the first step in him developing empathy for his victims and can be a step in his conversion. 

Media:  THE POPE IS COOL WITH YOUR MURDERING WITH FULL METAL JACKET ROUNDS.  Finally the Pope has come around on what we have all known, that Murder is okay and responsible if you use full metal jacketed rounds. 

We believe in God.
We believe that murder is sacred.
We believe in killing each other.
We believe in using full metal jacketed rounds.
We thank Pope Benedict for acknowledging that full metal jackets prevent suffering.

reality check:  Murder is still murder and fornication is still fornication.  Condoms turn holy sex into something grotesque, not quite the marital embrace, not quite fornication.  While condoms and full metal jackets can be steps in an individual learning to be moral, the acts are still immoral.

@Vermont Crank:
 

“and yet apologists continue to pretend that what he said was not ill-advised and that what he said was not worded in such a way as to cause confusion”

 
Have apologists “pretended” any such thing? I haven’t seen these questions come up one way or another in an apologetical context. Such questions fall outside the mainstream of the apologetical task, which is not about prudential questions like the advisability of a statement, but about defending the faith from attack or misrepresentation.
 

“The entire episode is an embarrassment, from what he said to the pretense on that part of apologists that everybody knew what he meant”

Who said everyone knew what he meant? I think the main brief from the apologetics community is that we know very well what he didn’t mean or say, i.e., that in no way did he endorse condom use under any circumstances.

Perhaps they should read the official document from the CDF on this…

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

but then again..Zombies may not be able to read…they may just eat it.

@ Kevin: I’ve actually seen a response from CFC in which they say, in effect, “Blah blah blah, CDF damage control, never mind. The pope said whatever we say he said. That’s our story and we’re sticking to it.”

“Have apologists “pretended” any such thing?”

Dear Mr Greydanus. I was wrong. Mr Akin referenced the problem I identified here:

“But there is a danger of sending a highly misleading message here.”

The Pope erred in speaking speculatively about condoms and unnecessarily sewed confusion. And that fact is not in question because every apologist, from Ann to Vinny, took to their blogs to tell everyone what the Pope really meant. And every apologist, from Ann to Vinny, made the issue much clearer than did the Pope.

Private theological speculation about such a captious issue in such a public manner was unwise and The Pope his own self has not followed-up and explained what he did mean nor has he apologised for causing confusion.

When our Holy Father operates in this way it is ineluctable that he is undermining the authority of The Papacy.

When speaking about moral issues, the Pope must be crystal clear and speak as the Pope; he is no longer a Professor or merely a private theologian who is at liberty to engage in public speculation.

What common good was being served in this condom discussion?

Putative experts were confused about what The Pope meant and so how much more would the sheep be scattered by this public private speculation and who does not think that the world thinks that when the Pope speaks he is telling everyone what The Catholic Church teaches?

http://popebenedictxvinews.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-did-pope-benedict-say-about.html

It’s too bad if Pope Benedict maintains that using condoms will send you to Hell.  A lot of people in Africa - people who have AIDS, incidentally - will knowingly pass it to innocent people, and to their children, precisely because they believe it is the lesser of two evils.

This was an opportunity to make a difference and save lives.  What a shame that the scores of dead and suffering in the AIDS pandemic must take a back seat to blind dogmatic adherence.

@anon

obvious troll is obvious.  Besides, do you really think that someone who is not Catholic and having sex outside of marriage is really going to listen to the Church’s position on contraception.  The Church’s prohibition on contraception has to do with sex within marriage, using a condom outside of marriage is a moot point.  No one who is not Catholic and having extra-marital sex is going to listen to this. 

The Church’s reasons for preaching against condoms as a solution for AIDS is principally because it doesn’t work.  According to the National Institute of Health, even if you are using them correctly they only reduce your risk by 85%.  Now that’s if you always use them and they don’t break or slip, 2.3% breakable and 1.3% slippage (or so says the sources on Wikipedia, would be more through but I’m at work).  The point is, if you choose to have sex with many partners, eventually condoms will fail you.  What the Church advocates, and what will work to reduce AIDS, is modifying behaviors.  Reducing the number or a person’s sexual partners and getting tested are by far the most important antecedent steps.  Condoms can, and do, lead to a false sense of security, that one can have sex how one pleases as long as one has this condom on.  This is false, as contraction of the disease is still possible through breakage, slippage, incorrect use and of course inconsistent use which will happen if one does not learn self discipline and modify behaviors.  Again, with perfect application, 85% reduction.  You can get AIDS from one act of intercourse.  If one continues in an irresponsible lifestyle, even if they use condoms correctly, if a high enough population has AIDS (like in many African countries), you will get AIDS, it’s just a matter of time before a condom breaks, slips, tears, is forgotten or has a manufacturing defect. 

I work in IT, I used to do helpdesk.  People were always amazed that they could get a computer virus even though they had Norton or McAfee.  I would tell them, that while those products can help sometimes, the only true fail-safe is modifying your behavior, staying off porn and p2p sites and the like.  Likewise, even if condoms are as effective as the expert narrative claims they are, which isn’t all that effective in the first place, people will continue to die until they modify their behavior.

@Neal

That’s a very interesting point of view, but very naive.  There is a very good reason that Americans (who have access to health care, education, and contraceptives) are less prone to HIV infection than, say, inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa, and it’s not because we’re less promiscuous.  Wanting sex is human, and no amount of “behavior modification” is going to change that, no matter how many dead human beings you deem means to that end.

Your analogy is the equivalent of saying that not only should they disavow themselves of the contraceptive “anti-virus” software, but they should also stop using the Internet at all.  Needless to say, neither they nor Americans are going to become abstinent, ever, I promise you.

The fact of the matter is that responsible computer use - like responsible sex, - is a risk mitigation exercise, and the pontifications of the Catholic Church pitting eternity against infecting fellow human beings with a death sentence ultimately destroys that process.  If using “anti-virus” is a greater sin than surfing the Internet without it, then your believing Catholics (and in poverty these beliefs are very strong) will have exactly those priorities.  Those dead human beings, those infected children, and those now-nightmarish lives that you get to forget when you sip your Starbucks tomorrow morning are blood on Catholicisms hands.

I want to think that religious institutions can be a part of the solution to poverty and ignorance in the Third World, but this kind of misguided and futile social engineering is very discouraging.

Anonymous, are you talking about mindless animals or human beings? A major difference between humans and animals is that we can make decisions based on reason even if they conflict with our animalistic instincts. To not recognize this offers a very low opinion of those in question. I had hoped that opinions had changed since a few centuries ago when some people were not considered to be better than animals.

I believe that they have the apptitude and reasoning ability to make those proper decisions, if not based on morality, then based on natural law. Granted they may not have had the education to understand the results of their decisions, but teaching the reasons for abstinance is much more effective than failing to recognize their humanity and giving them false hope in inneffective birth/disease control.

Why is it that for Catholics it is very clear that the Pope did not endorse condom use but non Catholics and fallen away Catholics do not see this as clearly? I am guessing that most of the Catholics here are Confirmed and have received the Holy Spirit and are so guided. We have to remember that those outside the Church are not so blessed. Further they are more susceptible to the influence of the great deceiver.

@anon

The claim by Pope Benedict that condoms cannot stop the AIDS epidemic and can even worsen it is good science and good mathematics. Those who proclaim otherwise may have blood on their hands.

According to Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,

“There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates,” he said in an interview earlier this year.

“This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation,” Green explained, “meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Please see <a href= “http://pennance.us/?p=100”> Condom Roulette: The mathematics of Condoms and AIDS
</a>

Neal did you actually read your own post. Arguing against condom use because they ONLY reduce the risk by 85%. Apparently you prefer that they take the option of unprotected sex that reduces the risk by 0%. That way they can die a horrible death and burn for eternity as all fornicators should. Very Christian of you.

Anonymous -

“Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue.  In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be ‘exacerbating the problem’ in Africa.”

source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

Maybe you should do some research on this issue.

Nice analysis Jimmy but I would disagree with your assertion of “sheer willful malice” and opt for Hanlon’s razor. I think it is difficult for anyone to believe that the Vatican would disapprove or their practices. (how many conservative catholic pro-lifers who believe in capital punishment and the legitimacy of the Iraq war, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the use of waterboarding actually believe that the Vatican has objections to said practices)

Our Diocese, for example, cites CCC 1457 and Canon Law 914 and as reason to do Reconciliation AFTER (not before) First Communion. Finney’s followers don’t believe Finney was excommunicated. SSPX doesn’t believe that there is anything irregular about their canonical status. Gruner’s supporters don’t believe any kind of censure has been effected against Gruner. Medjugorje pilgrims remain blissfully unaware of the “unsanctioned” nature of the pilgrims.

I think we need more evidence before concluding malice. So far the evidence seems to point to “typical” levels of ignorance and misinterpretation.

@ Anyone who thinks condoms will lessen HIV infections.

Here’s a principle in psychology that goes right along with Dr. Green’s comments as referenced in previous posts: behavior is a function of its consequences. While I’d also add that there is obviously a free will component to that, for the most part if a person is faced with a favorable consequence for performing a given behavior, then it’s most likely that the person will indeed perform said behavior (reinforcement). However, if there is an unfavorable consequence for a given behavior, then just the opposite is likely to occur (perceived punishment). Thus, the following logic applies:

1) Humans view sex as something that is attractive or desired.
2) However, they want to avoid sexually trasmitted diseases.
3) Contraceptives say that they lessen the likely-hood that one will contract STDs.
4) Humans engage in sexual behavior, wrongfully perceiving that they will safely avoid STDs, but attain desired sexual pleasure.
5) Unfortunately, humans only lessen their chance of contracting STDs, so they don’t necessarily avoid them by using contraception.
6) Therefore, using contraception will only reinforce high-risk sexual activity while only lessening the chance of contracting STDs (i.e. contraception will cause people to contract STDs in many cases from a probability standpoint).

Compare to this scenario:

1) Humans view sex as something that is attractive or desired.
2) However, they want to avoid sexually trasmitted diseases.
3) Contraceptives say that they lessen the likely-hood that one will contract STDs.
4) Abstinence prevents contracting STDs 100%, but also prevents sex 100%
5) Humans can choose to morally discipline/condition themselves to not “need” to have sex, and thus properly engage in abstinence.
6) Therefore, it is impossible for one who is abstinent to contract an STD either intentionally or unintentionally.

This is simple, obvious, and unrefutable. The rocky road (abstinence) may be difficult to navigate, but the path’s destination is guaranteed to get you where you want to be. Furthermore, the freeway (contraception) might be fast-paced, convenient, and seemingly exciting at times, but you just might end up in rush hour traffic and become a victim involved in a 30 car pile-up. When it’s a life and death consequence like contracting HIV/AIDS is, it’s much more logical to drive slower, more attentively, and well disciplined than to drive fast and take chances, don’t you think?

@menotti
Point of order for your otherwise enlightened response.
The decision is not Condoms or abstinance. Marriage is a valid option where relations can be held in safety from STDs. (Except in the specific situation where a person with an STD is married to a person who does not have one.)

I believe the reason for all the confusion is that the world has progressively gotten stupider. Reporters, scientists, prctically anyone and everyone doesn’t tihnk critically, they’re fed sound bites in schools and the media and well… are zombies.

What the Pope said was pretty clear to me.
- He was speaking in a hypothetical manner for the purpose of illustration.
- That illustration is that a gay prostitute insisting on condom use recognizes a moral standard.
- His moral scale may be off by a lot but the fact remains that the prostitute recognizes a moral heirarchy.
- This first step in recognizing a moral standard can then take the next step to making sure his moral standard and authority are correct and true.
- The best solution is an appeal to the ultimate moral standard and authority which is the Creator God.
- And even without all this context, the fact remains that the Pope purposely chose a gay male prostitute to illustrate this example. Gay men cannot procreate through gay sex, so whether they wear a condom or not is irrelevant to the issue of ‘contracepting for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy’ that heterosexuals use it for and ‘avoiding STDs’ which heterosexuals use it for because they’re shagging around with multiple partners outside of marriage quite often. So it’s not at all relevant to the real issue of why the Church says contraception is wrong.

In conclusion:
‘Catholics’ for Choice are stupid.

I think somebody ought to sue these clowns for diffamation, false advertizing or whatever else a good lawyer could conjure up.

I’m a Catholic, and I support the pope’s statement on condoms. That is, I support what he ACTUALLY SAID, rather than what the condom-obsessed mainstream media wants to pretend that he said.

I bet the Rockefeller Foundation is doing hand-springs!!! “Look the Pope “believes in depopulation and the redundancy of marriage!!! Whoohoo! ” since when does one “believe” in using Condoms, or Chlorox, or Old Dutch or Tide? We have articles of Faith and they are “on the Books”. Nowhere does it say “we believe in condoms”. Or is this a 4th paragraph of the Nicene Creed I missed as a child? as an Old Man, I shake my hoary head in incredulity at the stupidity of seemingly intelligent people. Some of them clergy and some religious, and some parents of dear children of our beloved Church! I once asked a rather excited Pro-Choice Christian which of her talented Children would she have passed on. she was horrified at the remark: how dare I question her beautiful Children. Then I said : how dare she question the choice of other parents and their children. Ya, they all want condoms and pills for every one, just because they are shamed at their choices.In Australia, now they are paying people to have kids!!! What a species we have become!  Happy 4th of July and happy Canada Day!

evil always seek to twist the truth nevertheless,the firm foundation of God stands,having this seal,the Lord knows those who are his,and everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.