Catholic ping!
Ping!
Catholic ping!
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.
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.
Sadly, FoxNews is about to get this story wrong.
‘“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”’
Well, well, so different when one hears the entire story.