- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,142
- 11,356
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Pope: Condoms Can Be Justified in Some Cases
- Thread starter Fish and Bread
- Start date
Upvote
0
Eucharisted
Well-Known Member
Catholic thoughts on the Pope's opinion on condoms:
The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms??? | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Pope Benedict on condoms in "Light of the World"
The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms??? | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Pope Benedict on condoms in "Light of the World"
Upvote
0
Eucharisted
Well-Known Member
shouldn't the Pope be condemning homosexuality instead?
Why not ask him to in a letter?
Upvote
0
Pretty much every Catholic and the secular world already know that the Church teaches against Homosexual activities.shouldn't the Pope be condemning homosexuality instead?
He intentionally gave sort of a worse case scenario regarding sexuality to show that even among the homosexuals, a light of hope exists and that with the Grace of God can lead them into what 'the sexual act' means in the full sense. Homosexual relations and condoms of course not being a part of that act.
Upvote
0
M
Memento Mori
Guest
full text
I feel silly for worrying about this now. The pope doesn't say any of the things the media are claiming.
He uses the example that the incidence of a male prostitute choosing contraception can indicate a "first step in the direct of 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."
So what about the claim that the pope says condom use is at least somewhat justified? He doesn't say that either. He says, "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."
The pope is NOT saying that the use of condoms is justified in any circumstances. He is saying that the "intention of reducing the risk of infection" is a first step towards a true view of sexuality, but that condoms are NOT the best way to bring about this intention.
This story was so overblown, I am more angry with myself for buying into it than I am with the people who peddled it. I'll be going to bed without a doubt in my mind that the pope has said nothing new. Good riddance!
I feel silly for worrying about this now. The pope doesn't say any of the things the media are claiming.
He uses the example that the incidence of a male prostitute choosing contraception can indicate a "first step in the direct of 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."So what about the claim that the pope says condom use is at least somewhat justified? He doesn't say that either. He says, "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."
The pope is NOT saying that the use of condoms is justified in any circumstances. He is saying that the "intention of reducing the risk of infection" is a first step towards a true view of sexuality, but that condoms are NOT the best way to bring about this intention.
This story was so overblown, I am more angry with myself for buying into it than I am with the people who peddled it. I'll be going to bed without a doubt in my mind that the pope has said nothing new. Good riddance!
Upvote
0
LivingWordUnity
Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
Then the media accomplished its goal. Remember that the media has an incentive to hype and distort news to make a fast buck. Don't jump the gun. Calm down, and wait to hear it from the Pope himself in something official like an encyclical before getting worried. So far, all we are getting of this is second-hand information from an obscure source.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
AMDG
Tenderized for Christ
- May 24, 2004
- 25,362
- 1,286
- 75
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Been hearing reporters (who are positively giddy and who don't shrink at interjecting their personal opinions) report on how the Pope is now saying that condoms are okay in certain cases to prevent HIV. They say it is the "hoped for opening". Of course, it is all wrong and I imagine that quite a bit of damage has been done.
Upvote
0
M
Memento Mori
Guest
this is an easy way to understand it, IMO
SCENARIO A: A single mother doesn't care about her two starving kids, but one day she decides to take responsibility for them. She starts selling her body for sex so she can afford to feed her children. Her intention to provide for the children is the first step towards moralization because she recognizes that she does not live for herself alone. However, prostitution is not a real or moral solution to her problems.
SCENARIO B: An HIV-positive prostitute has sex indiscriminately and does not care whom he infects, but one day he decides to take responsibility for his disease. He decides to start wearing condoms. His intention to reduce the risk of infection in his clients is the first step towards moralization because he recognizes that not everything is permissible and that he must assume responsibility for the good of others. However, condoms are not a real or moral solution to the evil of HIV infection.
SCENARIO A: A single mother doesn't care about her two starving kids, but one day she decides to take responsibility for them. She starts selling her body for sex so she can afford to feed her children. Her intention to provide for the children is the first step towards moralization because she recognizes that she does not live for herself alone. However, prostitution is not a real or moral solution to her problems.
SCENARIO B: An HIV-positive prostitute has sex indiscriminately and does not care whom he infects, but one day he decides to take responsibility for his disease. He decides to start wearing condoms. His intention to reduce the risk of infection in his clients is the first step towards moralization because he recognizes that not everything is permissible and that he must assume responsibility for the good of others. However, condoms are not a real or moral solution to the evil of HIV infection.
Upvote
0
scraparcs
aka Mayor McCheese
- Mar 4, 2002
- 53,004
- 4,844
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
I seriously doubt that the Pope didn't choose his words wisely.
It sounds like he's saying that in the case of an act where a person infected with HIV is going to have sex anyway, at least they're using a condom and trying to reduce the risk of infecting their partner with HIV. What's worse, committing the sin of using a condom or committing the sin of infecting someone with HIV?
It sounds like he's saying that in the case of an act where a person infected with HIV is going to have sex anyway, at least they're using a condom and trying to reduce the risk of infecting their partner with HIV. What's worse, committing the sin of using a condom or committing the sin of infecting someone with HIV?
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
This may sound paranoid but a good first reaction is if you see a report in a mainstream news source about the Church or the Pope to just stop reading. If you do keep reading, take everything with an ocean of salt and try your best to look for transcripts, original documents, etc. If the report doesn't specify where or when these comments transpired, say "well, I guess I'll wait to see if more comes out on this."
I have never seen a paper get a story completely (or even mainly) right on a topic like this. I have seen report after report where a lengthy work was mined for the one comment about homosexuality, condoms, etc. and that quote was given an entire report. To make matters worse papers will often speculate what the quote "really means" without being completely clear that their analysis is about as grounded in reality as reading the spots on a goat's kidney. My favorite one of these is when the Pope celebrated an mass during ordinary time wearing green, and this generated a report about his provocative statement that the Church needed to have environmentalism as its first priority.
I have never seen a paper get a story completely (or even mainly) right on a topic like this. I have seen report after report where a lengthy work was mined for the one comment about homosexuality, condoms, etc. and that quote was given an entire report. To make matters worse papers will often speculate what the quote "really means" without being completely clear that their analysis is about as grounded in reality as reading the spots on a goat's kidney. My favorite one of these is when the Pope celebrated an mass during ordinary time wearing green, and this generated a report about his provocative statement that the Church needed to have environmentalism as its first priority.
Upvote
0
Eretria90
Yes I am One Awesome Eagle
I don't trust the media anymore. Absolutely no truth in anything being reported, people spreading lies. Why is this legal? I find it funny that enemies of the Church claim we are blind followers of the pope, yet these same people are so gullible to jump onto the bandwagon as sheep they worship everything in the media and take everything the media reports as true. To me it seems these people are the real "blind followers."
Already I can see the "hype" this misinformation has caused. It's running rampant on a forum I commonly read at and all these irreligious people are making idiotic comments such as "the Catholic Church has finally made it to the 21st century." Even worse we are being called "backwards" people. How insulting and uneducated can people be? How stupid can be people be.
This is normal though. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Already I can see the "hype" this misinformation has caused. It's running rampant on a forum I commonly read at and all these irreligious people are making idiotic comments such as "the Catholic Church has finally made it to the 21st century." Even worse we are being called "backwards" people. How insulting and uneducated can people be? How stupid can be people be.
This is normal though. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Upvote
0
Eucharisted
Well-Known Member
I don't trust the media anymore. Absolutely no truth in anything being reported, people spreading lies. Why is this legal? I find it funny that enemies of the Church claim we are blind followers of the pope, yet these same people are so gullible to jump onto the bandwagon as sheep they worship everything in the media and take everything the media reports as true. To me it seems these people are the real "blind followers."
Already I can see the "hype" this misinformation has caused. It's running rampant on a forum I commonly read at and all these irreligious people are making idiotic comments such as "the Catholic Church has finally made it to the 21st century." Even worse we are being called "backwards" people. How insulting and uneducated can people be? How stupid can be people be.
This is normal though. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Don't generalize. Instead seek what is good and shun what is evil. Otherwise you're on the road to paranoia, conspiracy theories, and gullibility.
Upvote
0
Eucharisted
Well-Known Member
Yet is it absolutely true? No. So he did generalize. Study the fallacy of generalization and it's variants.
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Or she used a slightly hyperbolic statement of a type commonly used in day to day conversation. It wasn't presented as a formal proof of: "my experience is that most newspapers that I have seen have been inaccurate. Therefore all information from newspapers is false."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
