Great analogies on adultery. I get your point, and I hope Mr. Thompson will as well.

Thanks for doing the heavy (mental) lifting, Jimmy.

Damian is ordinarily quite good, but he lets his journalism show in that post: his assertion that it’s not logical to separate homosexual prostitution acts from other sexual acts is facially meritless. 

The pope’s comments are thought-provoking, but not earth shattering.  He says that if you live a destructive, wanton lifestyle, and you do something—-even a not very big something—-that is motivated by a concern for another human being, that the concern in and of itself is a step in the right direction.  He doesn’t say it’s good.  He doesn’t say it’s far enough.  Just that it’s a start.  That sounds far less exciting than the whole flap.

I don’t see that Thompson really corrected himself (except to say he was wrong on thinking the Church modified the teaching).  He seems to still think the Pope sanctions the use of condoms in a way which seems to be excluded and claims that “conservative” bloggers are really mad at the Pope.

Well we aren’t mad at the pope.  Just at people like the media who either misrepresent or people like him who don’t bother to check facts before posting.

The Catholic-bashing media doesn’t even try to hide their dishonesty.  The Pope plainly said that the use of condoms is immoral.  He said that in the case of male prostitutes, the use of condoms might possibly lead to eventual moral behavior, and then he explained why he thought that.  But he made absolutely clear that the use of condoms is immoral.

The Pope said that in the case of male prostitutes, condom use “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization”.  In other words, condom use is not a moral destination.  It’s like if a bank robber goes into banks, shoots everyone there, and steals the money, it would be a first step toward moralization if he robbed the banks without shooting anyone.  Obviously robbing a bank is not moral!

If that wasn’t clear enough, the Pope went on to say that “we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms”.  The dishonesty of the media and all of the anti-Catholic bigots in the world never ceases to amaze.

What is interesting is that statistically the number of Catholics and non Catholics in the West who would be scandalized by a change or seeming change in this area by the Pope is actually the minority.  In the US, 100% of Old Order Amish would be scandalized by it but within Catholicism,  according to a US bishops’ document several years ago…6% of Catholics would be scandalized…the number who are obeying in this area.  So number of people scandalized was not making the Pope hesitate to break this news before an interview….but the nature of those Catholics scandalized…those trying hardest to obey Rome all these years….they are the ones Benedict pauses over prior to any changes or apparent changes in this area….along with many in the clergy…but who are again, a small percent of the whole.  I think Benedict breaking this in that forum may have been a wise intuition into human nature.

I’m still not sure how we can avoid coming to the same conclusion about use of condoms in heterosexual extramarital sex, that while we can’t condone it, it’s “a first step in the direction of a moralization.” Is it necessarily an act of responsibility, or an act of removing responsibility and enabling illicit behavior?

Pope Benedict is an intelligent, educated, and thoughtful man who choses his words carefully and deliberately.  Too bad most journalists seem incapable of rising to his level.

I believe the Catholic Church has sanctioned the use of contraceptives in anticipation of rape. If I recall correctly, the nuns running an orphange were expecting to get raped by local militia / gangs during a civil war.

Another issue which I believe deserves attention is the lawful regulation of births for couples in non-marital situations such as co-habiting, married outside the church, not yet married, boyfriend is a roman catholic priest, adultery etc…

Does using contraception compound the existing evil? I suspect it does and if so…

Does learning Natural Family Planning compound the existing evil? I suspect it does not, and if it does not compound the existing evil…

Does a non-martial relationship constitute serious reason for avoiding pregnancy? I suspect it does

I’d like to see discussion (consistent with Humanae Vitae principles) on this issue though I shudder to think how badly the press would misrepresent the story if a bishop or the pope spoke on this issue.

Mr. Akin, thank you for your, as usual, thoughtful analysis on this question.  I have to admit, it seems to open a can of worms on multiple counts:  1) It seems to open up the Church position to “argument creep”.  The Church’s critics might start with the premise “The Pope has finally acknowledged that people are going to do what they are going to do, and we should limit the damage.”  Cannot any two people who maintain their principal intent is to prevent disease, with avoidance of pregnancy being a desirable, neutral, or undesirable secondary effect, claim that, under the principle of double-effect, condom use is legitimate in their situation now?  2) From a practical point of view, is the Pope anticipating that condom use is actually going to lead people to realize that abstinence is the natural next step?  3) Does the Pope (or his interpreters) now take on culpability for infections they did not bear before?  If you recommend to someone that abstinence, with 100% effectiveness when used, is the only acceptable option, and someone becomes infected by willingly ignoring that advice, it seems he or she bears the full responsibility for that outcome.  However, if you recommend that abstinence is best but condoms (knowing they have only a 90% - 98% effectiveness) are acceptable, and someone becomes infected by following the latter part of that advice, does not the advisor now carry some moral responsibility?  Interested to read your (all’s) thougts on these.  Bryan Kirchoff, St. Louis

It seems to me that the Pope just stated the obvious.  There are differing levels of evil and the path to good often starts by moving from something more evil to less evil.  While it’s true that all mortal sins land you in hell it would be unreasonable not to recognize that some mortal sins are, perhaps only in a worldly sense, worse than others.

For example if a heroin dealer who sells drugs to small children decides to only sell cocaine to adults it would be reasonable to say that he’s made a step towards good without saying that selling cocaine is reasonable or justified. So a massively promiscuous prostitute who starts using condoms is still committing sinful acts but they are less evil than his previous actions.

Recognizing a hierarchy of evil is hardly justifying any of it.  Even from a secular perspective given the high failure rate of condoms it can hardly be judged to be justified to engage in promiscuous homosexual acts which will inevitably result AIDS and death for all involved.

By taking the Pope’s comments out of context, the media simply draw attention to what our Holy Father was truly saying…which is a good outcome. Indeed, a great mind like that of Pope Benedict could have predicted the media frenzy and the ‘headlines’.
A brilliant way to reach his target audience…and possibly wins back souls…as enquiring minds tend to want to know.

I really don’t know why it is so necessary to make what should be very simple into something that is exceedingly complex.  For example, Jimmy Akin on practically everything, but especially here.

What makes “the use of a condom gravely sinful is when it is used” in a manner contrary to love and/or contrary to truth.  Often times that means contrary to the unitive and fruitful aspects of “the marital act” (which most plain-speaking people know of as “sex”).  But it is not always so limited.  Even outside of “the marital act,” condom usage can be and usually is, if not always is, contrary to love and contrary to truth and, therefore, by definition, a sin.

The use of a condom, even by unmarried persons, straight or gay, not only facilitates certain sinful acts, e.g. fornication and/or sodomy, it also promotes the lie that this is somehow “safe sex.”  First, as a medical matter, there is a high failure rate with condoms and, second, as a moral matter, there is no such this as “safe mortal sin.”

The wrongfulness with respect to condoms is that usage is contary to love and/or truth, period.  However they are used, whenever they are used, they are contary to the truth of human sexuality.  Even in the marital context for non-contraceptive purposes, e.g. the relatively rare case of one spouse having a communicable disease, condom usage is likely to promote a sexuality of use, rather than a sexuality of love.  That too is morally wrong.

Bryan wrote: “However, if you recommend that abstinence is best but condoms (knowing they have only a 90% - 98% effectiveness) are acceptable, and someone becomes infected by following the latter part of that advice, does not the advisor now carry some moral responsibility?”

In medical practice, if the patient is informed of the risk of a drug or procedure and understands it, the responsibility is theirs.  This usually doesn’t happen with condoms.

I am interested in knowing why condom usage between an HIV-discordant couple to prevent HIV transmission (or any other STD for that matter) does not fall under the double effect rule.  Piece of latex = morally neutral (leaving aside all implications it conjures up).  HIV transmission = bad thing to be prevented.  Conception prevented = unintentional (and often unwanted!).  Oral contraceptives already fall under that rule for treatment / control of various medical conditions; non-conception, often unwanted, is the unintended price paid for pain relief, etc.

Sorry ... I should clarify - MARRIED couple.  Let’s leave aside ALL other moral dilemmas and focus on an otherwise moral situation.

Isn’t this along the same lines as when Aquinas tolerated prostitution for the sake of civil order?

Stephen,

I think that some orthodox Catholic theologians do agree with your argument that condoms can be used by married couples based on the principle of double effect, if one (but not both) of the spouses has HIV.  However, I think it could also be argued that the use of a condom frustrates the unitive aspect of the conjugal act (by creating a physical barrier between the spouses), thus making the use of a condom unacceptable even in this situation.

Paul - thanks.  I’m trying to understand why what is obvious to me isn’t obvious to everyone else.  I’d argue that the unitive aspect is not merely biological, and is fulfilled by the emotional unity achieved, and certainly the physical contact remains for most of the body.
Re HIV in both spouses - re-infection with HIV leads to more rapid progression to end-stage illness, and if one or both partners are on antiviral drugs, re-infection with a resistant strain would be bad.  (Their HIV mutates so much within each one of them that even if one got it from the other, they can still provide each other with “new” strains of HIV quite regularly, hence “re-infection”.)  The ideal is that the two infected people do not exchange HIV with each other, so I would think the double effect remains in force in such a case.

has it occured to anyone that he was trying to differentiate between sex with a male prostitute (condoms required) and sex with choirboys (condoms optional…. it’s an act of papal discretion)

Let me see if I understand correctly:

1. a male prostitute who does not use a condom would be committing at least two serious sins

2. a male prostitute who does use a condom would be committing at least one serious sin

3. sinners who commit many serious sins might commit fewer sins before they have no sins.

I’m not surprised the media has trouble understanding this, though I’m disappointed that Catholics have used the misunderstanding as evidence that Pope Benedict should have remained silent. Is our pope more misunderstood than Our Lord?

Humanized sexuality recognizes that contraception violates the unitive meaning of conjugal love, not only the procreative meaning.  I fail to see how it could be anything OTHER than hostile, not to mention heartlessly commercial to treat one’s spouse with such disrespect as to be willing to have them for only what is considered mutually desirable but to have “protection” from eachother.

Please tell me I’m not the only person who sees contraception as hostile to the unitive, erotic love between spouses before you even start to talk about openness to children or not.  This is a really, really big deal.

Good grief. Does anyone really think the world can handle the finer points of the moral reasoning required to understand what the Pope was saying. The Pope’s reasoning is far too nuanced for the average joe who really just wants to have sex whenever he wants and this sounds like a free pass. This is creating a great deal of confusion and controversy. I am not easily confused on these issues but this one does give me pause to wonder “Whaaat?” Those of us who are faithful to church teachings will take the time to pray and ponder the finer points of the Pope’s thinking and will understand that it is not a change in Church teaching. Others will hear what they want to hear and I fear that it will give them justification to do evil. I also fear that it will give some in the Church reason to distrust Pope Benedict XVI. I am not seeing the good in this yet. I hope that we will all pray that the Holy Spirit will handle this-give us direction, clarity and wisdom.
Thanks Jimmy for the post. Lots to think about.

If every journalist who wrote on this subject would simply read your article, Jimmy, much would be made clear. But the goal of many secular journalists is to tear down the church or any institution/organization which would put the brakes on today’s hedonistic society, so accuracy or understanding is simply not in their interest.

We fool ourselves when we think we can somehow educate people who prefer to remain blind. The sad part is that there are so many “Catholics” out there who get their understanding of their faith from secular sources rather than the teaching authority of the church.

Thank you so much for this wonderful article. It explained and simplified the whole discussion in a nutshell.

The continuing debate over how many sins are added, etc. or the degrees of severity remind me of the legalistic debates we had as kids on “how far can we go sexually before it’s a sin.” It should be sufficient to know that sex outside of marriage is a sin and never to be engaged in.

The whole point of the conversation and the Vatican’s position should’ve been made very clear and concise in ALL situations some 20-odd years ago when AIDS first started.

And why focus JUST on AIDS…surely there must be other STDs that can apply just as much.

Thank God I’m a virgin…and in menopause.

I have read a lot about this issue in the last 24 hours.

One of the things that seems to get lost in the interview statement is the simple issue of intent. “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the -“INTENTION”- of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

What the Pope seems to say is that a pastor can legitimatly focus on the INTENT that is shown even in a sinful situation. and as other bloggers have noted by analogy: A bank robber who uses a fake gun intead of a real one!; a wife beater who uses a small stick intead of a big one!; a male prostitute who insists on a condom instead of nothing.

A moral theologian would say that while these are all evil acts, even a small moral choice in the right direction can be built upon. It in no way excuses the original immoral act but a good intention can be very encouraging.

But given the examples above one can easily see the scandalous slippery slope that we approach (especially people with a weakened faith).

I agree, some bloggers were simply wrong. I would like to say something about bloggers ( and forums,etc, even Catholic Answers). For Pete’s sake if you are going to blogg or if you sponser Forums, police it properly. If a respondent doesn’t stick to the point don’t post the comment. Secondly, too many Forums ( yes, in Catholic Answers too) the thing becomes a endless debate between two gigantic egos. Everyone else is ignored. That is why I have just about given up on them and the bloggs. If you can’t do a good job policing your material, blogg, forum, close it down.

John Paul II used to call it “gradualness of the law”, where the person takes steps to bring themselves to a moral life.

In the ten commandments it says ‘Thou shall not commit adultery’ and ‘Thou shall not covet the neighbour’s wife’; obviously the first is meant for a woman, and the second is meant for men. If not, then why would they emphasise the same commandment twice???

I think the whole use of things like male prostitution or sexual relations outside of marriage are horrible and irrelevant examples. Why? Because these people obviously aren’t worried about Church teaching or else they wouldnt be engaging in these acts. So why do they care whether the Catholic Church says its ok for them to wear a condom or not. They will or will not whether the Church says they can or not. The Catholic Church should not be extending Church teaching to those who aren’t going to follow it. That leads to a very slippery slope.

Pseudomodo, the statement “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution” does not actually state that every particular use of a condom is itself always immoral.  Likewise, “moral theologians” do not agree that “a male prostitute who insists on a condom instead of nothing” is an evil act.  Prostitution is an evil act, but “insisting on a condom instead of nothing” is itself not prostitution.  The fact is that condom use *sometimes* is morally permissible.  But the pope has not provided a complete list of when that is.

Pope and Vatican need to come up with modern times and the real world. They thought the world was flat and wanted the kill Galileo but where wrong. On this they are wrong. Birth Control is necessay for happy marriages and for the control of the society being over populated. Abortion is another issue. Besides the Right or GOP don’t want to take care of anyone but thereselves and wallets. If the rich don’t want to pay taxes and take or the poor, elderly and widows as scripture commands here do we go with this. Common sense says we need birth control.

Akin writes: “I agree that if you’re going to engage in homosexual prostitution that it is better to do so in a way that lessens the chance of getting or giving someone a fatal disease.”  Mr. Akin, isn’t this the exact same line we give our children when it comes to contraception, i.e., “I’d rather you save yourself for marriage but I know you’re going to do it anyway so here’s some pills/condom/etc.”. 

You agree with the Pope because you feel that if you don’t you’re a bad Catholic.  Newsflash - the Pope is just a human being and he can be dead wrong about any number of things and he is flat wrong on this!  His remarks were irresponsible and we Catholics in the trenches are the ones who are going to have to deal with the repercussions. 

Frankly, the Pope should learn to keep his mouth shut about such controversial issues during, of all things, an interview.  Is he entitled to his opinion?  Yes, of course, but in his position sharing something like that has very serious consequences.

Finally, the “clarification” you cite (given by the Vatican) just causes more confusion.

I’m sick of bloggers like yourself who feel the need to bend over backward to explain the nuance of the Pope’s remarks as if we’re all too uneducated to figure it out on our own.  Just admit that the Pope screwed up and move on.

In addition to all this we should remember (if I remember correctly) the other great Pope who legitimized the special use of condoms in the conjugal act - Venerable Pope Pius XII.

He permitted condom use in the case of couples with infertility problems and had to provide a sperm sample to a lab.

Of course the condoms had to be perforated to allow some seed to escape thus legitimizing the procreative aspect.

The question how whether the pope was sanctioning the use of condoms or not? has been used many times as a trite dismissal of human sexuality in particular, of scholasticism in general, and of particular figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. Another variety of the question is in which cases can the use of condoms be justified and in which not? In journalistic usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value.
It is still a matter of discussion whether this topic has a historical foundation, in writing or disputation, from the European Middle Ages. One theory is that it is an early modern fabrication, used to discredit modern condomology at a time when it still plays a significant role in university education. James Franklin has raised the scholarly issue, and mentions that there is a seventeenth century reference in William Chillingworth’s Religion of Protestants,[5] where he accuses unnamed scholastics of debating “Whether the sperm in a condom is a human being or not” This is earlier than a reference in the 1678 The True Intellectual System Of The Universe by Ralph Cudworth. H.S. Lang, author of Aristotle’s Physics and its Medieval Varieties (1992), says (p. 284): “The question of how many spermatozoa may die before fertilizing an egg, is often attributed to ‘late conodmologists’ ... In point of fact, the question has never been found in this form”.
The early modern version in English (usually a sponge or foam, rather than a condom) dates back at least to Richard Baxter. In his 1967 tract “The Reasons of the Christian Religion”, Baxter reviews opinions on the materiality of humunculi from ancient times, concluding “And Schibler with others, maketh the difference of extension to be this, that humunculi can contract their whole substance into one part of space, and therefore have not partes extra partes. Whereupon it is that the Schoolmen have questioned how many spermatozoa may fit upon the point of a condom?”.Philosopher George MacDonald Ross has identified a close parallel in a fourteenth century mystical text, the Swester Katrei. Other possibilities are that it is a surviving parody or self-parody, or debating training topic.

Ed Nestor:

The discussion is happening at the 30-yard-line up around the north end of the field.

You’re wandering around the south-end 10, looking for the ball.

I know I really shouldn’t feed the trolls, but please: Try to muster an adult argument.

You say, “Pope and Vatican need to come up with modern times and the real world.”

Actually it’s a shame so much of the world has regressed to premodern barbarism on topics like these, and hasn’t remained, with the Pope and the Vatican, at the high-water-mark for civilizational advancement.

“They thought the world was flat and wanted the kill Galileo but where [sic] wrong.”

Well, apart from your spelling error, you have two serious historical errors there. The first is regarding the middle ages intelligentsia, who knew perfectly well that the world was a globe; the second, re: Galileo. (You didn’t make the mistake of thinking that Indigo Girls song was historically accurate, did you?)

Re: “Birth Control is necessay [sic] for happy marriages….”

Why then is the divorce rate for couples practicing NFP so much lower than for contracepting couples? Masochism? The facts contradict your statement.

Re: “...and for the control of the society being over populated.”

Except that it isn’t. This is an old myth. Look it up; you’re as out-of-date on this as the Rev. Malthus.

Re: “Abortion is another issue.”

Yes, it is. Why bring it up here? The Catholic Church is obviously in the right on that topic, also.

Re: “Besides the Right or GOP don’t want to take care of anyone but thereselves [sic] and wallets.”

Then why do American conservatives/right-wingers give so much more to charity than American progressives/left-wingers? It’s true: They do. About twice as much, at all income levels, both as a percentage of income and in actual dollars. They also volunteer more, donate blood more. It’s old news that the American right are far more generous to the needy than the American left. The only way they don’t help the poor is through welfare programs, but only because they believe it’s ineffective and prone to corruption and waste, and also that it’s immoral to take other people’s money and distribute it to the poor to help politicians buy votes. The American right prefers to give to the poor out of their own pockets, rather than collecting the money from their fellow citizens by force.

Re: “If the rich don’t want to pay taxes and take or the poor, elderly and widows as scripture commands here do we go with this.”

Not sure what this butchered syntax means, but scripture never says we are obligated to feed the poor out of other people’s money. Only out of our own. You are free to help the poor at any time…and in fact should.

Re: “Common sense says we need birth control.”

It’s a common error, not common “sense.”

This is how to : “...communicate a moral truth about limiting the harm caused by sin without appearing to give tacit permission to the sin itself or to other, related sins”.

Our Catholic Church must be resolute in abhoring sins and other related sins in any sexual act that causes AIDS, including the use of condoms. Condoms are not 100% effective in entrapping the microscopic HIVirus as there are also microscopic holes in them. The Holy Pope is not an expert on condoms-making, so he must not talk about condoms.

Because AIDS is caused not only by gay prostitutions, but also by straight sex-perverts, the fight against AIDS must also be broaden and deeply fundamental. That is, the HIV carriers must be told to come out in the open so that they will be aided with proper medication by various concerned groups, as well as by the missions of the Catholic Church. They must be educated, by the Catholic Church, not to transmit the disease to others and must be preached to repent for their lives lives may be shortened and go back to God.

In other words, the stand of the Catholic Church must be uncompromising and absolute in preaching the moral truth “...without appearing to give tacit permission to the sin itself or to other, related sins”.

I believe that allowing condoms (or any other type of artificial bc) for non-marital heterosexual unions would be in direct opposition to Humane Vitae.  Humane Vitae speaks only of conjual unions because that is the only place where sex is justified.  And condsidering the modest time period when it was written( well, modest compared to today),  I highly doubt that Chruch wanted to delve into the details of every sexual deviation.  However, the Church does not ignore the subject of non-marital relationships in HV.  HV explicity devotes an entire section to the dangers of wide-spread contraception use, thinks like, surprise, surprise, fornication and adultery—So how could we allow an action that enables people to partake in more immoral actions forwarned in the document.  That would be an implausibility.  For behind all this intellectual, theological posturing and debate lies that the simple truth that people won’t go near the fire if they fear getting burned.  And that’s a good thing.

If the principles of Humanae Vitae apply to non-marital sexual activity, then does this mean that Natural Family Planning does not compound the evil of non-marital sexual activity?

Or do we divide Humanae Vitae into two sections, one forbidding contraception, the other encouraging Natural Family Planning and say that the condemnations applies to all sexual activity and that the recommendations only applies to marital sexual activity?

At the Lambeth conference the Anglicans said that contraception could be used ONLY by married couples.  Unmarried couples should not be having sex so the permission to use condoms did not apply to fornicators,prostitutes,adulturers, etc.  Is the Catholic Church now saying that since only married couples can have CONJUGAL relations, the ban on contraception does not apply to others ( fornicators, prostitutes,adulturers.etc.)?  And since condum use can be a sign of the beginnings of grace working in the soul,  why would we be opposed to the widespread disemination of condoms in schools, to “sex workers”, to the soldiers and sailors who frequent their services, etc.?  Should we now join government programs that dispense clean needles and condoms to addicts?

As a follow up,what about married couples where one is infected with AIDS? If they don’t inted to frustrate the procreative aspect of the conjugal act but, instead, to prevent infection, isn’t this an example of the principle of Double Effect?  Like taking birth control pills for health reasons.  I know semen is not depositted according to natures plan, this is a side effect.
  I thought the Church was opposed to folks like Bill Gates flooding third world countries with condoms.  Just so long as married people don’t get their hands on them, but instead only gays and fornicators, shouldn’t we welcome Gates, Buffet, Soros stepping in to fight aids and out of wedlock pregnancy.  Since CONJUGAL situations are the only appropriate venue to raise a child, why have we Catholics been opposing Bill Gates for so long?  Help me understand, please.

The Church HAS addresssed the intrinsic morality of condom use (and other contraceptives) outside of marriage. The Holy Office, several doctors of the Church, etc - see the latter half of http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2010/03/armchair-moralising-undermines-child.html

The Church holds that all sexual acts outside of marriage are gravely sinful. To start exploring the question of contraceptive use outside of marriage would put the Church in a really weird position that could lead to the subversion of the very moral values it is trying to promote.

Jimmy Akin for pope!

Satanism:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

JOHN 3:16-18
The New American Bible

Adultery:441
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

ACTS 9:11-19
The New American Bible

Why did Pope Benedict focus on male prostitutes?  The reason is obvious if you think about it.

@ John: He didn’t.  You apparently haven’t read the “clarification” from the Vatican today.  Benedict has said that this applies to both men and women.

The Sedevacantists must be eating this up.  Frankly, I can’t say I’d blame them.

re: the risk of STI transmission (HIV, others) in discordant married couples.  As an interested student and tacit non-expert, my first inclination is to postulate that these couples are called to live “as brother and sister,” thereby avoiding conjugal relations altogether.  This would be the most morally permissable option—chastity and abstinence within marriage.  All married couples who are avoiding pregnancy are called to this practice occasionally in any case (i.e., abstinence during the times of possible fertility).  Just as in cases where a civil divorce occurs but an annullment is not granted, re-marriage would not be permissible and so any further sexual activity would be gravely immoral.

Another note on condom use and efficacy: the “perfect use” efficacy at pregnancy prevention hovers between 90-93%; “typical use” efficacy at 70-85%.  This does not address the transmission of infection, which is quite a bit more difficult to prevent than pregnancy.  It should also be noted that other STIs, such as herpes, cannot usually be effectively prevented by condoms given where the lesions commonly occur.

Just to clarify about use of hormonal contraceptives “for medical reasons.”  My understanding (as an NFP-only medical provider) is that there are truly no circumstances where these medications are the only (and certainly not the best) treatment options.  They are considered “first-line therapy” in a multitude of cases, but that is based on current practices by the majority of medical providers, not because the evidence indicates they work the best.  Most providers are simply to busy (or lazy) to actually treat the underlying causes of most women’s health issues—the pill is a “quick fix,” which usually fixes nothing.

re: anticipation of rape.  This situation, too, does not allow the use of contraceptives, particularly because the vast majority of these medicines work by preventing implantation (among other methods), thus inducing an early abortion.  Since it is impossible to determine which women might be in early pregnancy and which are pre-ovulatory, these medications are also intrinisically evil.

Hormonal contraceptives for medical use - polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis are the two big ones, the latter of which is extremely painful.  There is no cure for either.  PCOS - hormones are used to prevent/control facial hair growth and acne, both of which tend to have their own contraceptive nature, albeit “natural”.  These get balanced with fertility needs, but to tell a woman she can’t be treated for these terrible but non-lethal things is not a moral option.  There is also a risk of cancer if menstruation is not controlled, and this must be done hormonally.  Any miscarriage that happens as a result of this necessary treatment is incidental, unintended, and therefore not intrinsically evil, and falls under the double effect doctrine.  Endometriosis is extremely painful, and the best method of control is hormonal.  There are various ways to control the pain, but usually hormonal treatment is needed.  There is also the risk of cancer if it is not used.  In the rich upper-class white world, there are more advanced drugs (they prevent conception, but are not primarily used as contraceptives, and therefore don’t have the same stigma although they have the same effect), but for the vast majority of the world’s population, they are unaffordable.  Try telling an African Catholic they can’t take a freely available contraceptive for their pain, and tell them instead they can spend their entire month’s salary to remain able to earn that salary, or just lie in bed and cry.  Many of these women want to fall pregnant - most have never had, and never will, fall pregnant.  The suffering they go through to try to have that precious child is heroic.  Let’s forget about the evils of certain molecules.  Let infertility be the unintended, and therefore moral, side-effect of relief from that burden.  Any woman who has had pre-menstrual cramps would not wish that on someone for 28 days of the month.  Even those who only suffer from it for a few days each month might morally take contraceptives to control the pain.  Even ordinary acne in females sometimes responds better to these pills.  If they are not primarily used for causing infertility, the double effect covers them, according to standard Catholic ethics books - so why not condoms to prevent HIV?

The media is reporting: “Vatican: Everyone can use condoms to prevent HIV. Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a seismic shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments.”

The Pope brought this mess on himself. If he would have spoken clearly on the issue, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Headlines would have read, “Pope Still Against Condoms in Africa” followed by an anti-Catholic story about the rigidity of the Church. Instead, he gives us this vague non-statement and we get this mess. Sorry, I’m not against the Pope, I’m just sick of the foggy-haze that seems to make up much of the Church’s teachings since Vatican II.

And here’s another quote extending it to contraception: “Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst. Abortion is far worse”, said Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert at the Vatican’s bioethics advisory board.  Better for a married woman to practice contraception with her husband than to abort?  “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals [...using] 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,” said the pope.  “We’re not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We’re now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth,” said Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer.  “This is if you’re a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point. The point is it’s a first step of taking responsibility,” Vatican spokesperson Jesuit Fr. Lombardi said.

Ron Conte of CatholicPlanet.com has basically called Jimmy Akin a heretic over this article.

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/heresy-on-contraception.htm

http://catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4569

Jimmy Akin has shown himself to be one of the Pope’s lapdogs.  He’ll go to whatever lengths to dismiss the obvious mixed and contradictory messages coming from Benedict. 

Benedict is clearly a “new church” Pope.  Frankly, unless he comes out and definitively states that the use of prophylactics is verboten under any circumstances then I think he should be ran out of the Vatican with pitchforks and torches.

By the way, Jim-Bo, you’ve got a little something on your nose.

Too many here are missing the point. 

The Pope is trying to examine the direction people are going in their moral life, not the mechanics of the action.  By pointing to the small change of heart in a male prostitute, who society probably considers the most morally repugnant heart, he show how an example of Christian Humanism and The Natural Law are still written on his heart.  If such a man can start using condoms in an effort to mitigate the evil of his actions, his heart is approachable to the entire message of Christianity. 

The discussion needs to be seen in the light of his point, which is that AIDS in Africa is a moral problem, not a mechanical one.  We have to find people where they are, and point out how their actions reveal Christ in their lives, even when they are not aware of his actions.

Unfortunately, too many people expect him to make sure he parses his thoughts with an eye to how the anti-Christian western press will read them.  Even if he did, they would attack him, so why bother with what the MSM thinks.  Does it make it difficult for those of us who defend the traditional teaching?  Yes, but that helps us refine our own understanding as well.

Taking responsibility is a good thing… using a condom can be a taking of responsibility… condoms can be a good whether you are a man, woman or a transsexual.

This is the message the media has been waiting to hear, our Holy Father gave it to them himself with a little help from Fr. Lombardi S.J..

I don’t want to believe that the Holy Father has an theological opinion at odds with the constant teaching of the Church, but it is difficult to sustain my unbelief at this point.

Semper Fi.

I believe the Pope’s views are logical and progressive and simply doing what needs to be done while remaining within the constant teaching of the Church.  I think more needs to be said, but it will come in time.  Greater clarity lies ahead.

But I’m glad to see someone who disagrees with the Pope and who says it straight out like that.  There are too many people performing mental gymnastics to try to keep the Pope orthodox and retain their views as well.

“Steve K” is clearly Steve Kellmeyer. I’d recognize that gentle style anywhere.  Steve has been on the way to Trad Land for a long time, and here he is…landing gently.

FYI: hormonal contraceptives are not the first-line therapy for PCOS—in fact, I’d be hard pressed to find many providers who would go that route.  PCOS is a form of insulin resistance; use of hormones would only treat a symptom (irregular periods) rather than the underlying cause.  Secondly, the cause and treatment of endometriosis is highly controversial.  Most of the latest research points to the most efficacious treatment as being surgical in nature, thereby actually addressing the underlying problem.  Again, hormones do NOT fix this problem.  If a hormone deficiency were the issue, then you wouldn’t see endometriosis lesions present within a woman’s abdomen while performing a c-section (which happens frequently—I’ve seen it numerous times).
I am not arguing about whether or not these conditions should be treated or whether the women affected suffer—treatment should be sought and suffering should be addressed, without question.  But, as with all moral arguments, “the ends do not justify the means.”
My original point: there are no medical conditions where hormonal contraceptives are the best, most effective treatment option.  Availability is an entirely separate issue.

Who benefits out of all these?  All those narrow-minded, opportunists bearing the banners “Pro-Choice”, “Pro-Abortion”, “Cut-Down Population Growth”, “Liberal Catholics” and similar sounding Anti-lifers… They are like vultures pounding on its prey at the very sign of weakness.  They listen to and speak about only of their inner-most longings for corrupted freedom without accountability… The Pope’s misunderstood pronouncement about the use of condom sounded and tasted so sweet to their ears and palates, but surely bitter down their stomachs… May the Lord Of Life have Mercy on them and on the whole world.

“But immorality and all umpurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.” Ephesians 5:3

The Pope should not have gone there.

If I follow the logic of some comments, then there’s no “added” sin to adulterous couples or fornicators who use condoms. After all, they may be thinking that their immoral acts could result in a baby who would be born out of wedlock and suffer from scandal throughout its life, etc., etc.

One can justify almost anything by saying it shows some smattering of “unselfishness” in the midst of evil. Good grief!

There is no end to this argument once you make an “exception” for intent, so it strikes me that the pope is not making such an exception at all. I think he is merely trying to see a glint of hope that such a sinner will eventually move to see the error of his actions.

Just a quick clarification: There’s a difference between “better” which implies a range of goods and “less evil/bad” which implies a range of evils. Condom use in the case of a male prostitute trying to prevent the spread of HIV isn’t doing something “better”, though he might be doing something “less bad” than not using one.
\
Likewise with the analogies—adultery isn’t “better” than rape. It’s just less evil. Using the word “better” implies that there is some good to rape, but more good to adultery. But actually adultery, rape, and male prostitution are all intrinsically bad.

I think of Dante’s Inferno—Francesca and Paolo (betrayal of marriage vows) are in a higher region of Hell than say, Judas (betrayal of God’s friendship) but they are all, ultimately, in . . . Hell.

Then why did Jesus say, “It is BETTER for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.” (Matthew 18:8)

Thanks for the question.

The answer is that It IS better to enter Heaven maimed than to go to hell. Entering Heaven is good—no matter what “shape” you’re in when you get there. So you CAN say that Heaven is better than Hell because entering Heaven is intrinsically good and entering hell is intrinsically bad.

The problem only arises when comparing two intrinsically evil actions (like all of the examples in above post). If we are comparing two evils, it’s strictly speaking wrong to call one of them “better” than the other, though we sometimes do this in common speech. Strictly speaking neither one is good, so it makes no sense to call one “better” because “better” is the comparative form of “good.”

When I say Jesus is “Better” than I am, I mean that He has “more good” in Him than have in me. But if someone says adultery is “better” than rape they don’t mean “well, rape is pretty good, but adultery has a lot more good in it, so adultery is better.”

What they mean is “adultery is less removed from the good (= less evil) than rape is.”

If we are comparing two goods, then it’s correct to call one better.

If we are comparing a good (like entering heaven maimed) and an evil (like entering hell) then we can say it’s “better” because it is a GOOD that we are talking about.

Sorry to nit-pick on this, but I think the point is crucial. Mr. Akin’s concerns that the media not misuse this statement :

“I also believe that if you are going to have extramarital sex that it is better to do so with a person who is a willing accomplice rather than raping someone.”

To mean this:

  “Akin says adultery sometimes permissible to stop rape”

is based precisely on this problem. If you say that adultery is better than rape, then you are implying that it has some good in it, which is, in the twisted logic going on, what makes it “permissible.”

Words mean things! Be careful!

It is better to prevent disease than to transmit disease.  Protection against disease, which may at times involve the use of a device called a condom, is not intrinsically evil, and it is not the same as the act of prostitution, fornication, adultery or rape.

Well, think about that for a minute. If you’re going to separate out the condom use from the act for which it is intended (prostitution, etc), then yes, you can get away with saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about sticking a piece of rubber on a certain part of your body to prevent disease. But I’m not going down that road with you.

That’s the same as saying that touching a piece of metal (such as the trigger of a gun) with a certain part of your body (such as your finger) is also not intrinsically wrong. But what if my intention in doing so is to shoot an innocent person?

Or say a Nazi had rounded up a bunch of Jews and wanted to “prevent the transmission of disease” by putting all the diseased Jews in a concentration camp. “Well” you might say “Preventing the transmission of disease by means of a device called a concentration camp is better than transmitting disease. And putting certain people into a certain room is not intrinsically evil.”

The problem with this is that it ignores that the whole situation from start to finish is fraught with evil. It’s meaningless to call the intentions or actions of the Nazi disease-preventer “good.”

Even God permits evil. But permitting evil (or the lesser of two evils)is NOT the same thing as choosing it. To choose something, it must be good. The proper object of the free will is GOOD, just as the proper object of the intellect is TRUTH.

A male prostitute who chooses to use a condom for the prevention of disease is NOT choosing a good thing. He’s alredy chosen to do a bad thing and the condom is just damage control. Don’t turn this into something it’s not—as if prostitute-condom-use is some sort of great humanitarian action. Please.

“Woe to him that calls evil good and good evil”—Isa 5:20

Your gun analogy is bad.  Touching the trigger of a gun is part of the process of firing the gun, for without touching the trigger the gun cannot fire.  The same is not true of putting a condom on, for without putting on the condom the sex act can occur anyway.  In addition, and significantly, the evil intention of shooting an innocent person is not the good intention of preventing disease.

Your Nazi analogy is also bad.  For example, if you’re comparing a diseased Jew to your penis, and the Nazi concentration camp to a condom, and you as the Nazi, you’re off to a bad start.  Putting your penis into a condom is not “putting certain people into a certain room”.  Your penis is not a person, and you do not put your penis into the condom against its (or your) will, and you don’t have a “bunch” of penises to round up (unless you’re an anatomical anomaly), and two voluntary minutes in a condom is hardly imprisonment in a Nazi concentration camp.  And even though you might be a Nazi, that doesn’t mean that everything you do is evil, even if your analogies are bad.

Your claim that “the whole situation from start to finish is fraught with evil” and your use of vague inflammatory terms like “Nazi” suggests a deliberate attempt to paint over all the lines and realities of a complex situation with a broad and sinister brush.  Some people whitewash, and you seem to want to blackwash.  Practice what you preach: “Don’t turn it into something it’s not.  ‘Woe to him that calls evil good and good evil’—Isa 5:20)

Ok, you got me….UH,

“Blessed are the condom-users, for they shall prevent disease.”

If you want to stand before the Guy who said “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” and argue with Him that a male prostitute condom-user is doing a good thing when he has illicit sex because he’s preventing disease, you go right ahead.

I’ll be waiting on the other side of a room with a mop to clean up all the tears of laughter.

The term conjugalis/conjugium in Latin has a broad range of meaning, which includes marital union, marital sexual union, sexual union in general, and other types of close joining. Casti Connubii uses the term to refer to ‘the haphazard unions of men’ as contrasted with martial union, and to refer to ‘base unions’ (sexual intercourse outside of marriage). So it is not true that the use of conjugale necessitates the conclusion that only marital sexual union is included. In Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI condemns contraception as intrinsically evil, and he quotes St. Augustine: “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.” Augustine says ‘even’ with one’s wife, thereby implying that it is immoral to use contraception with sexual relations in general, and even in the specific case of marriage. The phrasing ‘even with one’s legitimate wife’ cannot possibly mean ‘only’ with one’s wife. And Pope Pius quotes Augustine on this point without disagreement, correction, or qualification.

“Thus far the Church has not explored the question of condom use — or other, typically contraceptive acts — in cases outside of marriage.”
Comment. It depends on what is meant by the “Church”. If only the Magisterium is meant, i.e. the documents by the Pope and Bishops in communion with him, the assertion seems correct, at least if referred to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, encyclicals Casti connubii and Humanae vitae, Pius XII’s addresses on the subject, Synod on Family and Familiaris consortio, and CCC (I don’t know of any other addressing this subject explicitly) – all of which unambiguously refer to the situation in marriage only.
Grisez in his monumental textbook on Moral Theology confirms this (Vol. II, Living a Christian Life, Ch.8, Q.E,N.1) says that because, recently, “theological attempts to justify contraception focused on its use within marriage…these attempts occasioned the major papal declaration on this subject”, and so the “current Catholic teaching about it regularly refers specifically to marital acts” (p.506).
But then he continues: “Historically, however, much of the Christian tradition condemned contraception…without distinguishing between its uses by married couples and by others” (ibid., and Note 93 referring to Noonan’s work on history of contraception). So, if by the “Church” one also means the whole tradition not merely the Tridentine Catechism and the 20th century documents, it would be necessary to establish which of the witnesses of Tradition (writing of Fathers, Doctors, penitential books and confessional practice etc) assert what: condemnation in marriage, outside marriage, both, or it isn’t clear to which situation the condemnation refers, and how consistent a particular condemnation is present throughout the history, because only the “universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians” has a bearing in the binding force of particular propositions (Pius IX: Tuas Libenter). I am not sure that a research addressed specifically to the contraception outside marriage has ever been made. Possibly, the answer can be found in classic manuals of the 19-20th cent. “auctores probati”, but even that might not be satisfactory. Someone who knows Latin and has access to these manuals might enlighten us all.
One should also bear in mind that the orthodox moral theologians like: Grisez, May, Finnis, Rhonheimer, Janet Smith, Gormally – all maintain that the Church does condemn extramarital contraception, and one cannot dismiss their views easily: they might know things which we, DIY-theologians, don’t know.
However, to come to the concrete situation: the Pope seems to hold that the use of contraceptives (of a condom, for prophylactic purpose at any rate) outside marriage has never been condemned as intrinsically evil. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to say that it can be “the first step in respecting the life of another” by which the “a sin against the fifth commandment” is prevented. An intrinsically evil act is not permitted in any circumstances.

Ron Conte says:
“In Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI condemns contraception as intrinsically evil, and he quotes St. Augustine: ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.’ Augustine says ‘even’ with one’s wife, thereby implying that it is immoral to use contraception with sexual relations in general, and even in the specific case of marriage. The phrasing ‘even with one’s legitimate wife’ cannot possibly mean ‘only’ with one’s wife.”
Comment: I must admit that my Latin is far from adequate for such nuances, but the English text doesn’t necessarily mean what you think to mean.
Could it be that Augustine is simply made to say that the intercourse is lawful only with one’s wife, i.e. not outside the marriage, but if the conception were prevented, it would be unlawful even with one’s wife? In other words, that Augustine, as accounted by Pius IX, doesn’t address the moral status of the extramarital contraception at all ?
Although Augustine, in this example, refers to Onan, who was not a husband, he has in mind the Jewish Law according to which Onan was supposed to act in place of husband, i.e. his intercourse without contraception would have been required by the Law. So, his fault was not in the contraceptive intercourse outside the marriage, but “within” the (Law about) marriage.
After all, the Casti connubii is an encyclical about marriage, not about contraception outside the marriage.

Dr. Schmiedicke
The Pope does not say that the “male prostitute condom-user is doing a good thing when he has illicit sex”, but that, if he has it anyway, which is a bad thing with or without condom, he is “doing a good thing” if by using the condom he’s “preventing disease”; otherwise, to the evil of prostitution he would add the violation of the fifth commandment.
To go back to your earlier comment about what is “better”, the sexual act and the contraceptive act are two different acts (See Grisez: Living a Christian Life, Ch.8, Q.E, No.2c, google: The Way of the Lord Jesus), and could be carried out simultaneously, at different times, could be unrelated (one can take a pill regularly but never find a desirable partner to have an intercourse), and could even be done by different persons (a mother can give a pill in food to a promiscuous daughter for fear of having her one day come home pregnant). They can’t be compared from the view point of which is better or worse.  So, the Pope does not say that fitting the condom is better than the prostitution.
Nor is he “comparing two evils”, because while the prostitution is an intrinsic evil, the condom is neither evil in itself (one can use it as an air ballon to play with), nor necessarily even if used as a condom (for prophylactic purpose, for instance; or, female condom, in self-defence). The condom is “evil” only if used for (unlawful) contraception.
The statement: “if you are going to have extramarital sex …it is better to do so with a person who is a willing accomplice rather than raping someone” doesn’t mean that the sex with an accomplice is better that the sex involving the rape. The extramarital sex is evil both with an accomplice and involving a rape, but the rape itself as an act of violence adds to the evil of the extramarital sex, which evil is not involved in the sex with an accomplice.

Anthony Ozimic
Your reference to http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2010/03/armchair-moralising-undermines-child.html is, no doubt, valuable, but I am not sure that those few examples from Tradition are sufficient to make the thesis that the Church condemns the extramarital contraception. I would think that more would be needed, but, really, this is for a fundamental theologian to judge. See my first comment (Dec.27) in this Post.

Thanks.

What the pope intended to convey through these comments has since been clarified by the CDF (I quote from http://www.zenit.org/article-31300?l=english )

“Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil.” This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter “Veritatis splendor,” No. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

3. If you get out of this “therefore condom use in certain circumstances is GOOD” you are misreading it in a big way.

4. This action MAY be the first step toward respecting the life of another, but they still are not choosing a good. They are choosing to do an intrinsically evil action but at the same time choosing to do some “damage control” on this intrinsically evil action by using a condom, which again only MAY actually prevent the spread of HIV (no guarantee. At the same time as they choose to do this, the condom use also perpetuates the “banalization of sexuality” the pope deplores. They are NOT doing a good thing, even if there might be some way that you can say that they are choosing to do less evil than otherwise.

Dr. Schmiedicke

Something seems missing from your comment because there are numbers 3 and 4 only.
But taken as it is, the first two paragraphs are ok.
Ad 3) Of course that “the condom use in certain circumstances is GOOD”. because Ad 4) “the first step toward respecting the life of another” cannot be anything but good. There is nothing “intrinsically evil” or “lesser evil” in it. The “MAY” is morally irrelevant: whether one does something that may turn out to be good or will turn out be good, one’s intention (morality is primarily in intention) is good if the means are good.
The “banalization of sexuality” is different matter: it is not inevitable, but might happen as a foreseeable but not intended side effect, and the permissibility of it is subject to general principles as to when one may or may not accept the side effects.

@Mihovil
Your reasoning in your steps 3 and 4 is flawed.  Suppose a bank robber has been using a gun and then killed a teller. He decides he doesn’t like killing people so he uses a fake gun on the next robbery.  By your reasoning robbing a bank with a fake gun is good.  Yet robbing a bank is never good.

In the context of condoms the situation is worse in that condoms do not work very well to prevent the spread of AIDS, they fail fairly often.

Tom Trinka

There is no analogy between “robbing a bank” and using a condom. Supposing the former is “never good” it doesn’t follow that using a condom is never good. The former is intrinsically evil, while whether the use of a condom is evil or not depends of what it is used for. Are you suggesting that using it as an air balloon to play with is intrinsically evil?
“In the context of condoms the situation is worse in that condoms do not work very well to prevent the spread of AIDS, they fail fairly often.” Are you suggesting that should the quality of condom improve to a 100% safety, it would be morally permissible to use it in marriage for contraception? If not what is your point?

You know, this whole conversation about the lawfulness of condom wearing in the case of male prostitution reminds me of another conversation we’ve all heard before:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So, you can argue that this action can be construed in some way as “lawful.” Maybe you’ll get somewhere with the people who already want to hear this answer. But you’re not going to get anywhere with the Person who said the words above.

nate schmiedicke
I am not sure that I understand what you want to say, but if it is that the condom use for prophylactic purpose is analogous to the divorce, my answer is that it is not: divorce is an evil, while the condom use for the prophylactic purpose isn’t. Tom Trinka (above) has made much the same analogy: condom use for prophylactic purpose v. robbing bank.

Amendment, to my comment above.
Ad “…condom use for prophylactic purposes is not” (evil). This should be understood in the context of debate about Pope’s statement referring to the use of condom by a prostitute; not out of context of that debate as if applicable to a marital act. The point is, that the teaching of the Church about contraception in marriage does not seem clear when it comes to the meaning of JP II’s assertion that “every marriage act must remain open to new life” (Familiaris consortio, 29). That is how JP II interprets Humanae vitae Nos. 9 and 12, and the Propositio 21, section 11 of the Synod on Family (see Familiaris consortio, foot note 83, which, in CTS edition C537, reads:  “…open to the transmission of life”, or “…vitam humanem procreandam destinatus permaneat”), but can have two meanings: 1)nothing more than a paraphrase in positive language of Paul VI’s condemnation of “any action…intended to prevent procreation”; or 2)any action which is not open to procreation, whether it involves an intention to prevent it, or not as it is the case of prophylactic use of condom whereby the prevention of procreation is not intended, but in actual fact takes place. This seems to be the basic issue in Rhonheimer – Gormally debate, although they use a sophisticated language