Posted on 11/20/2010 12:59:42 PM PST by Pyro7480
Concering this report from the AP regarding remarks from Pope Benedict XVI on condom use, everyone is expecting clarifications. We can be pretty certain of that, but in the meantime, I’ll offer one.
The key phrase that explains everything that will go right over the vast majority of people’s heads? ”Re-develop the understanding”.
From the AFP [emphasis mine]:
Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.
“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes,” Benedict was quoted as saying.
The scenario offered is of someone in a state of complete ignorance about Catholic teaching. A prostitute doesn’t understand much at all about morality. Perhaps the only morality he can muster is that he shouldn’t do something intentionally that could kill another person. The fact that the Pope used a prostitute as an example shows he’s referring to that type of person. Someone who actively, and as a profession, engages in sex outside of marriage has no inkling of what the Christian moral teaching is on human sexuality. Most of the rest of us have more culpability on the matter than a prostitute. Because most of the rest of us are not prostitutes, we have more “responsibility” than that “first bit of responsibility” a prostitute can muster.
As long as you have an ounce of moral responsibility in you, there is hope that you can “re-develop your understanding”. “Re-developing” your understanding means coming to a more Christian perspective on things. Common sense should tell you that someone who is HIV-positive who goes around intentionally infecting others with HIV is more evil than someone who would say no to that. The Pope was using the extreme example of a prostitute to explain just such a difference.
Does this mean that the Pope is going to approve of the use of condom distribution to prevent AIDS? Nope. His very next statement shows where he is on that.
“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”
The Catholic track record in Africa on this issue is better than the non-Catholic track record.
From the Times-Online:
The head of a Harvard-based AIDs prevention centre says the Pope is “correct” to claim that condom distribution risks aggravating the transmission of HIV.
Last week Benedict XVI incurred the wrath of AIDs campaigners and criticism from the Governments of France and Germany for saying, en route to Africa, that AIDS could not “be overcome by the distribution of condoms.” In comments condemned as “scary” and “alienating” by members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Benedict XVI lauded monogamy as a way to combat the spread of AIDs. He said that condom distribution risked exaggerating the spread of the virus.
Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies said this week: “The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments.”
So, there you have it. Condom distribution exacerbates the AIDS crisis. In Catholic areas of Africa, where condoms are not distributed and it is taught that sex is forbidden outside of marriage, there is greater success.
Claims that the Pope has ‘softened’ or ‘shifted’ on the issue of condoms are false. Condoms are still off limits. The Pope was using an extreme example of a prostitute to demonstrate a point about “intention”.
“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”
God judges based on the intentions of the heart.
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
The protistute in the Pope’s scenario is an example given because he would be one who would have no “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” Those of us who want to practice “feigned ignorance and hardness of heart” on the Church’s teaching on condoms actually “increase the voluntary character of the sin”. This means that we put ourselves in even deeper sin if we harden ourselves willfully against the Church’s teaching on condom use.
Hat-tip, Elizabeth Scalia
Catholic ping!
Ping!
Catholic ping!
Why is the Pope hiding behind a women?
All this time we have been told that there needs to be a Pope to teach the faith, after all Scripture is too hard for us to understand. Now he needs a women to translate what he meant to say?
LOL! Just LOL!
Sometimes, absurdity should be left to stand on its own
It is immoral for a male prostitute to give anal sex to a man.
It is no more immoral for that same male prostitute to also wear a condom, and it might help with some diseases.
There is no attempt to or affect of avoiding pregnancy because the man receiving can’t get pregnant, and the seed will be spilled/wasted regardless of whether a condom is used.
It is not a new development to say that such a homosexual male protitute may wear a condom, but it is new for a pope to discuss the topic and to suggest that male homosexual condom use may make their immoral act less immoral (less selfish).
If someone is familiar with Thomistic ethics, this is not a surprise. If the reason that you use a condom is to prevent disease, and not for prevention of conception, it is permissible. Thomistic ethics does not consider secondary factors or secondary consequences. For instance, it does not consider the issue of homosexuality in this decision, but only the prevention of disease. It is a clever way of dealing with moral issues, but it is also the reason that Thomistic ethics is strongly criticized.
That is very much the heart of Catholicism and allows for changing doctrine ..That is how one can have homosexual priests and still teach that homosexuality is a damning sin
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Maybe we all needs a women. I'se a women an' I'se sure a lot of pippil here at fripperpublic needs me.
Piping hot new interpretations available daily from your favorite Mrs. Jiggery-Popery!
Over and out!
Sadly, FoxNews is about to get this story wrong.
You wrote:
“That is very much the heart of Catholicism and allows for changing doctrine ..That is how one can have homosexual priests and still teach that homosexuality is a damning sin”
That comments smacks of the worst kind of religious ignorance on your part. Every Church and sect has sinners - including yours. Does your sect teach against sin? Do you still have sinners in your sect anyway? Does that mean your sect changed teachings? No.
Anti-Catholicism = ignorance.
Wow, isn’t it something that humans are still sinful, yet knowing full well that sin is sin.
Ignorance in the RF? Reminds me of Aunt Pittypat in "Gone With the Wind"
As the fires began to rage, she said,
Indeed.. but we call sin sin..we do not obfuscate the issue.
You wrote:
“Indeed.. but we call sin sin..we do not obfuscate the issue.”
So do we. You are the one obfuscating. You called homosexuality a sin. Wouldn’t it be homosexual sex that is the sin? Homosexual attraction is a disorder. The sin is acting on the impulses not experiencing the impulses themselves. This clear example of you now knowing what you’re talking about only highlights that original ignorance all the more.
Anti-Catholicism = Ignorance.
This is an example of scriptural ignorance.
Calling homosexual "attraction" not a sin but a disorder, begins the error . Sin is sin
Christ says it is not necessary to ACT on the impulse for it to be sin. Just the thought or the attraction is the sin
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The root of sin is in our heart.. God looks at and judges the heart.
Homosexual "attraction " is an abomination before God, not just a "disorder"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.