Each new day seems to bring several new twists to the pope/condom story, so let’s look at what’s happening now. (PART I OF THIS SERIES, PART TWO.)
First, here are some web resources to check out:
* Ed Peters’ trenchant remarks on L’Osservatore Romano’s PR debacle
* Papal spokesman Federico Lombardi’s initial clarification of the Pope’s remarks
* Reportage on Lombardi’s second clarification
* An interview with Archbishop Burke for his take on what the pope was saying
* Damian Thompson’s latest posts (first post, second post, third post)
I don’t want to unduly pick on Thompson, but blood-crazed ferret that he is, his latest posts continue with a rather snarky, triumphalistic tone toward those he terms “conservative” (meaning theologically orthodox) bloggers, who he perceives as disagreeing with the opinion Pope Benedict expressed in his new interview book, The Light of the World ( YOU CAN ORDER IT HERE
He continues to insist that
he did say that the use of condoms was justified in certain circumstances [emphasis in oridinal].
Not so fast, Damian. Let’s try to keep from putting words in the Pontiff’s mouth. As you yourself have noted on a prior occasion, the Pope did not use the word “justified” or “permissible” or anything along those lines.
One is tempted to ask, a little cheekily, “What part of the Pope’s statement that the Church ‘does not regard it as a real or moral solution’ don’t you understand?”
The issue requires some care, not for the least of reasons because what the Pope said is (a) not as clear as it could be, (b) there are known translation issues here (e.g., L’Osservatore Romano mistranslating “male prostitute” as “female prostitute,” prompting Lombardi’s second clarification), and (c) other differences in the different language editions of his remarks.
So let’s start with what the Pope said (English version):
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.
If you’ve been following the development of the story carefully, you’ll notice that the same phrases keep coming up in this regard. In Lombardi’s first clarification he stated that
” the Pope considers an exceptional circumstance in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real threat to another person’s life. In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered practice of sexuality but maintains that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection can be ‘a first act of responsibility’, ‘a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality’, rather than not using it and exposing the other person to a mortal risk.
And in his second clarification Lombardi states:
“I asked the pope personally if there was a serious distinction in the choice of male instead of female and he said ‘no’,” Lombardi said.
“That is, the point is it (the use of a condom) should be a first step toward responsibility in being aware of the risk of the life of the other person one has relations with,” Lombardi said.
“If it is a man, a woman or a transsexual who does it, we are always at the same point, which is the first step in responsibly avoiding passing on a grave risk to the other.
The fact that the same phrases keep being used—without paraphrases like “justified” or “permitted” or even “lesser evil”—suggest that this use is studied. It is intentional. They are deliberately not using terms like “justified,” “permitted,” and the like.
So if the Pope has chosen not to use such words, let’s not put them in his mouth, shall we?
From what I can tell the “first step” language can be taken in one of two ways, which are as follows:
1) The decision to use a condom represents a first step toward a moral exercise of human sexuality in that it shows the person is inwardly aware that not everything in the sexual sphere is permissible (e.g., risking the life of the other).
2) The decision to use a condom represents a first step toward a moral exercise of human sexuality in that a person is concretely limiting the danger to another.
These two senses are not mutually exclusive. One can view condom use as a first step toward morality in both senses.
The first understanding speaks to the inner attitude and awareness of the person using the condom. On this view one might say, “It’s a good thing that the condom user has at least some awareness of the limits of what is moral. It’s still not justified for him to use a condom—even in the context of an act of homosexual prostitution—but at least he has some kind of moral awareness that may grow with time.”
One also could hold sense (1) and simply not address the issue of whether the use of a condom is justified in such a context. One might simply be noting that the awareness of some moral limits is a good sign and not address the question of whether the condom use is justified.
Or one could say that the moral awareness is good and that using a condom limits the evil of the sex act in question: It may still be an act of homosexual prostitution that poses some risk of HIV to the other, but at least the risk is limited. It’s thus “less evil” than it would be without the condom. This converges with sense (2), above.
Even then, though, it is still misleading to say that the use of condoms is “justified.”
Consider a parallel moral judgment: “If you are going to shoot bullets into someone’s body for no good reason, it is less evil to aim randomly than to aim directly for a vital organ.” This judgment is quite true, but it puts the accent on the wrong moral sylLAble to pass this off with headlines like “Pope: shooting bullets randomly okay in some cases.”
The fundamental moral structure of the overall act is gravely morally disordered, just as is shooting bullets into a person’s body for no good reason. Acts of homosexual prostitution (and heterosexual prostitution!) are always gravely immoral. The most that could be said is that using a condom in such acts in an HIV-positive situation might be “less evil” than not using one.
The Pope, the Church, and for that matter theologically orthodox bloggers, are right to resist misleading characterizations that try to isolate consideration of the condom apart from the larger framework of the moral act, which is gravely evil.
To focus on the condom itself and trumpet it “justified” is to miss the moral forest for a single tree. The overall moral structure of human sexuality is what needs to be the focus of attention, and thus the Pope and his assistants have been assiduously pointing to the forest, though the press (as usual) seem to have myopia.
And it’s not even certain at this point that the Pope is endorsing the “less evil” view just articulated. Many competent readers have looked at his remarks and seemed to think he was endorsing some version of interpretation (1), above (the “moral awareness is good” view rather than the “condom use is less evil” view).
When I initially encountered his remarks, this was one of the first thoughts that suggested itself.
I try to give a careful reading to texts like this, and the Pope’s initial statement, “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals” suggested that the Pope meant more than just the “moral awareness is good” view. The word “basis” seemed in this context to suggest a basis for some kind of action, like the act of using a condom, which would get us to the “condom use is less evil” view.
But I don’t consider this to be decisive since there can be translation issues affecting this, as well as the fact the Pope was speaking rather than writing and he simply may have been a bit tongue-tied or awkward in trying to get across his point.
I thus see there as still being a significant amount of ambiguity here, and I would expect further clarification with time. As things progress, we should get more evidence about whether the Pope intended the moral awareness view or the less evil view.
I also don’t view the fact that the same thing was said about females as males as being any kind of surprise. In philosophy and theology, it is common to select an extreme case for purposes of making the principles clear and then seeing how those principles apply to other cases. It makes sense to start with a male (and thus presumably homosexual) prostitute since there is no procreative potential in his sexual acts and use that to identify principles that may also apply to other situations.
It’s important to note, though, that the Church tends to proceed in a stepwise manner, starting with limited, particular cases, and then filling in the picture by considering others.
At this point we don’t even have a Magisterial action on this question (it was an interview asking the Pope’s personal opinions, after all), but Pope Benedicts remarks—and the subsequent clarifications via Lombardi—represent indicators of what the Magisterium may say in the future.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I think you meant to say without paraphrases like “justified” or “permitted”.
Perhaps I am not familiar enough with the subject, but it seems to me that what the pope actually said on this subject is hardly anything to be remarked on at all, since it is quite consonant with Catholic thought among careful thinkers.
Hi Mr. Akin,
I think you have an interesting point of view and good arguments to defend it.
Nevertheless, you say that we should not put words in Pope’s mouth. Indeed. But most bloggers and commentators seem to do the same relating to the hypothetical male prostitute the Pope is talking about. Most take for granted that he was talking about a homosexual male prostitute, but he never said so. He only talked about a male prostitute. He might have meant homosexual, but might have not.
We seem to all try to explain what he meant (bloggers, journalists, bishops and archbishops, ordinary Catholics) but why don’t we just wait and see when he explains himself? Indeed we have the right to speculate, but no one can really know what was going in his mind when he said what he said. Furthermore, he might not have used exactly the words he would have wanted were it written instead of spoken.
Just my opinion.
Dominic
***Consider a parallel moral judgment: “If you are going to shoot bullets into someone’s body for no good reason, it is less evil to aim randomly than to aim directly for a vital organ.” This judgment is quite true, but it puts the accent on the wrong moral sylLAble to pass this off with headlines like “Pope: shooting bullets randomly okay in some cases.”***
_____________________
Another parallel moral judgment I am reminded of is an example from a Father Brown detective story….(I do not wish to ruin a detective story for those who have not read it, yet may still do so in the future, so I advise such people not reading further).....
But in one of the Father Brown stories, Father Brown confronts a murderer with his awareness of the details of a certain murder that the murderer had committed, but then states “I will seal this with the sea of confession. If you ask me why, there are many reasons, and only one that concerns you. I leave things to you because you have not yet gone very far wrong, as assassins go.”
Father Brown goes on to explain that it is because the murderer did not fix the crime on others when it would have been very easy for him to have done so, but instead tried to fix the crime on someone the murderer knew “could not suffer” for it. As Father Brown says “That was one of the gleams that it is my business to find in assassins.”
Yet, if one were to go by the media’s way of interpreting things (and assuming Father Brown was not a fictional character, of course!), then they would take away that the moral of the story as being “Father Brown states murder is OK in some cases”
*sigh*
If I understand the issue correctly, I would think the Pope is considering the “middle path” in this respect. I think the Pope is opening up the POSSIBILITY that condom use is the BEGINNING to start on the path to a moral lifestyle. However, condom use does not constitute arrival and mean that the person has achieved a moral lifestyle. Condom use is an interim step which must eventually be dropped in order to claim that a moral life is truly being practiced.
Father Lombardi in his clarification says:
“his [the Pope’s] aim, rather was to reaffirm with force that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved SIMPLY by distributing condoms, because MUCH MORE needs to be done:....”
Do these words not imply that that the distribution of condoms is part of the solution? If so, is this not a major change in policy on behalf ot the Pope?
Furthermore Damian implied that clergy or religious in Africa who forbade women to use prophylactics were “going against the blessing of the Pope”. The Holy Father has not given his blessing to condom use, but perhaps in certain cases has not employed condemnation for the use of the condom where it is employed with the consideration of the health of the other, which is entirely in line with Catholic sexual ethics, particularly JP2’s “Love and Responsibility”. As you state, this is not part of the magisterium so I cannot see how clergy and religious in Africa would be going against the will of the Pope, nor that he would he disprove of them if they refused to sanction condom use.
What do you think?
Jimmy, you claimed “The most that could be said is that using a condom in such acts in an HIV-positive situation might be ‘less evil’ than not using one”. But “using a condom” is itself not intrinsically evil and not necessarily an evil act at all. The meaning of and morality of “uaing a condom” is variable. It does not necessarily become evil simply because it has some connection to an evil act such as prostitution. For example, “wearing shoes” and “breathing” can also have connections to acts of prostitution, but that doesn’t mean that “the most that could be said is that wearing shoes and breathing in such acts might be less evil”.
You also claimed “it’s not even certain at this point that the Pope is endorsing the ‘less evil’ view just articulated”. But perhaps you’re unaware that the press has reported: “Lombardi said the pope didn’t use the technical terminology of ‘lesser evil’ in his comments because he wanted his words to be understood by the general public. Vatican officials, however, said that was what he meant.” So while it might not be “certain”, there is reportedly something “official” about it.
You also claimed “It makes sense to start with a male”, but it actually started with some German words which lack a direct translation to the word “male”. Thus the word “male” reflects someone’s (not the pope’s) attempt at translation which was reportedly not confirmed by the pope as reflecting his intent, hence the official clarification: “The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to apply only to men. ‘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… This is if you’re a man, a woman, or a transsexual’”.
Re: Mike on Tuesday, Nov 23, 2010 7:12 PM (EDT)
Mike, excellent post. I love Fr. Brown stories.
Re: Jimmy’s Post Topic
Jimmy, you are invaluable at pulling the threads apart; showing them one-by-one; and putting them back together, so that the pattern can be clearly seen.
it’s nuts.
Dr. John Haas has written a sensible piece over at Catholic News Agency.| Article Title: Vatican spokesman’s remarks on condoms add to confusion, top US theologian says | Article Link: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-spokesmans-remarks-on-condoms-only-add-to-confusion-top-us-theologian-says/
When I first heard this, I knew better than to take the newspaper as correct (sad, but true).
So I saw the full context of the topic and the Holy Father’s response.
My thought is, as an analogy of my work as a veterinarian:
a dog owner comes in with a dog that has shown in our clinic to be a an aggressive biter. I inform the owner that they are risking severe liability by keeping this dog. They should consider finding a different home that can train that out of him or seriously consider euthanasia.
The owner then says they do not want to do that.
I then say that in all circumstances were a bite would likely happen, they should keep a basket muzzle on the dog, where he can still pant and drink water, but almost all human parts (fingers excepted) can never be in this dogs mouth.
As a safeguard because they are not taking care of the root problem - the behavior of the dog.
I don’t know if that makes sense, Is this a logical analogy?
fwiw
Dr. Ramirez,
I know that analogies are not perfect; however, I think that your analogy does - in connection with other analogies and explanations - make sense. I know that I will find it useful when I am trying to explain Pope Benedict’s statement. Thank you for offering it.
Mr Akin,
I apreciate your insights and thought provoking notes.
I just thought I would share a little tid bit I saw on Janet Smith’s facebook page..
God bless you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfhKjxvUUIs
Diane, the article you cited as allegedly written by Dr. Haas was apparently written by Marianne Medlin, and not by Dr. Haas, though it reports to quote Dr. Haas. And although the article is titled “Vatican spokesman’s remarks on condoms add to confusion, top US theologian says”, the quoted statements by Dr. Haas also add to the confusion, because a number of his purported claims are unproven, or worse, erroneous or hypocritical.
For example, Dr. Haas reportedly states: “the presumption is that the male prostitute has AIDS. His decision to use a condom perhaps might mean some expression of concern and regard for the other person.” No, that’s but one possible presumption. Other possibilities are that the prostitute does not have AIDS and uses a condom because he wishes to remain that way; or, the client requests that a condom be used for the client’s own reasons and it matters not at all to the prostitute. The pope’s statement in the interview only says “a prostitute uses a condom” but does not clarify who is assuming responsibility or being protected by the condom.
Dr. Haas reportedly also “pointed out that female prostitutes do not use condoms”. Such a statement about female prostitutes is false. Some do and some don’t use condoms. Female prostitutes also use condoms in a variety of senses. One, condoms exist which are designed specifically for female use, and there are female prostitutes who in fact are specially trained in their use and who indeed use them. Two, heterosexual women can and do “use” the same condoms that men use, because sex is typically a joint activity. Indeed, many women, in speaking about sexual activity with their male partners, will say “WE use condoms.” Female prostitutes may even be the person who purchases the condoms, requests their use, applies them, etc. while the man may be entirely passive about the condom usage. It is thus not just men who use condoms.
It also quotes Dr. Haas as making the sexist statement: “[If a female prostitute does use condoms…] She would want to protect herself from being infected and in no way would be expressing the concern for the ‘other’ that the Pope said might be the first step toward ‘moralization’ if it were being done by a male prostitute.” Frankly, if Dr. Haas actually made such a sexist and ignorant statement, he perhaps deserves to be taught a lesson by someone like Gloria Allred. The fact is that there are female prostitutes with families to feed and care for (including babies in the womb), whom they love, which they would have difficulty doing if they had AIDS, and therefore there are female prostitutes who use condoms for that reason and not “a selfish concern”. Similarly, there are also female prostitutes who know (or suspect) themselves to be infected and therefore insist that condoms be used because they care in some way about the health of others, whether it’s the people who hire them or their families. Just because the people who hire female prostitutes might not care about their health or the health of others does not mean the female prostitutes they hire don’t care about them. Meanwhile, there can be male prostitutes who use condoms only for selfish reasons, not caring about the clients who hire them, or who use them without caring about anyone. Prostitutes don’t all dance to the limited sexist or prejudiced beliefs of Dr. Haas. Painting female prostitutes as selfish but male prostitutes as generous and giving is sexist and ignorant. Male prostitutes are not all on the “giving” end of things. Many are strictly on the receiving end.
Dr. Haas also purportedly said, “We ought to let the Pope speak for himself.” But does Dr. Haas practice what he preaches?
Mr. Akin - thank you for your commentary on this issue. I am dismayed at the media portrayal but not a bit surprised. I wish that the Vatican would issue a clarification which clearly states that the hypothetical prostitute the end goal, needs to be leaving that life and practicing chastity until and if they in the future become married.
Without such a clarification a whole bunch of Catholic youth just heard “practice safe sex” even if that wasn’t what was spoken.
Also, from what I understand about condoms and transmission of viruses such as HIV, they are far from perfect. There is still an approximate 15-17% transmission rate. Which raises the very valid question, if even between spouses where one is infected, and the other willing, if it is moral to expose the spouse to that risk of infection - especially if there are dependent children to consider. It is still Russian Roulette, just with fewer bullets.
With regard to the Vatican newspaper, what is going on over there???? Breaking embargo, mistranslations, etc.
Thank you again, looking forward to reading your book.
Whatever way one wants to cut it, isn’t all this like saying that safe and clean abortion procedures are better than using a coat hanger - because after all the former may show signs of respect and concern for human life (i.e., at least for that of the mother’s)? I just don’t get how one can derive that this is a de facto approval of condoms when in fact the Church has never been in the business of advising people on how to sin safely.
Bravo Jimmy. You nailed it!
..I’m posting this to my FB.
I think the Pope has hit upon a brilliant tactic to gather feedback and research from all quarters for an upcoming Magisterial document. The conditions are now ripe for an encyclical addressing these issues.
just like the concentration on his words rather than the message regarding the condoms seems to miss the point, so does this entire discussion. i think the most important passages regard an entirely different aspect, one which the entire condom condomundrum portrays. so many times is it stated that the man behind the clothes is not always infalible, that the institution has made mistakes that i’m surprised people arent concentrating on the greatness of a man who has such faith in his own faith that he can afford to question it, or rather the clothes and institutions that are supposed to manifest it but have been failing so miserabely to do so for far too long… the condoms are a metaphore, no more. b16 knows as well as everyone else what the teachings on rubbers have always been. he’s simply saying: we (well, not we, i’m jewish, we never make mistakes…) have been wrong! we can be wrong. we are human. this does not mean that our faith is. it defines our humanity.
Please read this to understand better what the Pope really meant.
Moral Exemptions in Contraceptive Use: What the Pope really Meant?
I do not see a change in official Church teaching. I do see a change in understanding of and application of official Church teaching. I welcome it. NOT because I endorse condom use (I don’t); but because I understand morality as being on a continuum. Some are closer to perfection, others are farther from perfection, but none of us can get there without Grace. Sometimes Grace works rapidly and people are freed from the bonds of grave sin quickly. Other times, it works slowly and people improve over time but remain in sin for a long while. All I see is that Pope Benedict has acknowledged this reality. Hence, I embrace it.
I think we need to find out who broke the book embargo and leaked the quotes to the press knowing that without the full text there would be confusion, and why l’Observatoire Romano participated in this deliberate deception.
In a homosexual (non-procreative) act, I don’t see why there is an issue with wearing a condom at all. It would be equivalent to exploring the morality of wearing a condom while masturbating. Of course, the acts themselves are gravely evil, with or without a condom.
Also, I think we need to separate the analysis of wearing a condom during an individual homosexual act from the PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS to encourage condom use. Those campaigns are gravely flawed because the condom is not safe. yes, it reduces the risk, but if it gives the false impression of safety, then you can (and do) end up with more transmission of disease than if you simply recommended chastity or monogamy.
Engaging in sexual activity at all if one has AIDS is gravely immoral in my view, condom or no condom.
On the other hand, the remarks of Fr. Lombardi have thrown me off a bit, and I hope there will be further clarification. The use of condoms in potentially procreative acts is a completely different story.
Regardless of how folks are interpreting the pope’s words, the responsibility for how they are received is completely in his (and his advisors’) lap. When one speaks unclearly it’s no one’s fault but his if he’s misunderstood. All sides are claiming to understand what he meant, but all sides are presenting different conclusions. Would that have happened if the pope had simply said what he meant? No. This is less a moral issue than it is a communications problem. No wonder Catholics on all sides are simply doing whatever they want. They are getting no clear teaching from above.
Jimmy,
I also got the same reading you did in Damian Thompson’s ‘triumphalistic’ postings.
It’s nice to know I’m not the only one that felt put-off by his rhetoric.
I love the guy and enjoy reading nearly all of his posts (until his most recent).
Anyhoo, great follow up today!
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
I think it’s important to contextualize the Holy Father’s remarks by looking at the criticisms to which he was responding. Namely, he seems to have been addressing the absurd notion that the Church’s teaching regarding the immorality of contraception is somehow to blame for the AIDS crisis, a notion which, despite its total lack of basis in reality or rationality, is really quite widespread.
The critics of the Church insist on an answer: “Are you saying it’s better for people to run around having indiscriminate, unprotected sex, or for people to run around having indiscriminate, protected sex?”
Usually, those who are presented with this false dilemma say that neither one is a good solution, and that, even from a non-moral standpoint, the second option is not a very sound way to stop the spread of AIDS. Instead, the Church proposes a more excellent way: chastity, monogamy, and sometimes if it’s necessary, continence even among married couples.
If these are the criticisms to which he was responding, I think the pope could be understood as saying, in essence, “Look, we’re not being irrational here. We can see what you mean when you say that it is better to have a bunch of people running around having promiscuous but prophylactic sex than a bunch of people running around having promiscuous unprotected sex. If those were really the only two options, I suppose one might prefer the first option over the second option. Perhaps the fact that people were showing a *possible* sign that they are beginning to take some form of responsibility could be a promising indication. But wouldn’t it be better still—much, much better still—if we didn’t have a bunch of people running around having promiscuous sex?”
The absolutely essential thing to keep in mind is that the “lesser of two evils” argument only works when there are really only two choices. Here, the third choice (chastity, etc.) is not only a still-lesser evil, it’s a good.
Jimmy-
The only disagreement I can offer to this analysis is the caveat you offer about speaking rather than writing. It seems to me (without having read anything of the book yet other than these excerpts in controversy) that the pope would have certainly reviewed and vetted the printed text before publication, thus eliminating potential “tongue tie.” However issues of translation persist to offer serious complications as always.
Thanks for your always insightful analysis and coverage.
How much more of this insanity are we going to have to endure? I’m talking about guys like Akin who just continue to try and nuance something out of what the Pope said to make it square with perennial Church teaching. It’s ridiculous. The Pope is using the same old Vatican II trickery where you say something so ambiguous as to confuse the hell out of everyone and mass confusion soon ensues. It’s 1967 all over again.
Lombardi’s statement only confounded the issue even more and revealed with even more clarity his obvious shift in opinion about this subject.
In light of this I must seriously consider if I want to remain a Catholic.
As I liberal who has major disagreements with this Pope (as you can imagine), I am actually very impressed with the nuance of the Pope’s remarks, which I think have been missed by the both left and right commentators. I feel that he reaffirmed Catholic teaching (which I disagree with) but also recognized that in an imperfect situation, an individual may make a decision that is more moral than another decision. What impresses me the most is the way these comments are consistent with the philosophy of harm reduction, i.e. help people make the healthiest decision possible in their circumstances, both for them and their partners, so that all may live and have opportunities to grow into better decisions.
It boils down to this: you cannot reach people with salvation if they are dead.
What is wrong with teaching the truth about sex. None of you here has talked about what Jesus of Nazareth taught. Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who directly inspired and authored the Holy Bible said that all who practice homosexuality, fornication, adultry, and/or any sexual devience such as beastiality etc, etc, will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God PERIOD. That is the END of the story. No change. No special circumstances. PERIOD ! ALL who teach ANYTHING contrary to this is a LIAR and the truth is not in him. So says the ONLY authority, God ! PREACHERS are to teach the source document (the Bible), not their idea’s, or wishful imagining’s.
The Holy Father chose a rather peculiar example, that of a male prostitute, where the decision to use a condom to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS could be a “first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” He is saying that putting the interests of the other person above your own is an act of charity, even within this morally objectionable context. His more significant inference is that condom use by homosexuals is a moral positive, when nested within their morally disordered sexual act, because it is not a question of birth control but of disease prevention. The Church does not have a blanket disapproval of condoms, only their use for birth control. Nonetheless, the efficacy of condoms hardly warrants the Holy Father elevating their stature under any circumstances.
I just wanted to alert everyone to the misrepresentation of the Pope’s words in Wikipedia,
“In November of 2010, the Pope stated that it is acceptable to use condoms in some very special cases as a device for the prevention of disease.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Contraception)
For those who may participate in the editing process on that site, you might want to chime in for the sake of accuracy.
Isn’t odd for anyone to suggest alternate ways to “reduce” the severity of a sinful act, RATHER than to just plainly teach the truth, ( God’s commandment’s) of sexual immorality ? What a waste of time and misleading, hence all this interpretation, confusion concerning the Pope’s comments. What hypocrocity !
I would like to endorse the posts of Carla Lambini who appears to be a voice in the wilderness because no-one chooses to even attempt to tackle her honest and practical questions and observations with regard to the Pope’s comments on the use of condoms and the alleged quotes from Dr. Haas. Despite all the protestations in these posts, the media simply reported on what the Pope was alleged to have said, as is their right and their duty. That is why we have a free press.
The Pope has, perhaps unwittingly, opened Pandora’s Box, and the Catholic Church’s unbending and totally unrealistic position on the use of condoms and on birth control in general will now be questioned as never before. The press has reported that “the Pope didn’t use the technical terminology of ‘lesser evil’ because he wanted his words to be understand by the general public.” Well, the general public is all ears as of now, and if the Pope says there are exceptions to the rules regarding condoms, we need to have them clearly explained so that we, the “general public” can understand exactly what it is he, and through him, the Catholic Church is saying.
I fully agree with Ms. Lambini that using a condom is itself not intrinsically evil. Far from it. There are myriad reasons for doing so - to protect the individual, to protect a partner, to protect an unborn child, to protect a woman for whom another pregnancy would be dangerous - and many of these reasons have nothing to do with prostitution, homosexuality, promiscuity, casual sex outside marriage, etc. etc. This debate has only just begun, and now, as never before, the world will be closely examining the Church’s position, and it better make sense because the issue is now out in the open and there are many millions of people, including millions of Christians, and dare I say it, many Catholics, for whom the Catholic Church’s present position is outdated and nonsensical.
With reference to the posting of “ed”. I was not aware that Jesus Christ himself directly inspired and authored the Holy Bible. In fact I always understood that the Old Testament was inspired by God and was written by the Jewish people long before Jesus made his appearance on earth. I also note that in my copy of the Holy Bible none of the “unrighteous” shall inherit the kingdom of God, and that includes thieves and drunkards. Now there is a broad brush! It also clearly states that adulterers should be killed (see Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:10. As “ed” states so eloquently “End of story. No special circumstances. PERIOD. ALL who teach ANYTHING contrary to this is a LIAR and the truth is not in him”? Mmmm. I presume “ed” believes in the absolute literal interpretation of every word in the Holy Bible.
Revelation is authored by Jesus Christ Himself, whom “He” gave to John his servant, Revalation Chapter 1:1. The general public needs to be made aware of what Sin is ! Professing Christians don’t even know or understand the meaning of Sin ! The “christian” churches are derelict in there duty in instructing the sheep on this very issue. They, (the churches), convelute the issue with all this condom talk, and not focus on what God demands of everyone who calls themselves Christian. Sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 John 3:4. If it wasn’t for the Law, people would not know what Sin is ! The sheep are not being fed. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Jesus said, FEED MY SHEEP ! The “administration” of condom use is secondary, useless.
Man shall live by every word of God. When these statments were made by Christ,s deciples, all that was available to them at that time was the old Testament. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness ! This last quote is a perfect example of the problem with this “worlds christianity” 2 Peter 2:18 For they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through licentousness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. Do you know what licentiousness is ? It,s Christians using the Grace of God as a license to commit sin. Actually despising the sacrifice of our Savior in their lack of obedience, and works ( keeping the God,s law) in their lives. CONDOM,S ??? COG
Contraception:285-86
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
Sin:528
and hatred:343
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
Vision of the four Beasts
DANIEL 7:1-28
The New American Bible
The only one who muddied the waters was the Holy Father himself. Why didn’t he stop at the 3rd paragraph of his answer? The 4th paragraph was completely gratuitous and led the interviewer did his job well following it up with a question to the point, which the Holy Father answered:
“but there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a… more human way of living sexuality.”
Truly, in one fell swoop the Holy Father linker the condom to reducing the risk of infection and leading to a healthy sexuality. He’s wrong, in principle, and dead wrong in articulating it.
I love the Holy Father, but he put his red shoe in his mouth. Stop shooting the messengers for taking the Holy Father at his words. In this case, they didn’t have to distort his words, the Holy Father did it for himself and brought the hole Mother Church down.
You totally misunderstand everything I,ve said. Firstly, all that I commented on is #1 directed at the Pope. #2 directed at all shepards under him who teach Not according to scripture. #3, Christian,s who follow blindly not working out their own salvation with fear and trembling ! Blind leaders of the blind, and both (all who follow) will fall into the ditch !
All this proves is that the Pope is losing his mind and that years of Scholastic thought have him straining at the gnats and the minutia of canon law. In typical Catholic fashion, he focuses on the minors and avoids the majors. The majors you ask? “Jesus answered and said to Nicodemus, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” -John 3:3
I will make it very simple:
Christianity + tradition of men + Scholasticism = Catholicism = Eternal punishment.
Christianity + circumcision = Judaizer = Eternal punishment.
Christianity = Life and Power in Christ.
Basically I agree but, Jesus Christ was a circumcised Jew as the Law demanded. But now we all should know circumsion is of the heart, or at least is supposed to be ! Though science has shown and is proven to be a great physical blessing if done, again, not reqired by God,s Law. And does not make a person a “judaizer”. Salvation is “OF” the JEWS, for in them were committed the oracles of God. The Jews came from the tribe of Juda, whom came our Lord Jesus, the tribe which will be redeemed in the Last Days. God loves alll His people. Juadizer was an evil termed used by the emporer Constantine. He was the person who brought in the heresey of keeping sunday worship instead of God,s Sabbath Saturday as kept by ALL of the original Apostles, Jesus Christ and all who have kept the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints. So say,s reputable history, and your Bible. 325 AD at the council of Nicea Constantine became “god” for all sunday keeping “christian,s” ! Whomever you yield your members to obey, that is your God. God said Saturday, Constantine said sunday.
So what can we conclude? Ifthe Judaizers who were way more Christian than the Roman Catholics are condemned than we can also infer that Catholics are also condemned. Especially considering that Bishop Newman admitted that 75% of Catholic worship has a pagan origin. So add in forged history, forged decretals, fictional apparitions, fictional hagiography, fictional Marian dogma, and neo-pagan Aristotelian Scholasticism and you have a recipe for sending millions to Hell. However self-righteous Catholics think they are good people because they ‘try to be good Catholics’. Good works will not get you into Heaven only repentance before a Holy God will. No one can come to Jesus unless God the Father draws them. No Eucharist, no baptism, no Hail Marys, no Papal decrees, nothing but being born-again by faith. If you don’t know what being born-again by faith is than you can be 100% certain that you are just a Christian imposter.
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. To be TRULY born again means of a resurrection from the dead into spirit. NOT some “born again” emotional experience. Faith is granted, given by God to whom He will. It is a gift like Grace. It cannot be drummed up, bought, or experienced unless God gives it. Dear Freddie; Who are these “Judaizer’s” of whom you speak ? What are they condemned for ?
Of course the Catholic position on condoms is outdated and nonsensical. The Catholic church has always managed by fear and intimidation. The Catholic church likes to say it has the fullness of Christian worship. Well does the fullness need to include many pagan rites to be full? Has anyone asked their priest to prove this definition of fullness? Doubtful! The sheep just blindly follow not out of love, but because they have been brainwashed into not questioning anything from Rome. Now that people have access to the Bible they see that the Pope and Magisterium have no teeth and they are invention of the Middle Ages. Don’t believe me read church history by Schaff or Pelikan. But emotionally unstable men and women will continue to listen to a red headed cherubic apologist, who spins facts out of context to support his agenda. The sin of gluttony is way worse than using a condom.
BTW, for more information on Judaizers see Acts 15 or read the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers.
Freddie, can you cite for us any biblical verses that promote the use of birth control?
Particularly in the Old Testament, I do remember an ocurrence of a bird using a form of birth control, and as I remember it didn’t go too well for him.
I like to think of it this way.
A mob hitman routinely kills 5 people each week. No remorse.
One day he decides to cut that down to 4 people a week. As a step toward a more moral and responsible view on life.
Of course the Church would not say murdering 4 people a week is a good thing or recommended.
>Christianity + tradition of men
Ah Freddie, let’s look at this shall we?
Up to 1930, ALL OF CHRISTENDOM forbade the use of artificial contraceptives. Even the mormons and JW’s were on board with this clearly apostolic teaching (and you know they’re out to lunch on so many things!). All of Christendom considered artificial contraception a violation of Genesis 38 (Onanism) and Paul’s prohibitions against sorcery (as the potions for contraceptive use were made by sorcerers and not by regular doctors who were prohibited from doing so by the ORIGINAL hippocratic oath!)
Imagine, all of Christendom united in a doctrine for over 1,900 years! I’d say that has HOLY SPIRIT SEAL OF APPROVAL written all over it.
Then the Anglicans allowed it and next thing you know one church after another allowed it until the only Church left that still held to the original Apostolic doctrine prohibiting artificial contraception was: The Catholic Church.
Man-made tradition? That is ALLOWING artificial contraception.
So, freddie, when did the Bible change?
Freddie and 67, please demonstrate in the pope’s own words where he said that condoms were “justified” and that they were a moral solution to the AIDS tragedy.
Dear Freddie; I am familar with Act,s 15. I still don,t understand your concern over “Judaizer”, and It,s intended meaning. Please forgive me and explain the issue. But let me say this; Physically, circumsion is a excellent benefit for boys eight days old. But NOT nessary for salvation as stated in Acts 15. BUT the keeping of GOD,S 10 Commandments are nessasary, as also explained to in Acts 15:21 . Verse 21 is over looked by ALL those who despise Gods Law. These people were being taught on the 7th Day Sabbath the LAW and were very Familar with it, and LIVED it, AS STATED in the verse. It is just that Circumsion was being made a nessessity by the religiuos authority (Pharisees), but was shown in Acts 15 that it should not be pushed on New Christians. Using the term Juadizer sounds very anti semetic, unChristian. In the beginning of the early Church of God (that,s what its called), the Christians and “JEWS” were hard to destinguish one from another. The Only real difference was Faith in Jesus. All this MODERN Christianity is totally unfamilar to Jesus Christ and what was taught by His Disciples. Christian’s are to KEEP Gods Law as a way of life, BUT it is the GRACE of God that gives Eternal life. Because All have sinned, therefore earning the wages of sin, death. Even though we KEEP the Commandments of God does not make one a legalist or a Juadizer. It is the whole DUTY of a man to keep the Law of God. Sexually immoral people are to stop practicing Sin. Now if a married heterosexual couple in later life use birth control, or say a heterosexual married couple already have “lots” of kids, then, again using birth control would show LOVE toward your spouse, the other kids by NOT putting a heath risk on the Wife, and by Not putting a finnancial burden on the whole family etc. Really pretty basic stuff. Doing birth control in SOME circumstances as explained IS KEEPING GODS COMMANDMENTS of LOVE TOWARD YOUR NIEHBOUR. To bad the “church” wasn’t doing this and not putting a burden on people. I must say here so you understand, GOD does seek GODLY OFFSPRING ( this actually is the GOSPEL in so many words), SO A youg married heterosexual couple ought to have children IF it does not endanger the wife. BUT AGAIN, BESIDES THIS “gay” people should be taught to STOP sinning. This is true Love toward your niehbour.
Isn’t it kanda the same issue, birth control, and circumsion ? I mean, the “religous authority” back in Jesus time said you must be cicumsised to be saved. That was unchristian, unGodly. And now the “religious authority” is saying that birth control must not be used or your condemned ??? Where is the LOVE in all this. Please refer to my previous explanation above so I don’t have to type it out again. The two greatest Commandments are to Love God with all your heart and soul and the second is to love your niebour as yourself. SO if you love God you will keep the commandments. Meaning if you can safely have children with out undo hardship then you had better. Family is the greatest blessing a person could ever have. Also as explainned in the above comment, if you LOVE your niehbour(spouse),or the “FLOCK” then you would put no burden that they cannot bear, as also explained above. Where is the Love in these decisions.
Dear freddie; either one is a Christian or not ! How can you tell you may ask ? Isaiah 8:20 period !
Ed, you can answer your own question if you can find biblical support for using artificial birth control.
It is a fact that until 1930 ALL Christian denominations considered artificial birth control sinful. That changed with the Anglicans and the Lambeth Conference in 1930, at which they voted on using artificial birth control in certain circumstances WITHIN marriage.
And, as we’ve seen all Protestant denominations have given in to the culture little by little now few remember that birth control is not biblical, nor is it in the 2000-yr. old Christian tradition. Look at our elder brothers in faith, the Jews, and it’s not biblical for them either.
Take that back another few thousand years.
So, Ed, what has changed, God, or man?
BTW, until the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, circumcision was not ungodly. Christ himself was under the law and was circumised. True, he brought a new law, but please don’t call the Old Testament circumcision “ungodly.”
Actually if you read my comment correctly, and you didn’t, The Biblical support for the use for birth control was given. I’ll state it plainly again. Matthew 22:39. Love your neighbour as yourself. I also gave examples, of such use of love. Please reread the examples. I also explained that circumsion is excellent BUT to FORCE it onto people, as with birth control( in certain cercumstances) IS ungodly. Your reading comprehension like my spelling, is wanting ! God,s Law, the Commandment,s are a light to the feet of “Christian’s” ! All who claim to be christian and don’t do God’s Law walk in darkness. This is probably why you may have a hard time understanding, as so many others. Love puts others first, NOT YOUR IDEAS. Let me ask you this; what does a BIRD have to do with mankind using birth control in a ” GODLY” way ? REPEAT, GODLY way !
So all these (your) churches considered birth control sinful eh. I wonder how many families have suffered through the ages because of this burden put on them. Mayby fewer children would have starved to death, if birth control was used. Mayby finnancial hard ships would have been aleiviated if birth control was allowed. Who’s ideas are promoted, here, God who is love and peace, or the “churches” who use Gods name in vain, worshipping as doctrine, the commandments of men ! What a discrace !
I guess without starving babies in the world, there would be no need to collect money to feed them ! What a money grab for the “churches” eh !
By the way I applaud the history of the Anglican’s on this issue, IF what you say is true concerning birth control. Bravo !!
“Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.” (1Corinthians 7:1-6, NKJV)
The Apostle Paul said a husband and wife can refrain from sex by mutual consent so they can fast or pray. However, each mate must not defraud each other to fulfill their sexual needs. If both love each other, they will try to keep each other content sexually. Since they are Christians and love each other, they should also consider what each is able to fulfill sexually. One mate should not take advantage of the other.
Since the Bible clearly states a husband and wife can decide to refrain from sex for Christian purposes such as spiritual needs; it also sets the example they can also refrain from sex for other loving needs. Economics could be a reason not to have sex because one has too many children or cannot afford to support any. Under such a rational loving consideration for the marriage, they can refrain from having children.
Therefore, birth control is proper with God if doing so out of what is best for the family and each mate’s capability as long as it is based on love.
Finally, a condom is non-abortive so it is an approved form of birth control. The pill is abortive so it would NOT be an approved form of birth control.
Conclusion: The Pope is clearly off his rocker. The Magisterium is run by committee of religious Pharisees. So I stand by my equation:
Christianity + paganism + tradition of men + Scholasticism = Catholicism = Eternal Punishment.
The Catholic church, before Vatican II, would tell people if they left the Catholic church and become Protestant they would go to Hell. Now the Catholic church has changed it official position. The Catholic church is a confused institution that has had repeated doctrinal flip flops. However like Islam, she hold her people in spiritual bondage with threats of eternal damnation. Fact is the Catholic church has a 1700 year history of treachery.
1. Apostolic Christianity had a separation of church and state.
2. Catholicism in Europe is and has always been a merging of church and state, just like Constantine intended. Once you mix church and state you lay the foundation for a heretical and emaciated form of Christianity.
Good article. This is the way I see it: it seems clearer to me that what the Pope was trying to say is that the use of a condom was a step towards moral responsibility in the part of the person who is concerned about preventing a possible disease spread. But not a solution. And much less that it makes condom use a lesser evil. Condom use is a disorder of the beauty of the sexual act, because it separates the two inseparable ends of the act from one another: union of the two (male and female) and procreation. Anything that breaks this union is evil. A condom puts a barrier to this union and keeps the Creator out of the picture. Not a good thing ever, even if it is to prevent a disease. And I am a nurse, as concerned as many others about the spread of STD’s and HIV. A condom use is a bandaid solution that only keeps the infection inside and in the long run only causes worse problems. Look at the stats after 50 years of trying such bandaid in Africa: it is not working. Marriage fidelity and abstinence before a total commitment to one person are the only real solutions to a huge problem. All humans are capable of this, no matter what faith they profess. Fidelity and the proper use of the sexual act is inherent in our human heart.
Dear Freddie; I was instructed by my Minister that the Pill IS a non-abortive form of birth control. I will look into it again. And I suggest you also. Lets find the truth !
Ed,
I have researched it at great length and it is abortive.
Anyhow for the Catholics on this site please refute the following.
Cyprian (258), like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest manuscripts read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (Catholic Encyclopedia 4, 585).—(C.E -Catholic Encyclopedia.)
Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy in the Middle Ages, the papal letters grew enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). “There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion” (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that “the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent,” a “multitude of unquestionably spurious relics” (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds: the origin of the Rosary and the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe, the Sabbatine Privilege, etc.
There you have it. Catholics are following a host of frauds because their unrepentant hearts have been deceived by Satan to believe such frauds and nonsense. I can only encourage you to leave the Catholic church before your hearts get too hardened. Remember what the Bible say in Hebrews 9:27, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,”
Catholic Apologists typically only focus on moral issues because theologically the Catholic church is bankrupt. Christianity is primarily about theology and secondarily about morality. God is a jealous God and will NOT tolerate false worship. Thus Moses became a righteous man even though he murdered the Egyptian. So Theology is more important than morality, but morality is still important. Catholic Apologists try to make eternally damned Catholics feel better about their guilty conscience by focusing on moral issues. the fact is an non-born again Catholic and a terrorist both will go to Eternal damnation.
Ed, you’re not serious, are you? Your Matthew quote has NOTHING to do with birth control. I say it’s not loving to put a woman on birth control so her husband (or boyfriend) can expect sex 24/7.
Please explain how God expecting the Old Testament male Jews to be circumcized on the 8th day after birth ungodly.
Genesis 17:14 tells us that the obligation is serious, and failure to fulfill it means separation from the covenant: “If a male is uncircumsized, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Explain how the Bible is ungodly here.
Also, please refrain from outright insulting people on here. It takes away from any Christian credibility you bring.
Thank you, Freddy, you have given the biblical basis for the Catholic teaching of Natural Family Planning. It is perfectly normal for a man and a woman to respect one another and refrain from having sex at certain times for serious reasons. And of course, by mutual consent.
I think you’re on your way to becoming a Catholic!
Notice that the bible verse says one can ABSTAIN, as in fasting. This is self control, not birth control.
Using a condom, potions (as Paul warns of), pills, foams, sterilizing oneself within marriage, etc. are NOT biblical.
Please demonstrate in the bible where condom use, sterilization within marriage, IUDS, Norplant, RU-486, or any unnatural gimmick is used to prevent fruitfulness withing marriage.
Ed, I wouldn’t applaud the man-made tradition to loudly.
Christianity has ALWAYS been for fruitfulness in marriage. The Old Testament account of Onan tells us that the Law of the Levirate called for him to marry his brother’s widow, Tamar, and try to have a son by her.
Onan went through the motions of intercourse with Tamar but would withdraw and spill his seed on the ground.
He was enjoying the pleasure of his act, but he did not want the responsibility of his actions. This should sound familiar to many a modern man and woman out there today.
God’s judgement on him was strong: “And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him also.” (Genesis 39-10)
The Law on the brother not having sex with his brother’s widow stated that she could take a sandal off of her foot and spit in his face before the elders- humiliating, but not the death penalty.
Onan went through the motions of the convenant and defrauded God’s purpose for sex, and got the death penalty because of his contraceptive withdrawal.
(taken from the Art of Natural Family Planning, pp. 269-270)
Martin Luther on artificial birth control: “This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomite sin. (Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 81)
This evangelical Protestant says, “We have found not one orthodox theologian to defend birth control before the 1900s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it, asll the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation.
John Calvin described the sin of Onan as a form of homicide. (don’t agree, but it’s interesting) (Provan, p. 68)
John Wesley, the father of the Methodist Churches, taught that such sins are displeasing to God and that those who commit them will destroy their souls. (Provan, p. 91)
Ed, when you support artifical birth control, you are in the same camp as Margaret Sanger, who is the founder of Planned Parenthood here in America. She wanted free sex for the fit, and no consequences.
Artificial birth control is a man-made tradition, and it’s deletirious effects on Western culture prove it.
I find the whole thing very troubling!!! After all the church has suffered with the imoral priests etc. Why did he say anything like this, its very hard to explain to non-catholic as well as ourselves. I know the media never gets it correct but I really dont see any explanation from the church that makes it easier. I thought the complete act was a sin, with or without a condom. What about the couples who want to limit their families, they said that was not allowed, Im disapointed and confused.
Mary, we Catholics have to be careful and not let the media dictate what the Church actually teaches. The media isn’t the magisterium!
Nothing has changed with Church teaching.
Just look at it this way: the pope is not going to CHANGE Church teaching on contraception in an interview. That’s where this info came from- a book-length interview where the pope was asked some theologically speculative questions.
I do think he needs to get some media savvy Americans over there, however, who know how to run things and who can think a step ahead of the present moment.
George Weigel could make some excellent recommendations, as could William Bennett.
This is with reference to liseux’ post of 28 Nov. asking me to demonstrate in the Pope’s own words where he said that condoms were “justified” and that they were a moral solution to the AIDS tragedy.
Before responding I have a question for liseux. Where on earth did I ever say any such thing, or anything even close to what you are alleging? I think that is a clear case of “ putting words into someone else’s mouth.”
For the record I have stated that the Pope no doubt opened a Pandora’s Box when he made reference to the use of condoms, and in the words of Papal spokesman Federico Lombardi in trying to explain the Pope’s initial comments about condoms, ” the Pope considers an exceptional circumstance in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real threat to another person’s life. In such a case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered practice of sexuality but maintains that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection can be ‘a first act of responsibility’, ‘a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality’, rather than not using it and exposing the other person to a mortal risk.”
Mmmm. That’s a rather convoluted statement but I get the distinct impression that the Pope is saying that there can be exceptional circumstances where the use of a condom might be “a first act of responsibility”, “a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality”.
Quite frankly, as I stated at the end of my post, “Well, the general public is all ears as of now, and if the Pope says there are exceptions to the rules regarding condoms, we need to have them clearly explained so that we, the “general public” can understand exactly what it is he, and through him, the Catholic Church is saying. “
Right now all I’m hearing is an awful lot of obfuscation. Is liseux seriously suggesting that the media put the word “condom” in the Pope’s mouth. Did the Pope bring up the subject of condoms during his interview or did he not? Did the Pope say that there are absolutely NO exceptions to the rule regarding condoms – or did he not. As I stated earlier, Pandora’s Box has been opened and it will be all but impossible to close it up again.
67, you’re almost as good as the media in obfuscating. Glad to know you haven’t fallen for the entire media falsification
The pope was asked a question during an interview. So, no, he didn’t bring up the topic, the interviewer did.
The pope said that the Church does not see condom use as a real or moral solution to the AIDS. For some ODD reason, the media and YOU don’t focus on that part of the interview.
Please demonstrate where any Church teaching on the use of contraceptives- be they pills or latex- has been changed. If you can’t do that, then you’re simply speculating, and I’m sure we both have better things to do then sit here and second guess what HASNT happened.
You’re a knowledgeable guy; certainly you recognize that 2000 years of Christian teaching is not going to be changed during a papal interview, even if it is for a book.
P.S. by analogy
Say a habitual robber started using a gun without bullets to rob a bank because he realized that it might prevent someone from getting hurt, and the pope made the statement, “This robber has arrived at the beginnings of conscience, a certain moralization for him. But the Church does not recognize using a gunless bullet as a moral solution to the problem of bank robberies.”
Would you then make the statement that the pope has opened a pandora’s box on robberies.
Would you say that the pope has allowed exceptions for robberies?
Would you say that this could be the beginning of change in Church teaching for robberies?
It’s the same obfuscation going on- only it involves sex and for that reason, the media is playing it up.
analogy by way of George Weigel on Raymond Arroyo’s EWTN News
Liseux’ latest replies are more obfuscation par excellence. So the Pope didn’t actually raise the subject of condom use – he was asked a question about them by someone to whom he has, I understand, previously given interviews. Is the interviewer a part of this entire media falsification plot? Did the Pope say categorically that there are no circumstances in which condoms could be used? I don’t think so. I have not stated anything to suggest that the Pope saw condoms as a real or moral solution to the AIDS problem.
Liseux can squirm and wriggle and accuse the media of falsification as much as she likes, but the truth is that the Pope appeared to suggest that there may be exceptional circumstances where the use of a condom might be “a first act of responsibility” a “first step on the road toward a more human sexuality”. There appeared to be some confusion as to whether the Pope was referring only to males using condoms to protect their sexual partners against AIDS or whether it applied to females as well. Papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi clarified that issue when he stated “I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “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. The point is it’s a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another.”
As for the totally ridiculous analogy of the bank robber using a gun without bullets to rob a bank etc. Come on. Get real. The Vatican spokesman made it abundantly clear that “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.” I hardly think one can argue that bank robbers have a “relationship” with their victims!
And liseux, just what exactly is a “gunless bullet”?
I do agree with liseux in one regard. She states that the obfuscation “involves sex” and that is why “the media is playing it up”. It is undoubtedly true that this issue involves “sex” because I am not aware of any other use for condoms - with just one exception. I have known them to be used by smugglers to transport illegal drugs by swallowing condoms filled with the drugs). Pandora’s Box is wide open.
The bottom line is the Pope realizes that the Catholic position on condoms is a bunch of nonsense. If condoms are abortive than so should Natural Family Planning be considered as artificial and a mortal sin. Only blind sheep will try, unsuccessfully, to put the lid back on Pandora’s Box. The Catholic church has been hemorrhaging common sense for 1700 years, and the Reformers finally figured out the Papacy had ‘no clothes’. Study history and you will see the Papacy and Magisterium are anti-Biblical and anti- Early Church. Thus if the members of early church convened a council today they would declare an Anathema on the Roman Catholic Church.
67, you are indeed an agitator.
You know full well that Catholic teaching is not changed by a pope during an interview.
The pope never said someone “with whom one has a relationship.” (Did you know that papal spokesmen do not dictate Church teaching??)
The pope purposefully was talking about a male homosexual prostitute. I don’t think they have too many “relationships.”
The Vatican spokesman changes Catholic teaching for you? No wonder you are so confused on the issue!
Please posit the papal letter, encyclical, or other recent magisterial teaching which demonstrates that the Church has changed its teaching on contraceptive use.
Hello Freddie,
You said, “The bottom line is the Pope realizes that the Catholic position on condoms is a bunch of nonsense.” Didn’t know you could read the mind of the pope.
Freddy said: “If condoms are abortive than so should Natural Family Planning be considered as artificial and a mortal sin.” Fred, I never said that condoms are abortifacient, and I don’t believe any Catholic on here said that.”
The rest in your post if off-topic diatribe that doesn’t deserve much of a response.
Here is a list of 101 Catholic doctrinal flip flops.
http://www.patrickpollock.com/101heresiesjp2.html
This list speaks for itself. The Catholic Church is run by a bunch of lunatics who can effectively coverup the child molestation scandal. Ratzinger was fully aware of the issue and reassigned Priests to different Parishes. Americans fail to understand that as a European he must coverup any scandals to prevent further attrition from the church. Europeans are not like Americans. Europeans are NOT as forgiving as Americans with a scandal of this magnitude. This is why Catholicism is almost wiped out among young people in Ireland. But foolish American Catholics can’t think outside of their self-centered world and understand how Europeans think.
Then, why dear Freddie, are you here?
If we’re SO bad, then just leave us “foolish” “lunatics” alone.
I do believe it is your hatred of Catholics that keeps you coming back. Your insulting posts are not meant to evangelize, to teach, or to explain.
Just like on other blogs, when you’ve been proven wrong through historical and biblical support of things, you change the topic and go off on some blaring tangent.
You are an internet troll, Fred. It’s clear and plain, and why you’re still allowed to post your off-topic diatribes here is puzzling.
I have given a solid list of things for you to refute. However Liseux you have not been able to refute a single one. If I hate Catholicism this is a good thing. Why?
“Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.” - Psalm 97:10.
Therefore God is pleased when I hate something as wicked as the Catholic church. Until you understand that God hates the wicked than you are far from being a born-again Christian. You have created a god that has been created from the traditions of men and NOT the inspired Word of God. I will pray for your soul and ask that the blinders of Catholicism be removed from you eyes.
Well this whole thing degenerated into a pile of you know what !! I have to admit I have not helped, forgive me if I have insulted anyone with my comments. I honestly do not want to offend anyone. I understand that God DOES NOT HATE ANY PERSON. HE hates evil, and the evil people do. He is not happy with the death of the wicked, and we are not to rejoice when people fall into the perverbial ditch. Everyone has somthing to learn here FOR SURE ! Now I know freddie can show me where it says God hates this and that, BUT, if you take the WHOLE Bible into context, (and you don,t at times, just like liseux, and the other catholics) you will find that He hate NO ONE ! Not even the wicked, just there thoughts and actions. Liseux: Onan and Tamar could have children, therefore it was and is a sin. Great example. Like I said those who can, should, and those who have fullfilled that obligation, well done, or if medically dangerous, they should not be forced to.Or if truly they are needy and destitute, then of course not. You like freddie need to understand the intent of love toward fellow man. I still need to look into this pill being a problem though. My preliminary check says it prevents ovulation .
Ed, if some are truly needy and destitute, as you say, then God has provided for that.
Certainly you know that a woman is fertile for only 3-4 days out of her monthly cycle. That leaves 24-25 other days for bonding, and all bonding doesn’t have to be sexual.
The Catholic Church teaches that sex inside marriage is both for procreation and to unify they couple. Sex isn’t soley for procreation.
To me, it seems that Freddie’s bible verse back this natural way of planning one’s family: ““Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
As for the pill being abortifacient, it’s true, Ed. Even the pill’s own medical information states it.
From the American Life League:
“How does the pill work?
The birth control pill can work in one of three ways:
1.It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary)
2.It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, the woman’s body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.
Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.”
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10126
In other words, breakthrough ovulations occur, the woman conceives, but he child has no where to implant; thus, it dies in a barren womb.
Ed, I have not been much help either in keeping the tone of this conversation up to par. We Christians can do better; please know I appreciate your humility in stating that, and that I am working on my end here to improve the situation.
Pardon my typos. I’m always in such a hurry.
What a most peculiar response to my last post from liseux who now seems to be denying just about everything regarding the Pope’s condom comments, including the words said to have been spoken by Papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi on behalf of the Pope. I have never said in any way shape or form that a papal spokesman dictates Church teaching and I would be shocked to the core if the Pope’s comments on the subject of condoms, together with the clarifications said to have been given on his behalf means that the Church has changed its teachings on contraceptive use. Those are entirely the words of liseux – not mine.
Whether liseux likes it or not, or whether liseux accepts it or not, the Pope has made public comments about the use of condoms, and is purported to have stated that he “wanted his words to be understood by the general public”. His comments have apparently required clarification by a Papal spokesman who I can only presume had some kind of papal ‘permission’ to make those comments.
Liseux makes the point that the Pope was referring to male homosexuals who don’t have too many “relationships”. One might argue that male homosexuals have far too many “relationships” but I won’t pursue that point. However, if the Pope passes an opinion that even vaguely suggests that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection can be ‘a first act of responsibility’, ‘a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality’, rather than not using it and exposing the other person to a mortal risk, then surely we “the general public” have a right to ask the Pope, and the Church, to fully explain if there are any other circumstances in which the use of a condom might be viewed as “a first act of responsibility”.
For example, if a married woman discovered that her husband has been infected with the AIDS virus, let’s say through intravenous drug use, or through a tainted blood transfusion (as has happened), is it remotely possible that their use of a condom to prevent the wife being infected with AIDS might also be considered as a “first act of responsibility”? Or is it a mortal sin by both no matter what the reason? No exceptions no matter what the Pope might say.
As I stated earlier, “the general public is all ears as of now, and if the Pope says there are exceptions to the rules regarding condoms, we need to have them clearly explained so that we, the “general public” can understand exactly what it is he, and through him, the Catholic Church is saying.” If my comments and questions make me an “agitator” according to liseux then I will wear the epithet with pride.
?
67, you’re really good at prideful posturing; I imagine that’s why it takes you 300 words to say would could have been said in 50.
I think you might be one of the journalists out there who really wants the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception to change, and projects his or her own relativism into anything said by the pope or his underlings.
If you wish to discuss further, let’s remember a few points:
1) Papal spokesmen do not make the moral teachings of the Church.
2) Until you present the official document stating that Church teaching has changed, you’re speculating (some would say obsessed with sexual issues of the Church, but I won’t go that far).
3) I prefer not to discuss matters of speculation. I’m a doctrinal gal.
Perhaps someone else with discuss with airy imaginings of what a papal spokesman media-type said.
Sorry to disappoint liseux but I’m not a journalist or anything even remotely close. I am a retired law enforcement officer.
I tend agree with the matter of speculation. I don’t think we should unduly speculate on what the Pope was getting at when he discussed the issue of the use of condoms, or the follow-up comments attributed to the Pope by Papal spokesman Federico Lombardi (described by liseux as a “papal spokesman media-type- whatever that means) who I can only presume is fairly legitimate because some of his comments were quoted by Jimmy in the headline article for this post.
Liseux refers to the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. To the best of my recollection I’ve not actually discussed “contraception” in these posts. The issue in question was the use of condoms. Whether liseux likes it or not the Pope has made a statement about the use of condoms, and I will state my position once again, “the general public is all ears as of now, and if the Pope says there are exceptions to the rules regarding condoms, we need to have them clearly explained so that we, the “general public” can understand exactly what it is he, and through him, the Catholic Church is saying.”
I would be happy to expand in a later post on the absurd suggestion that I am obsessed with sexual issues of the Church, and whether liseux is actually the person with the sexual obsession based on some of her previous statements.
Question; if sex between a married man and woman was designed ONLY for procreation, Then the same couple if they were to engage in sex after her child bearing age would be sin, yes or No ?
Question; if a married sterile couple were to engage in sex it would be sin yes ? Can’t have kids, must not abuse your selfs. No sex right ? If a married couple had sex when a woman wasn’t ovulating it would be sin right ? Women don’t always know when they are ovulating.
Re: married sex, etc… The Church teaches, quite consistently, that the purpose of sex is both unitive AND procreative—each aspect complements the other. This is why the practice of natural family planning works so well—there are times when a woman is fertile, and times when she is not. The decision to engage in conjugal relations within the context of marriage is left up to the couple to discern, depending on their stage and station in life.
I think that if the Pill “could” cause a chemical abortion in even as much as one half of a half percent of women then absolutly YES, I must be avoided 100%. Thanks for this info, I am still looking into it. Thanks ! But the Law concerning Onans obligation shouldn’t nessaceryly mean “Birth control bad “, in each and every case. Look at all the questions raised and NONE were answered ! A Married couple should enjoy each other,in the Fear of God, and never at the expense of a Human Life, no matter what the Odds are. The LAW of Onans “obligation” was just that. It was a Law concerning his obligation to his deceased brother. The Bible says that. That’s what it says. The context isn’t about contraception perse ! Onan was NOT showing Love,(out going concern)for the widow or respect to his brother, or to God by Keeping the Law of his desceased brother. This is what I am telling you. If we use scripture in it’s proper contex, AND use ALL of the Bible, “here a little there a little”, we won’t have to ADD all this silly stuff.
another point: let’s not confuse the difference between contraception and family planning. Those with serious reasons to do so may morally space their children or limit their family size; NFP is permissable, contraceptives are not.
NFP is not the same as using condoms; if it were, then just use NFP (it’s more effective at pregnancy prevention than condoms anyway).
re: the method of action for hormonal contraceptives (the pill, patch, ring, depo, some IUDs, norplant, etc.) - all forms rely on 3 avenues of methodology—and this is all in the Merck Manual, THE drug reference for medical professionals: 1) to prevent ovulation, 2) to decrease sperm transmission by alteration of the cervix and cervical mucus, & 3) to prevent implantation (thereby causing early abortion). The current literature projects that a woman will experience breakthrough ovulation about once per every 12 months of hormonal contraceptive use with “perfect use;” the rate is higher with “typical use.” This is why methods (2) & (3) are necessary. Incidentally, this is also how the “morning after” pill works.
re: the use of condoms within marriage in cases of possible disease transmission. My question is this: would either spouse truly want to take that risk, with the possibility being either that you pass it to your spouse or that you are infected by your spouse? I don’t know, especially given that: a) condoms fail to prevent pregnancy at least 10% of the time—with perfect (not typical) usage; b) HIV is more transmissable than sperm; and c) HIV is usually deadly.
Hello Ed, the Church has always taught that sex within marriage has two aspects, both the procreative and the unitive.
When a man and a woman have sex, a child can be conceived. (procreative)
When a man and a woman have sex, the woman’s body emits a hormone called oxytocin. It’s the same hormone that she secretes when nursing a baby; this is a bonding hormone which God, in his infinite wisdom, gave us to create families. (unative)
Men have the same hormone secretion, but at lower levels.
So, infertile couples or elderly couples, etc. are still acting in the marriage covenant.
Ed, as for Onan, the punishment for his refusing to have sex with his brother’s widow was a sandal and spit in his face. This was by the Levirate Law.
He didn’t get that punishment.
He went through the motions of keeping the Law; he also had sex with her and the pleasure of that act. However, he spilled his seed on the ground.
This prevented conception. It’s (contra)ception.
God said he was displeased with his action, and Onan got death.
If you do a web search or recall your Bible verses, you can see that sex in the Bible is always called to be open to life and fruitful. We are mystically married to Christ, as He is the Groom, and the Church (the baptized believers) are His bride.
Our love is fruitful when we allow it to be. This is God’s plan.
I think you’ll agree that you’ll see much more in the Bible of “Be fruitful and mulitply,” and “children are blessings” and “may your children surround your table like olive trees” and “may you quiver be full of sons as they are of arrows” rather than:
“contracept, sterilize, and abort” or “children are brats and limit your good times.”
Thanks for your honest questions and dialogue.
I totally agree and understand the verses you quote concerning Gods desire for our families and your correct. But to extend the punnishment to Onan as a doctrine of birth control being a sin,(in every circumstance) I don’t get. Anyway, please explain natural family planning. Is there birth control in it’s usage ? How about this analogy; I give offerrings and I tithe 10%. Concerning offerrings its up to me to give according as I am able. Now if I were to give MORE than I could afford and say I put my offerring on my credit card and actually did not have the money and put my family finnancials at risk, this would be reckless and a Sin. It would be reckless to have children if I could not provide for them in any sense of the word. I think you could agree. But the issue is birth control over abstinence, period, correct . Even between a married couple, who had lots and lots of kids, and did there duty ? I don’t see fairness or Love in that decision.
The way I see it Ed, we have to use faith and reason together. My faith demonstrates that no where in the Bible does God promote artificial birth control: no foams, potions (Paul talked against these.), withdrawal, etc.
My God-given reason also tells me that I am fertile for 3-4 days a month. If my family and I are truly struggling financially or I am not healthy, then I can watch my bodily signs (mucus, temperature, cervix positioning and texture, etc.) [...hope this isn’t too much for you, but you asked] and my husband and I can rationally decide to have sex or not during my fertile time.
For the good of the family and for serious reasons, we can postpone having children.
Please don’t misunderstand. The Catholic Church has never taught fertility at all costs. We are called to use both faith and reason, and they go well together.
As for being loving, I don’t think it is very loving to have only one child so that someone can give her the best education affordable. That’s what I read lately at another forum. I think that along with the gift of living the faith in one’s home, SIBLINGS are the best gift to give a child.
Why? It is through family life that we learn sacrifice, sanctification, and that it ain’t all about us.
Some can only have one or two children, and for them that is a blessing. My parents had only two, and I can’t tell you how I struggled with sick parents, funerals, fixing up the house to sell, selling the house, and so on while my bro lived thousands of miles away. I would have liked to have had that love and support of my brother or sisters lost to miscarriage but who were not there.
Anyway, that is my point of view. I do realize that people are different, but God does have a plan for all of us.
Hello 67, you sound more like a lawyer in your writings; that’s a complement, not an insult.
I agree with what you said that people now are asking questions. These questions are legitimate. And indeed, you made me think about the situation with an AIDS-infected husband or wife.
What came to mind was condom failure. If the pope were to say that using a condom is a “moral or real solution” to the problem of AIDS, then it would be problematic. If I had AIDS, and as a faithful Catholic, followed the pope’s words, I would be risking giving a lethal disease to my husband.
Condom failure rate (slippage, tearing) is at 16% in the sources I generally examine. That’s one in six- kind of like Russian Roullette if one uses a six-shooter.
According to this source, which is not a Catholic one, condom failure differs:
“Condoms are designed to bar transmission of the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but they sometimes fail. This
paper explores the effect of experience with condoms on condom
failure among gay men. METHODS. Risk of condom failure (breakage
or slippage) on a single occasion is estimated for four sexual acts
reported over 12 months by a sample of gay New York City men (n =
741). The estimation procedure assumes that each episode in which
a condom is used is an independent event.”
http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms1.html
As the pope was talking about homosexual men, this sheds some light on the pope saying further in the interview that the Church does not see condoms as a real or moral solution to AIDS.
So in answer to your question, I think that in light of the fact that condoms fail, then I don’t believe that the pope will ever okay them even within marriage. They can lead to death.
As for being a mortal sin, one can see it in differing ways. If someone is addicted to sex, then his or her culpability is lessened.
However, I think it should be a mortal sin to knowingly endanger your wife or husband’s life, but only God can judge our hearts and souls.
I have little more to say on this subject as it is time consuming. If you have a further point to make, I’ll try to answer as I can.
@ ed: natural family planning (NFP) utilizes the normal physiologic rhythms of both husband and wife to either achieve or avoid pregnancy. It is not “Catholic birth control;” no contraceptives or barriers are used. Instead, each couple discerns whether they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy or if they are open to life and makes the decisions about conjugal love accordingly. If they are avoiding pregnancy (either temporarily or permanently), then they practice periodic abstinence within marriage. This is done by avoiding intercourse on the days that a woman is fertile, which is no more than 6 days per cycle. Couples are trained to interpret a woman’s fertility signs by monitoring her biomarkers (cervical mucus, temperature, etc.) and communicate about their family status and pregnancy intention each and every month.
Just a quick note; the natural family planning IS a form of birth control. It is like you tried to deny for me already; it is Catholic birth control. It is birth control. You are controling the birth of a child.
Liseux, even if one were to use a “one in six” condom failure rate figure, that figure can and does mean that five of six people may have no condom failure whatsoever even though they use condoms regularly for extended periods of time. And even with condom failure (slippage, breakage), that failure is itself not equivalent to transmission of HIV or death. It’s also neither simply a matter of random chance nor “one in six”, as stated in the very study you cited: “Risk of condom failure… declined rapidly with experience… Gay men… after moderate experience… may expect a low risk of condom failure”. The link you provided reports statistics for a number of studies which are very different from one in six. For example, it reports that the Richters study found 2.8% broke during application or use and 3.4% slipped off, for a total (if we can simply add them) of 6.2% which is one in 16, not one in six, and importantly, “many of these failures posed no risk to the user, especially those occurring during application”, and therefore, the actual risk rate is significantly less than one in 16. Also the Boldsen study reported “It appears that the condoms rarely (1.3%) ruptured or slipped off during the actual intercourse.” That’s one in 77. The Russell-Brown study reported that breakage varied significantly by country. The Albert study reported that “condom breakage occurred in approximately 1 out of 100 acts of intercourse”. You say, “in light of the fact that condoms fail… They can lead to death.” Of course, many people say the same about unprotected sex, equating it to a 100% condom failure rate in terms of disease protection.
You say over and over denying God children is sin. BUT, then you say the Catholic’s can deny God children, through “family planning”. How can one reconcile the two . Answer; It is not logical, it is hypocricy. Birth control is taken “out of context” of scripture.
Thank you the info on birth control pill, and my preliminary check shows that it could be immoral. I agree, thanks !!! But as for what Onan did to Tamra as a case for “across the board” Doctrine in birth control is not logical, or scriptural. Neither is the catholic position in family planning. Thanks for the debate !! :)
Ed: Thanks for keeping an open mind. It’s not “denying God’s children” that is sinful—it’s the putting in place a barrier to God’s natural procreative act. In other words, limiting the birth of children for legitimate and serious reasons is acceptable, provided that this is done *with,* not *in opposition to* God’s plan for human sexuality. Contraception is saying “no” to God’s plan for us altogether; NFP says “if God truly wants this, we will be open to it.” It’s using our bodies in the way they were meant to be used.
Jorge, thanks for commenting on the suject.
You stated, “Liseux, even if one were to use a “one in six” condom failure rate figure, that figure can and does mean that five out of six people may have no condom failure whatsoever even though they use condoms regularly for extended periods of time.”
The study showed that this was over the period of one year. If one keeps up the lifestyle, one certainly increases the likelihood of transmission of AIDS.
I agree that sex without a condom can lead to death faster. However, if one abstains from sex before marriage and is faithful to his or her marriage partner, that sexual behavior will keep one 100% free from sexually transmitted AIDS.
According to this reliable guide from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the failure rates of condoms, it’s still a deadly move, Jorge. Fifteen percent is still one in six. And this is the general rate I have seen on government tables.
http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/ab020a.cfm
Could you argue to a loved one that we have a five chances out of six that the bullet won’t go in your head? That’s a great risk for sex.
I say that’s why AIDS is still spreading in many populations, particularly homosexual men.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/?/news/cdc-20-of-gay-men-have-hiv-and-half-are-unaware-of-status
A study showing 1 out of 5 gay men have AIDS in certain metropolitan American cities.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/?/news/gay-sex-is-downright-dangerous-and-abstinence-wont-kill-you-i-should-know
A study showing that homosexual men in Canada have a lifespan of 20 years less than heterosexual males.
BRI ; I just read your kind comment. Just a clarification, I like NFP as a option of birth control though risky and could still result in pregnancy. Which in some countries could mean hash economic hardship. Or starving or death for the child and or other family members, which is probably unacceptable in this situation. I agree that in these situations Abstinence first. Condoms or other “non-lethal” forms of birth control such as what “Onan” did, tho not reliable either, also could be an option. As long as we do not endanger the health and wellfair of the unborn or the family. The health and welfare of individuals is paramount, espciecally in the context of the law of God, love !
Ed, according to the Couple to Couple League, NFP has a pregnancy prevention rate of 99.4 when used correctly, as compared to the pill at 99.6 when used correctly.
I’ve seen a German study that rated NFP higher than the pill.
What we all need to realize is that SEX leads to conception.
I think some mothers in poor countries have that figured out better than we here in the “rich” countries that see sex as recreation.
According to Jacquiline Kasun in The War Against Population, in many of the underdeveloped countries they have a surplus of condoms and birth control pills in warehouses and women flee the birth control workers and beg to have their implants and IUDS removed. (p. 83 Her source is “Pills for the Godown”, The Bangladesh Observer, December 2, 1996.
Don’t you think that we should be sending food to these countries rather than our goverment paying for their “population needs”?
They have a warehouse full of birth control but no food.
So, some of your starving families that you keep mentioning are starving not because they have too many children, but because of WAR, CORRUPTION, and poor economic policies.
The solution is to help the people, not get rid of children.
Ed, the Couple to Couple League’s website is www.ccli.org
They have some of the latest and most up-to-date information on raising a family within God’s plan.
I found out from there that couples using artificial birth control have a divorce rate of 50%, while those who use NFP have a divorce rate of less than 5%. I realize it’s not just because of their acceptance of children or non-acceptance of children, but because of an entire mindset to family, the spouse, and God.
Also, www.pop.org (Population Research Institute) has a WEALTH of information on the coercive birth control measures going on in poor countries such as China, with its one-child policy.
It’s not very loving to forcibly sterilize a woman and tell her no more children because your govt. spends so much money on nuclear weapons or is corrupt.
Nor is it loving to expect women in India, where the population density is the same as New Jersey to abort, sterilize, and contracept, when American women here are not coerced to do the same.
The economy in many situations that needs to be tinkered with, not a woman’s lifelong fertility.
Frankly, the more I learn of NFP I can appreciate it as a good form of birth control, again NOT the only form. I totaly agree that a woman should not be forced into birth control. Abortion is murder.
Liseux, you wrote that “If one keeps up the lifestyle, one certainly increases the likelihood of transmission of AIDS.” No, the mere engaging in homosexual acts does not itself increase a person’s likelihood of transmission of HIV/AIDS. For example, a monogamous pair of HIV-free homosexual partners do not have increasing risk over time. Likewise, even persons who engage in casual sex with multiple HIV-free persons, they too do not have increasing risk over time. There is no risk of HIV transmission in sexual relations between HIV-free persons.
You then cited a table for pregnancy rates from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. That table is not a reliable guide to condom failure rates for any person or to the risk of HIV transmission. Condom failure is dependent in large part upon skill and circumstances. And pregnancy and HIV transmission are not the same thing. For example, in a study of 62 HIV-discordant couples where the HIV-infected partner had no detectable viral load and who were to have unprotected sexual intercourse only on the women’s fertile days, there were 78 pregnancies by the end of the study and no detected HIV transmission.
You asked, “Could you argue to a loved one that we have a five chances out of six that the bullet won’t go in your head?” I can inform many a loved one that they have little to none known risk of HIV transmission although they continue to engage in homosexual acts. You can safely play with an unloaded gun. And there are highly reliable methods to check if the gun is loaded or not which people can use.
You posted a link and wrote, “A study showing 1 out of 5 gay men have AIDS in certain metropolitan American cities.” Listen and learn: The CDC study tested only volunteer micropopulations of sexually active gay men. The CDC study does not claim to be representative of gay men in any city. The study expressly disclaims: “the results are not representative of all MSM”. It represents a “convenience sample” only, explicitly excluding gay men who had not been sexually active, and only sampling micropopulations of people who, for example, frequented particular bars or clubs and who then volunteered to participate. For example, researchers could stand outside a sexual bathhouse and collect volunteers.
Likewise, you allege “study showing that homosexual men in Canada have a lifespan of 20 years less than heterosexual males.” You did not provide a citation but that’s likely a reference to the 1997 Vancouver modeling study by Robert Hogg et al, which was not on the mortality of gay men but instead on “how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men” in Vancouver. In Dr. Hogg’s own words, “[Lifespan] cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor.” Merely being a gay man in Canada does not mean that his lifespan is now 20 years less than heterosexual males. Furthermore, like all modeling studies, the Hogg study made numerous assumptions in creating the study model. Were the assumptions accurate? Dr. Hogg has since stated, “if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved”.
Indeed, even among persons living with HIV, there can be little to no difference in life expectancy compared to persons without HIV. It is reported that a Dutch ATHENA Cohort study released this year followed 4612 patients who were newly diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 and calculated that the life expectancy for a 25-year old patient diagnosed with HIV would be an additional 52.7 years, compared to an additional 53.1 years for a 25-year old without HIV. In other words, the 25-year old patient with HIV could expect to live until age 77.7, compared to 78.1 for the person without HIV. That’s a difference of just 0.4 years, not even taking into account the medical advances to come in the future. In more precise medicalese, the life expectancy of asymptomatic HIV-infected patients who are still treatment-naive and have not experienced [an HIV or AIDS-defining symptom] at 24 weeks after diagnosis approaches that of age and gender-matched uninfected individuals. Again, the predictions are based on only on the term of the study and depend on medical treatment continuing to work, and might not apply to patients who are late-diagnosed.
Speaking of lifespans, if you persist in posting falsehoods after having been corrected, please be advised that you may be engaging in mortal sin. A proper diagnosis and corrective action are can be as important to you as much as to anyone.
Jorge, you stated, “Likewise, even persons who engage in casual sex with multiple HIV-free persons, they too do not have increasing over time.” That is precisely the type of attitude that gets a population in trouble medically.
How does one know that the multiple casual sex partners don’t have AIDS?
You state that the condom failure rate used by the American College of OB Gyns is not reliable.
I would think it’s more reliable than someone opinion.
Also, you state that someone gains skill in using condoms over time. Yes, but is that AFTER they contract AIDS in their trial and error years?
Jorge, it’s the false sense of security and invincibility that your position takes that spreads sexually transmitted disease, among homosexuals and homosexuals.
Male homosexuals are prevented from donating blood, Jorge, to keep the blood supply safe. Lately, there has been a movement to have this changed with propagands stating that male homosexuals blood is safer than before.
I am thankful that someone in the government has the brains to protect the American blood supply.
Jorge, if you truly knew about mortal sin, you wouldn’t be promoting homosexual sex which is an abomination before the Lord. It is against nature and is not blessed; thus, the various physical and mental problems that it brings.
Even IF a person does live as long or longer with HIV, WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THAT !!!! Disease is still a DISEASE. It is a dirty, filthy, vile way to end your days !
Liseux, if you resent the truth of what I say, that is your “attitude” and it can get you and others “in trouble medically”, but it does not change the fact that the mere engaging in homosexual acts does not itself increase a person’s likelihood of infection.
You asked, “How does one know that the multiple casual sex partners don’t have AIDS?” To begin, I did not merely say “multiple casual sex partners”. I specifically said “casual sex with multiple HIV-free persons”. My statement is thus restricted to casual sexual activity within the confines of HIV-free status. With that in mind, asking “How do you know that multiple HIV-free persons do not have HIV?” is like asking, “How do you know a circle is not a square?” The answer is because it’s a circle, and a circle is not a square.
If your question is, “How do you know whether your partner is HIV-free?”, you might ask yourself, “How do you know your husband or person you marry is HIV-free?”
You wrote, “You state that the condom failure rate used by the American College of OB Gyns is not reliable.” No, I correctly stated that the table you presented from them is a table on pregnancy rates. It is not, nor is it presented as, a table on condom failure rates. Furthermore, the pregnancy rate presented in the table does not present the pregnancy rate when condoms are correctly and consistently used. Human failure to use a condom consistently and correctly is not condom failure. It is human failure.
You wrote, “you state that someone gains skill in using condoms over time. Yes, but is that AFTER they contract AIDS in their trial and error years?” My answer is that I don’t dictate when someone gains experience. People can and do become experienced by many ways without contracting HIV. For example, if your husband were to practice on you, would he contract HIV?
You wrote, “it’s the false sense of security and invincibility that your position takes that spreads sexually transmitted disease” No, nowhere do I claim or suggest that condom use makes anyone “invincible” to HIV/AIDS. And the fact that HIV transmission does not occur during sexual activity in an HIV-free environment as among HIV-free partners is not a “false sense of security” but a statement of fact.
You wrote, “Male homosexuals are prevented from donating blood”. No, if you mean in the U.S.A., there is no federal rule which per se excludes male homosexual persons from donating blood. There is a rule which excludes male persons (whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or whatever) who have had sex with another male since 1977, and a rule which excludes male and female persons who have had sex with such persons within the last year, and a rule which excludes male and female persons who have engaged in an act of prostitution (heterosexual or homosexual) since 1997. These are some of the crude rules based on crude intelligence used in a crude attempt to keep the blood supply safe. And rules don’t prevent anyone from donating blood if they’re not followed.
If you resent the truth or see it as “promoting homosexual sex”, that’s you.
Ed, you asked, “Even IF a person does live as long or longer with HIV, WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THAT !!!! Disease is still a DISEASE. It is a dirty, filthy, vile way to end your days!”
In the words of His Holiness Pope John Paul II…
“Suffering experienced together with Christ is a very great gift and a most effective help in the apostolate. ‘In the Body of Christ, which is ceaselessly born of the Cross of the Redeemer, it is precisely suffering permeated by the spirit of Christ’s sacrifice that is the irreplaceable mediator and author of the good things which are indispensable for the world’s salvation. It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the powers of the Redemption’ (Salvifici Doloris, 27).”
“Because I have personally experienced it, I also know the suffering which physical incapacity causes, the weakness that comes with sickness, the lack of energy for work, the feeling of being unable to lead a normal life. However, I also know — and I wish that you also may see it — that this suffering has another sublime characteristic: it gives a great spiritual capacity, because suffering is a purification both for oneself and for others. If it is lived with a Christian outlook it can become a gift offered so as to complete in one’s own flesh ‘what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the Church’ (Col 1:24).
“Thus, suffering makes sanctity possible, since it offers great apostolic opportunities and it has an exceptional salvific value when it is united with the sufferings of Christ.”
“Believers who suffer in union with Christ and surrender themselves to him help make his salvation known to others. When you suffer with Christ, you show that you are blessed… Accepting your suffering in this way, you allow others to see the true dignity of the human person. You reveal a God who loves us so much that he became one of us in order to share our pain and sorrows. You make known the truth that God will transform death itself into a beautiful future where ‘he will wipe away every tear’ (Rev. 21: 4) from our eyes. Dear Friends [the sick and the suffering], you see how important you are!”
Jorge; Jesus never had AIDS, did not DIE from AIDS. He had NO sexually transmitted disease. IF a person got a sexually transmitted disease by fornication, that person IS NOT suffering with JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth !! To suffer with Christ means if you are following Him as He lived, doing the things He does and are sufferring for it, THEN you are in fellow ship and are sanctified. For example; Jesus was an unmarried man, He did not have a sexually transmitted disease because He did not fornicate. Now if another individual who was unmarried follwed Jesus Christ of Nazareth would also NOT HAVE A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE because he would be suffering with Christ doing NO fornication etc. When a person committs sin he can expect a to die in his sin, unless the God of creation pardons him. THE SOUL THAT SINS SHALL DIE ! Disease is unnatural and usually a result of sin of somekind and someone. Mayby not the person affected but a sin was still comitted somwhere. All trials are NOT caused by sin but some are. All disease is not present in the world to bring people closer to God and Christ. Though some trials do. DO NOT confuse the two. Being a part of this world brings sufferring and death,and Not a fellowship with Christ. Followers of Christ do suffer somtime but NOT LIKE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. YOUR quote Jeorge and oppinion is in opposition to scripture it is not even funny. Life and peace is what can be expected when one follows the God of the Bible. This is what should be exclaimed. Usually when Christ healed people He usually said ” SIN NO MORE”, unless a WORSE thing come upon you ! When I become sich with this or that, the first thing I ask myself, ” what have I done”. AGAIN not all disease is caused by the sick person, though some are !!
Jorge, it’s difficult to discuss the issue with you as you are in denial of the seriousness of having disordered sexual relations- condom or not.
Homosexual sex is disordered. Period. Nature demonstrates this as two homossexuals having sex cannot produce a child. Also, the parts do not go together and cause ruptures, etc. Use your imagination.
When one breaks the natural law, such as male-on-male sex or sex with beasts, the natural law will come back to break that person.
This is what we are seeing with homosexual acts.
You’re in my prayers, Jorge, and I do hope that you see the truth about the disordered nature of homosexual acts.
Good comment Liseux !!! Most immportantly homosexuality is a Sin.It is against God. It is against HIS law. One cannont consider themselves Christian if they are a practicing homosexual, (and why would they even try behoves me). ALL sexually immoral people who are unrepentant, just like thieves, drunkards and ALL liers can expect the lake of fire.
Ed, please join me in prayer for those with same-sex attraction, that God in His great mercy will continue to move them into a life full of faith, hope, and charity.
Thanks for your insights on the issue.
We are all sinners and in need of God’s mercy, me included.
Ed, you wrote, “All disease is not present in the world to bring people closer to God and Christ.” Church teaching offers another perspective: “ALL is ordained for the salvation of man,” and “We know that in EVERYTHING God works for good for those who love him.”
You wrote, “Jesus never had AIDS, did not DIE from AIDS”. Is that like “Jesus never had cancer” and “Jesus never sinned”? It doesn’t change the fact that Christ suffered and died for our sins, taking upon himself the sufferings of humanity, including the sufferings of people with AIDS and cancer and the consequences of sins such as fornication.
You wrote, “IF a person got a sexually transmitted disease by fornication, that person IS NOT suffering with JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth”. Take another look, “got” is past tense while “is suffering” is present tense. The Church does not teach that sinners of the past cannot suffer with Christ. People who fornicated in the past and with AIDS today can suffer with Christ. And “if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him”.
More from His Holiness Pope John Paul II: “You who suffer from AIDS have an important role to play in this vital struggle for the well–being of your country! OFFER YOUR SUFFERINGS IN UNION WITH CHRIST for your brothers and sisters who are especially at risk! Your suffering can be a gracefilled opportunity to bring about the moral rebirth of… society.”
You wrote, “YOUR quote Jeorge and oppinion is in opposition to scripture”. Really? That’s actually YOUR opinion you speak of, your interpretation of what you read, if you didn’t know.
Liseux, you wrote, “you are in denial of the seriousness of having disordered sexual relations- condom or not.” No, that’s your opinion you’re speaking of. I posted in assistance to you in your moral duty of making reparations for your erroneous posts. Nowhere have I said it is not a serious matter. If only you respected the seriousness of the matter, perhaps others wouldn’t need to come along and clean up your rubbish.
Liseux, you wrote, “the parts do not go together and cause ruptures, etc.” If you’re referring to anal or oral sex, those acts are practiced by vastly more opposite sex couples than same sex couples, and it fits no better or worse in that regard. Many homosexual couples do not engage in anal or oral sex, just as many opposite sex couples don’t. Some homosexual couples do not engage in any sexual acts together, just as some heterosexual couples do not. Also, in terms of parts fitting, there are also opposite sex couples where “the parts” do not fit well together, even as you might prefer them to fit.
Jorge; Jesus never sinned. He was sinless. That is why He can pay for OUR errors, IF we repent. Even though we sinned in the past does not mean we practice sin in the present, so YES we can suffer with Jesus IF we walk as He walks. That is the point of being sanctified and the suffering with Jesus Christ ! If we practice lawlessness, commandment breaking, which the Bible often uses the term Iniquity. When we see the phrase Iniquity we should be thinking Lawlessness. Practicing sexually immoral people are workers of Iniquity, commandment breakers, Convenant breakers. The operative word here that is over looked is “Practicing”. And YES everthing does work for good for “those” that LOVE HIM. WHO, THOSE WHO LOVE HIM. WHO LOVES GOD. The people who keep the commandments. This IS what love is 1 John 5:3. Things work for good, even through suffering for those who walk after Christ. NOT those in the world (workers of Iniquity). People who live not according to Christ will suffer unto eternal death If unrepented of. But if a man suffers in this life though he follow after Christ according to scripture and NOT their own ideas or other mens ideas he can have confidence that GOD WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THAT LAST DAY UNTO ETERNAL LIFE ! The whole point I thought you may be missing is the most important word. And that is the word “Practice”. The key to Gods Kingdom is those who currently and forever is practicing. As A way of life. We all fall short. All have sinned as LISEUX noted, but WE DO NOT PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS AS A WAY OF LIFE. True Christians practice commandment keeping. GOD,s commandments ! When I speak I assume we all understand the point of those who practice God,s Law as a way of life and those who do not. Meaning there are a miriad of “christians” who are NOT Christian based soley on this VITIAL fact and this fact alone. JUST for clarification so you don,t accuse me wrongly; I realize that we cannot earn our way into the Kingdom of God BUT we must be practicing the commandments of God or we are not His. HE does not even know us if we say we are Christian and not do what He says as a way of life. Not lazely but dilegently as best we can. Jesus said “why call me Lord, Lord and not do the things that I say” , All Jesus was asked; How can I enter into erternal life, Jesus said KEEP the Commandments.
JORGE; question , are you a homosexual, bisexual, or anything other than what God considers “normal” ?
Jorge; I dont understand the Pope or his doctrine but I’ll tell you this much. There is a hugly misread, misunderstood word in the Bible. It is Licentious. Licentiousness is when “christians” use the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a License to sin. GRACE: the unmerritted pardon of sin( forgiveness). Grace is the forgivness of sin by God to people. We cannot earn it. You cannot earn forgivness. But God gives it to those who are repentant. Trying to change there Vile, sick, sinnful ways. We cannot cure ourselfs of our disease but we can STOP sinning. When “christians” say the law was done away or the law is a good idea but we dont have to keep it, or they remove or change parts of Gods law, they are actually in opposition to God. They are Licentious, they are workers of “iniquity”, “lawless”, evil without God in their lives. God says a good understanding have those who DO (practice) His commandments; Psalms 111:10. If you want to enter into eternal life keep the commandments.
I guess after much unwanted thought on a subject I would rather not think about, the Pope was right. A practicing sexually immoral person should wear a condom because mayby they might repent and then hopfully they would not have spread thier disease ruinnig the rest of their life and others. I would say this if a homosexual asked me, if they should or shouldn,t wear one. But I certainly would not right a book on it. Firstly if they asked I would tell them how abnormal and unproductive it is and leads to eternal death if unrepented of ! Then, and only then I probably would tell them to protect themselves. I think firstly they need to be told God does not hate fags like some very unChristian churches do. But hates the sin of homosexuality !
Ed, you wrote, “The whole point I thought you may be missing is the most important word. And that is the word ‘Practice’.” I appreciate that, and it’s possible you might have thought that, but I am addressing practice, even if it’s not as you expect.
In your Dec 3, 2010 1:55 AM post, you exclaimed “what kind of life” does a person with HIV live, and you used terms like “dirty, filthy, vile”. I responded by sharing with you what kind of life it can be, a wonderful and exemplary life in Christ. I do not equate “living with HIV” or “gay people” with “practicing sexual immorality”, but others just pluck away furiously at the rusty strings of their out of tune harps as if I’m missing it. I don’t miss it.
You mentioned Jesus saying “sin no more”. Notably, rather than joining in with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, Jesus immediately took the side of the woman, and not until the teachers of the law and the Pharisees had been shamed away, when Jesus was then alone with the woman in private—just “the wretched woman and Mercy”—did he tell her “go and do not sin again.”
You asked, “are you a homosexual, bisexual, or anything other than what God considers ‘normal’?” The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by such reductionist references as “a heterosexual”, “a homosexual” or “a bisexual”, etc. We all have personal problems, difficulties, challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well.
As to your “God hates the sin of homosexuality” line, I recognize what perhaps you want to communicate with that line, but the suffix “-ity” of “homosexuality” has the meaning “quality or state”, as in “the quality or state of being attracted to the same sex”, as in same-sex sexual attraction or orientation. As such, homosexuality is not a sin. And then there’s that “hate” speech aspect of your statement, which might be seen as making God (and you) out to be a “hater”. And then there’s the problem where so many “haters” have historically tried to hide behind “God”. And “abnormal”? Exceptional is abnormal. And “unproductive”? Singing in the rain and smelling the roses are also sometimes called unproductive. But we know that in everything God works for good for those who love him.
And you say, “they need to be told God does not hate f—-”? To many, that’s like telling black people that “God doesn’t hate N———”.
Anyway, just some plucks on the rusty harp.
Jorge, stated, “If you’re referring to anal or oral sex, those acts are practiced by vastly more opposite sex couples than same sex couples, and it fits no better or worse in that regard. Many homosexual couples do not engage in anal or oral sex, just as many opposite sex couples don’t.”
So which is it? You’re all over the road with your comments!
Jorge you are confused and in denial. So confused and in such denial that it’s obvious that this conversation is fruitless (much like homosexual sex).
As for my previous quotes and presentation of studies they were spot on.
Please answer Ed’s question about your being a homosexual or not.
Ed, the pope wasn’t right (Did I say that?).
At least not in what you’re thinking.
He didn’t say it was okay for a homosexual to use a condom any more than he said it’s okay to use a padded bat during a bank robbery.
Later in the interview (like 2 questions further) he said the Church does not see using condoms as a real or moral solution.
So the pope never said what you assume him to have said; therefore, he’s not correct on that point.
Ed, it’s been nice discussing things with you. May you and your family have a blessed Christmas season and may God bless you all.
Liseux; I sense that you are a very kind person and I also appreciate the conversation with you as well. Thank you for the open discussion. It makes me want to choose my words more carefully as I do not want to hurt or offend you or anyone. In the words I use I seek honesty but sometimes they lack discretion. Jorge is probably struggling with the sin of sexual immorality. I confess my sins to God, and try to repent and never do the sin again. But I can say as a heterosexual married man baptized into Jesus Christ of Nazareth I have on occasion, struggle with immoral thoughts ! So, the reason for my saying so is that we all have to acnowledge our sins, confess them to God, ask for forgiveness, and try to never ever do such and such again, asking God for the help to over come our self, the world and Satan the devil. Jorge is a spin doctor, a vain speaker of words, puffed up and does not do the truth. He does not seek the truth or acnowledge it when presented. He probably hasn’t repented of his transgressions and finds excuses to continue in them. All liars will inherit the lake of fire. Generally I dont pray for the people in the world, I usually pray for the Brethren. But I will as you lovingly suggested pray for Liseux saftey. I would like to add thank you for your extended salutation and I too wish you a peaceful, abundant life in Christ. Just a note; I do not celebrate x-mas as it has origens that predate Christianity, and this “holiday” actually hides the plan of God, making it contrary to God, therefore sinful, vain! Jeremiah 10:1-5. Hear O House of Israel !
Liseux, you quoted two sentences and asked, “So which is it?” Both sentences are true and neither contradicts the other. If it helps you, you can insert the word “and” between the two sentences. You can also insert the word “but” between the two sentences, and again, it remains true.
And I’ve already responded to Ed’s question. The answer is NO. Is that answer simple enough for you and Ed to understand?
Jorge, you are awash in a sea of relativism. So much so that your yes is a no, and your no is a yes. You can play word games with someone else!
Healing and forgiveness are linked. When Jesus Christ healed people often He would say your SINS are forgiven ! Healing and forgivness are linked. By His stripes we are healed and by His shed blood we are forgiven. He also would say “sin no more” when healing the people. IF disease was a way to bring people closer to God then this world should be awash in the Spirit of God. It is not. God said Satan is the god of this world, hence all the disease. If Jorge was right, and he is not, then Why would Jesus heal people. According to Jorge the disease would be a tool to bring people into a “fellow ship and sanctification” with the Christ. It does not. The exact opposite is true. THAT is why He and the Disciples healed so as to bring the forgiveness and rest, to the followers of God. The only way to come into the fellowship and sanctification with God is to keep the commandments. Jesus will say in that day of your resurrection, “I never knew you , you who practice lawlessness”. Did you get that Jorge, Christ does not know anyone who practices sexual immorality, or any other lawless deed or custom. You are NOT in fellowship with someone who does not know you. Sanctfication means set apart. Gods commandments set the followers apart from the rest of the world. They are Holy, just as the commandments are Holy. They (commandments) are a sign of those who follow God and those who do not. Revelation 14:12. “COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, LEST YOU SHARE IN HER SINS, AND LEST YOU RECIEVE OF HER PLAUGES”. Come out of this worlds religion and follow The Ever Living One. The real God of the Bible.
Amen, preach it brother!
Ed, you wrote, “According to Jorge the disease would be a tool to bring people into a ‘fellow ship and sanctification’ with the Christ. It does not.”
It is not “according to Jorge”. What you are commenting on is your interpretation of quotes of Pope John Paul II, a quote from Scripture and from official teaching of the Catholic Church. You have already admitted that you “dont understand the Pope or his doctrine”. If you disagree with your interpretation of what you’ve read, you are in conflict with yourself.
You wrote, “Did you get that Jorge, Christ does not know anyone who practices sexual immorality, or any other lawless deed or custom.”
The Catholic Church teaches that “If [mortal sin] is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell…” However, “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’” The Church does not teach that everyone who engages in “sexual immorality” is committing mortal sin.
You wrote, “You are NOT in fellowship with someone who does not know you.”
Whoever you imagine me to be is not who I am.
Jorge, Ezekiel 18:20 the soul who sins shall die. Remember what the first lie ever recorded was ? Bet you don’t ! I’ll tell you. It,s recorded in Genesis 3:4 (pharaphrased) Satan said you will not die if you disobey God! Sin is the transgression of the Law of God. 1 John 3:4, Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the Devil has sinned from the begining. Just like the example I gave you. Just like I told you before 1 John 3: 10 Whoever does not PRACTICE righteousness is not of God, . Righteousness; is the commandments. And I’ll quote it again so maby you’ll read it this time Isaih 8: 20 To the Law and to the testemony ! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. The signs of God people are in the the scriptures quoted. Jorge, it is irrelevant who it is you are or who you think you are. God is no respector of persons. ALL will recieve the same with NO partiallity from God. Lastly JORGE When has the POPE quoted scripture that YOU showed ? Answer ! He didn’t, hasn’t. HE IS A DECIEVER ! And your decieved Jorge, the scripture prooves it ! The soul that sins shall die .
Ed, I agree that Jorge is deceived. He quotes half truths and his own interpretations of Church teaching. However, you and I both have to remember that we are all sinners. Jesus ate with sinners, and he was even hung on the cross with sinners.
One sinner turned saint he took to heaven with him right after his death. Jesus knew him when he was a sinner, and he knew him when he became a saint. This could be for Jorge, as well.
God loves Jorge very much. We have to remember that.
An another note, Jorge does not speak for the pope nor the Catholic Church.
I do have to disagree with you, Ed, that the Pope is a deceiver. He is the vicar of God on Earth, and he has deceived no one.
Doesn’t look to me like Jorge was speaking “for” the pope or the Catholic Church. He quoted the pope and Church teachings. But I see a couple of posters trying (and failing) to understand and Ed saying bilious things about the Holy Father. I don’t think this forum is for preaching Protestantism Ed, and fortunately, you don’t speak for Protestantism. With the disrespect you’ve shown to posters and to the Holy Father, you have quite a ways to go,. So do we all. God bless.
Phil, it’s difficult to understand someone when he or she talks in circles. Jorge’s relativism is a circular path that leads to his own brand of religion that he tries to link with Catholic thought.
Ed might be preaching Protestantism on here, but it rings truer to me than a Catholic justifying homosexual acts. The Catholic should know better; at least I can say the Protestant could be invincibly ignorant.
Liseux, when you speak of “Jorge’s relativism” and “justifying homosexual acts”, you’re speaking of your own interpretation of what you read, your “own brand”, whether you want to accept it as yours or not.
Jorge, you’re proving my point.
You champion homosexual acts, and then turn around and act like you’re a nuetral guy. Your last post is awash in relativism.
If you’re going to support ANY position, have the integrity to not run away from it when called on supporting it.
Liseux, don’t fancy for a moment that I’m “running away” from my position. And don’t fancy for a moment that my position is dictated by you and your interpretation. Your interpretation is yours, and as Jesus said, “as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” If you want to accuse me of “justifying homosexual acts”, the burden of proof is on you. Your accusation, your interpretation, your opinion is not proof about me. Instead, it speaks about you.
Jorge, in your relativism, you are quick to label as opinion and interpretation those things with which you disagree. If you could ever actually take a stand on a position without weaseling out, perhaps we could discuss things sometime.
You’ve lost your mooring, Jorge. I pray that you will come back to the Truth of Christ. You’re in my prayers this Advent. Please pray for me as well.
The Catholic Church has no power to change the natural law of God by which all men owe their sovereignty. Pope Benedict is often criticized for not changing the Catholic Churches teaching regarding Condoms, especially by our present administration. Using a condom does not justify sexual behavior outside of Marriage. It is not justified by the Church even within a marriage. Condoms do not prevent the high risk of contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease either male or female. In trying to hide the devil in the details, the liberals seek to justify behaviors that cannot be justified. If a person finds themselves in a situation where they are in an extreme occasion, the only option is to walk away. To choose to continue is to choose to sin. That will show irresponsibility regardless if you choose to use a condom or not.
Catholic Defender sort of got it right! The use of condoms is not justified by the Church – that is – the Catholic Church. However, the vast majority of other Christian faiths do not share that belief.
Happily married couples very often use condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancy for a wide variety of reasons, including danger to the health of the wife. There is nothing, absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong in doing so. Let me give you just one example of the use of condoms to protect a partner. A wife who had a blood transfusion that gave her HIV some 15 years ago is happily married and her husband, to whom she has always been totally faithful, uses condoms to avoid the virus. To suggest that he, or they are immoral is a nonsense.
It has been stated elsewhere on this website that any sexual contact that does not have the aim of procreation is morally wrong. That has to be the ultimate nonsense. There are millions of happily married couples who are infertile, again for a variety of reasons. For example in the case of my wife and I, we are both way past the age where she could conceive, and we still enjoy our sexuality as a loving couple who have been happily married for over 40 years– perhaps more so now than when we were younger. t is ridiculous to equate all sexuality outside the act of attempting to conceive as being somehow evil or morally wrong.
The Pope appears to have stirred up a hornets nest with his comments on the use of condoms by homosexuals, and his comments seem to have not only opened a Pandora’s Box but also caused some confusion within the Catholic Church. Times are a changing and one of these days the Catholic Church will also change - or become redundant.
67, it’s amazing that one person could put another purposefully in a life-threatening position and trust a piece of latex to help them.
Loving someone doesn’t always have to include sex, especially when sex can lead to a death sentence.
You are have your opinions, fine. But you sound like your own pope.
Benedict XVI is correct on the use of condoms- they have no place in the Church of Christ.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Let the times change as they may. Truth is truth.
And I find it amazing that you think you can sit in judgement of what someone decides to do within the bounds of marriage, and in full knowledge of the risks they would be taking. Of course loving someone doesn’t always have to include sex, but that is for this seemingly happily married couple to decide - certainly not you, nor the Pope. Who are you, or he, to decide whether they can enjoy a sexual union? Is it immoral? Is it evil? Of course not.
I realize you are having great difficulty, as is the Catholic Church, in accepting the comments of Pope Benedict XVI when he indicated that there may be occasions when the wearing of condom might be, what was it, “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” or words to that effect. To me, he just might have been saying that he would agree in a case such as this. The couple is not trying to avoid pregnancy, but they are wishing to share their bodies in the act of love within marriage, and the wearing of a condom is a “first assumption of responsibility”.
It just struck me that you would be even more vociferous, as you have been before, if it was the man who was infected with HIV and he “insisted” on having sex (how did you describe it “24/7”) with his uninfected wife. But of course, this is not the case. It is the husband who is taking the risk, and he is taking that risk with the knowledge and consent of his lawfully wedded wife.
We clearly disagree on condoms having no place in the “Church of Christ”. There are millions of Christians in the world who have no problem with condoms as such. The Catholic Church is but one denomination, and on this issue it appears to stand alone, notwithstanding that other Christian denominations have the same stance as the Catholic Church regarding numerous issues of morality and sex within marriage etc.
Christian Churches actually agree on many issues including the one you quoted. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Amen.
You judge wrongly that I sit in judgement of anyone.
I look actions and at the facts: you are advocating that a person with a deadly disease engage in conduct with another person that can spread the disease, with the faith that a piece of latex will prevent the disease.
Condoms have a failure rate of 15%, which is the same rate, 1 in 6, as someone placing a six-shooter to their head with one bullet in the chamber, hoping that that chamber is empty when they pull the trigger. Repeated attempts at this Russian Roulette give very poor odds, like condom use with those with deadly diseases.
Condoms lead to a false sense of protection. I am surprised you would deal with false compassion.
And you are wrong: not all people are aware of the deadly consequences of their actions.
Popes do not change Church teaching in interview, 67. He’s not a pop-culture pastor that changes teachings according to the culture-at-large. The tail does not wag true Christianity, but Christianity wags the tail.
Please don’t be blown about by every fad or cultural easement that blows through.
Did I actually advocate that a person with a deadly disease engage with another person that can spread the disease? I don’t think so.
What I did advocate was that neither you, nor the Pope, nor anyone else should sit in judgement of the married couple who decided to use condoms in order to protect one married partner from passing on the HIV virus to her husband. You can quote all the statistics you wish. It is their choice to make - not yours.
With reference to your statistics (which I do not even begin to accept and which have been completely repudiated by others on this website who are far more knowledgeable than myself), this couple have been married for over 20 years and she has been infected with the HIV virus for approximately 15 of those years. I would not like to speculate regarding how many times they have engaged in sexual relations on a weekly or monthly basis in the ensuing years, but every indication is that they are healthy individuals who are “active” in every sense of the word, and he does not appear to have been infected with the virus, so they seem to be making a mockery of your 1 in 6 Russian Roulette rate statistics.
Not sure what you mean by “false compassion”. I would like to think that I have compassion for all of my fellow men and women no matter who they are. I believe that is my Christian duty.
In fact, if you don’t mind me saying so, if you don’t have compassion for a couple with the predicament I have described, then yes, you are indeed sitting in judgement.
Incidentally, I also did not say that the Pope changed (Catholic) Church teaching in an interview, but I would imagine that even you would have to agree that Pope Benedict XVI made a public statement that appeared, on the face of it, to suggest that there may be occasions where the use of a condom might be considered as a “first assumption of responsibility”. Or were these words falsely put in his mouth? I thought that this was what this blog was all about - a statement made by the Pope with regard to condoms. And I certainly did not call the Pope a “pop culture pastor”.
67, I don’t fall for your “judging” issue. That’s standard clap-trap from the culture.
Look at the actions you are advocating, period. We can weigh actions, yet I am not about to judge anyone’s eternal salvation.
The use of condoms with an AIDS-infected person can bring on a fatal illness. True love to me does not put someone’s life at risk. You might see otherwise.
False compassion is condoning an action which can lead to spiritual or physical death. Like over looking sex outside of marriage or homosexual sex because they “love” one another. True love doesn’t put the other in harms way.
For you to keep implying that the pope started to change Church teaching on condoms is disingenuous. That’s a strawman argument, and frankly, old news.
Liseux, I guess there are times when you simply do not comprehend what another person is saying or writing. I have not, and I repeat, have not advocated that a married couple with one partner infected with HIV use condoms to protect the non-infected partner. However, you continue to use phrases like “look at the actions you are advocating, period”. Please check my words carefully and you will see that I say, “that is for this seemingly happily married couple to decide - certainly not you, nor the Pope.” And that is my point.
Judging from your previous writings I think it would be reasonable to conclude that if your partner discovered that he was infected with HIV, there is no way that you would ever have sexual relations with him again for all the reasons you have stated. That is entirely your choice, and no-one should ever try to influence you to change your mind - including your husband. However, there are others who have a different opinion, and may even read the same statistics you quoted, but interpret them differently. For example, Jorge has refuted your interpretation of them and has done so quite cogently.
To be honest, you use the standard “clap-trap” in judging others. You intimate that the use of condoms under any circumstances is breaking God’s laws.
I recently heard a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses quoting the bible to explain how he, and members of his particular faith, do not accept blood transfusions (including autologous transfusions) because it would clearly be breaking God’s law. He quoted obscure texts in a book well over 2,000 years old to explain his rationale, despite the fact that blood transfusions are obviously a modern medical breakthrough not even imagined when the bible was written. It is much the same with those who use exactly the same logic to label the use of condoms as a breaking God’s law. It is standard clap-trap.
I have read elsewhere on this website that “Condoms are immoral because they make a lie of the marital act” To use your phrase, this is utter clap-trap. Millions of happily married couples, many of them Christian, and some of them Catholics, use condoms to avoid unwanted pregnancy for a wide variety of reasons, including danger to the health of the wife (I have previously quoted several such examples).
It has also been stated that sexual contact that does not have the aim of procreation is morally wrong. This is the ultimate clap-trap. There are millions of happily married couples who are infertile who enjoy sexual relations with their spouses. For example in the case of my wife and I, we are both way past the age where she could possibly conceive, and we still enjoy our sexuality as a loving couple who have been happily married for over 40 years– perhaps more so now than when we were younger – with absolutely no feeling of guilt.
I realize that your point of view strictly follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, and you will never change your mind, but I want others who read these blogs, particularly young people, to realize that there are other points of view that should be considered in a rational way. Perhaps, just perhaps the Pope was making a similar point when he was being interviewed about the use of condoms. Whether you like it or not, he did NOT completely rule out the use of condoms.
I have a saying on my desk attributed to General George S. Patton which neatly summarizes why other voices always need to be heard. “If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking.”
67 stated, “That is entirely your choice, and no-one should ever try to influence you to change your mind - including your husband. However, there are others who have a different opinion, and may even read the same statistics you quoted, but interpret them differently.”
Opinions and differing interpretations are great, but we’re discussing Church teaching, which is based on the natural law. Natural law doesn’t recognize opinions. That’s one reason why I’m a Catholic- we don’t decide moral issues based on voting, as the culture is quite fickle.
When you break the natural law, it comes back to break you. That’s what would happen if the Church even slightly allowed condom usage for whatever exceptions.
67 also stated, “It has also been stated that sexual contact that does not have the aim of procreation is morally wrong. This is the ultimate clap-trap.”
I agree. And that’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church, either. The Church teaches that sex within marriage is both unative and procreative. The unative aspect is to bring the couple together emotionally, physically, etc. and the procreational aspect is for furthering our love with children.
If one has sex when a woman is infertile, that’s not sinful. It falls in God’s natural plan for the marriage and is part of the unative aspect.
Patton is wrong. I know all three persons of the Holy Trinity think alike, as do those who follow them. Truth doesn’t contradict itself.
Have a good evening, 67.
Ever hear of the Holy Spirit? He is the one that guides Pope Benedict and He should be the one that guides each and every one of us. Another great job, Jimmy, keep it up. Come Holy Ghost, Creator Blessed. +JMJ+
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.