Pope B16 & The New Condom Controversy

[southern california guy]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290741196' post='2189334']
I have to disagree with you on this, though I open to correction...

A female who engages in prostitution with a condom has committed two sins - the female who engages in prostitution without a condom has only committed one sin. Though both have committed grave sins (assuming all things equal) one has sinned twice and thus worse (I think we've had a big debate on that at one point...)

We all agree that the good intention does make the condom use moral. So my point was that when the Pope says that a female using a condom might be a step in recognizing morality, it seems to me to be condoning sin in some way.
[/quote]

I agree. And rather then the condom being a step in recognizing morality might condom use give the prostitute a false sense of safety? Might it make them more likely to continue as prostitutes? Is that really taking a step towards responsibility?

[MithLuin]

Well, next time you are discussing condom use with a prostitute, you can ask that person and see which mindset is in the forefront.

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290741196' post='2189334']
A female who engages in prostitution with a condom has committed two sins - the female who engages in prostitution without a condom has only committed one sin. Though both have committed grave sins (assuming all things equal) one has sinned twice and thus worse (I think we've had a big debate on that at one point...)

We all agree that the good intention does make the condom use moral. So my point was that when the Pope says that a female using a condom might be a step in recognizing morality, it seems to me to be condoning sin in some way.
[/quote]
the problem with this interpretation is that the Pope was merely commenting on the intention of the person, not the means of the act, the nature of the deliberately chosen act or the overall act. There might be something good in the intention, even though the nature of the act and overall intention is immoral, so he is clearly not condoning a sin.

The person might have a good intended end of preventing the transmission of disease, but this good intended end must have a good intended means for the overall act to be moral. The intended means is a contraceptive act, which is immoral, therefore the whole intention is not good, but there is in part some goodness in the intention, even though the overal intent is evil. And this goodness might spark a conversion.

Like you implied a person cannot intend evil for the sake of evil. An immoral intention is always directed at an end which is a lesser good in contradiction to a greater good, or an apparent good. So the prostitue who intends the end of preventing disease is intending a real tangible good in the midst of intending the immoral means of a contraceptive act. The intented end and means of the preventing of the transmission of disease is part of a set of acts which are also immoral, selling sex for money.

Making money off of sex is of course an evil intented end, with an evil intended means. Using a condom is an evil intended means however the intended end of preventing transmission remains good without changing the nature intrinsically evil act of contracepted act as a means, and without changing the essential nature of the next intrinsically evil act which is the selling of sex.

And the good consequence of preventing the transmission of the disease remains good, and the good consequence of making money remains good in spite of the evil consequences in the overal act and set of acts which outweigh these two good consequences. And even though the two intended means are evil, and the two overall intentions are evil. What is good remains good, what is evil remains evil in the set of acts.

Catholic ethics can be subtle and complex and difficult.

In the end the Pope is not condoning any sin.
This is my last post here. I cant make everyone see the truth of what the Pope said.

Edited November 26, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

I had to edit my above post a couple of times, so it may not have made sense for the past ten minutes.

I think I have gotten to caught up in all of this.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1290741062' post='2189330']
it's a technical botomline when we say 'it's open to life as a matter of intention ut condoms are not'. as a matter of intention, NFP is said to e more effective than contraceptives, and a person can use condoms with sensitivity to not objecifying people.... what's the difference? a technical matter of intention that doesn't amount to anything as a practical matter, and maybe a natural way of regulating the sexual cycle?
[/quote]
The difference is a matter of how it works. A condom seeks to thwart the man's fertility and to thwart true unity (doesn't matter if it's effective or not, that is what it's used for). NFP does not seek to thwart the couple's fertility or unity. Can it be used selfishly? I'm sure it can, and that wouldn't be right, either.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290746679' post='2189343']
the problem with this interpretation is that the Pope was merely commenting on the intention of the person, not the means of the act, the nature of the deliberately chosen act or the overall act. There might be something good in the intention, even though the nature of the act and overall intention is immoral, so he is clearly not condoning a sin.

The person might have a good intended end of preventing the transmission of disease, but this good intended end must have a good intended means for the overall act to be moral. The intended means is a contraceptive act, which is immoral, therefore the whole intention is not good, but there is in part some goodness in the intention, even though the overal intent is evil. And this goodness might spark a conversion.

Like you implied a person cannot intend evil for the sake of evil. An immoral intention is always directed at an end which is a lesser good in contradiction to a greater good, or an apparent good. So the prostitue who intends the end of preventing disease is intending a real tangible good in the midst of intending the immoral means of a contraceptive act. The intented end and means of the preventing of the transmission of disease is part of a set of acts which are also immoral, selling sex for money.

Making money off of sex is of course an evil intented end, with an evil intended means. Using a condom is an evil intended means however the intended end of preventing transmission remains good without changing the nature intrinsically evil act of contracepted act as a means, and without changing the essential nature of the next intrinsically evil act which is the selling of sex.

And the good consequence of preventing the transmission of the disease remains good, and the good consequence of making money remains good in spite of the evil consequences in the overal act and set of acts which outweigh these two good consequences. And even though the two intended means are evil, and the two overall intentions are evil. What is good remains good, what is evil remains evil in the set of acts.

Catholic ethics can be subtle and complex and difficult.

In the end the Pope is not condoning any sin.
This is my last post here. I cant make everyone see the truth of what the Pope said.
[/quote]

Kafka, No need to get too worked up over all this - I think you did a good job explaining it. And your explanation seems to be correct.

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1290794826' post='2189387']
Kafka, No need to get too worked up over all this - I think you did a good job explaining it. And your explanation seems to be correct.
[/quote]
yes you were right, I was getting worked up last night. Am better now.

Hopefully some good will come of this: more Magisterial teachings against contraception, more Magisterial teaching on Catholic sexual ethics, more Catholics getting interested in Catholic ethics, more wisdom, more refinement of thought, etc.

Edited November 27, 2010 by kafka

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1290746200' post='2189342']
Well, next time you are discussing condom use with a prostitute, you can ask that person and see which mindset is in the forefront.
[/quote]

I don't think that's ever going to happen... But I do know that the "sexual revolution" really took off once birth control became more available and popular. So I would assume that contraception and condoms might lead to more prostitution -- rather than just 'safer' prostitution.

And I'm not really really dumb, but I'm not super smart either, and when I first heard the comments made by the Pope I thought that he was condoning the use of condoms. But after a lot of thought -- and reading a lot of posts -- I can see another point of view. However I think that most people are like me and their impression was that the Pope was condoning condom use. Perhaps he needs to remember that a lot of us are not all that smart and we can take things the wrong way if he's not careful.

Edited November 27, 2010 by southern california guy

[kafka]

here is one more good article from catholicculture.org explaining the origin of the controversy:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

quotes:

"Then, incredibly, the Vatican’s own newspaper violated the embargo [journalistic emargo for those who received the book in advance for review/promotion]. Betraying the publishers and breaking trust with all the other journalists who were fulfilling their promises, L’Osservatore Romano reproduced a passage from the Pope’s interview. And not just any passage. The Vatican newspaper reproduced—without explanation or comment—a passage in which Pope Benedict reflected on the possibility that in some extreme cases, the impulse to use a condom might show a flickering of unselfishness in a seriously corrupted conscience."


"Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign."

[kafka]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1290823808' post='2189455']
Perhaps he needs to remember that a lot of us are not all that smart and we can take things the wrong way if he's not careful.
[/quote]
he never could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of his extemporaneous remarks taken out of context, the fabrication of a controversy, etc. Plus what he said was true, so he isnt responsible for people distorting his words, manufacturing controversies, spreading false doctrines, etc. And he is not responsible for personal human ignorance, and the weakness of people placing their trust in secular mass media.

He has throughout his life selflessly and successfully devoted himself to teaching the Faith.

Edited November 27, 2010 by kafka

[N/A Gone]

I am waiting for him to make a formal clarification. Although I agree this is misunderstood for the benefit of a pre-conceived view, the counter is simple to assume it is a bad understanding.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' timestamp='1290840976' post='2189522']
I am waiting for him to make a formal clarification. Although I agree this is misunderstood for the benefit of a pre-conceived view, the counter is simple to assume it is a bad understanding.
[/quote]
a bad understanding on whose part? the Pope's?

I dont understand the last clause of your remark.

Edited November 27, 2010 by kafka

[Sternhauser]

The Pope needs a spin doctor to get the [i]truth[/i] to be accepted. Shucks. It's all so sad.

~Sternhauser

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1290842523' post='2189526']
a bad understanding on whose part? the Pope's?

I dont understand the last clause of your remark.
[/quote]

If someone wants to believe the Pope is saying Condoms are ok, then they would say that we are just misunderstanding the quote. Although I believe that the Pope is giving an example of moral awakening in an extreme situation and not promoting Condoms, someone could easily say I am misunderstanding with my bias against contraceptives.

Battles over interpretation are always a mess (says the person with an undergrad as a protestant pastor). I am surprised with as much attention this quote has had that Pope Benedict has not just issued a press release explaining the scenario.

[Brother Adam]

It would have been great if Jesus would have issued a press release in light of John 6 66, but he did not feel the need to. I understand what you are saying, but I really do not see how the passage is open to such an interpretation. Simply reading it lends itself to only one reasonable interpretation.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' timestamp='1290975171' post='2189705']
If someone wants to believe the Pope is saying Condoms are ok, then they would say that we are just misunderstanding the quote. Although I believe that the Pope is giving an example of moral awakening in an extreme situation and not promoting Condoms, someone could easily say I am misunderstanding with my bias against contraceptives.

Battles over interpretation are always a mess (says the person with an undergrad as a protestant pastor). I am surprised with as much attention this quote has had that Pope Benedict has not just issued a press release explaining the scenario.
[/quote]
o.k. I see what you are saying. There was a clarification in the Vatican's newspaper on Wednesday. That is probably as close to formal as we will get. What might happen in the future would be a formal Magisterial teaching by the Pope or a Pope's successor pending on how far this all goes.

What is bizarre is that the origin of the whole controversy was from the very same newspaper which made the clarification on Wednesday, the L'Observatore Romano.

Edited November 28, 2010 by kafka

[ReXteryalizerUri]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"] Millions of eggs & SPERM both are dying in our bodies every second MALES are RE-CREATING more sperm[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]MORE ARE dying EVERY second OF our LIVES....[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]If ROME & CATHOLICs were really interested IN SAVING the lives of these UN NUMERABLE amount of eggs & SPERM [/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]They would be following U and I around trying to gather the sperm & eggs to keep them in a safe warm place to life for the few moments they live..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]But Catholics are not REALLY interested in saving anyone..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]THEY vote the SAME pro ABORTION officials into office every year..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"] gathering the sperm & eggs to keep them in a safe warm place to liVe for the few moments they live..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]Woukle be saving the SEED they claim is life..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]ITS A GERM, a SEED.... no breath ,, no heart, no blood.....no genetic growth will ever COME from an unfertiled seed & egg..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]God breathed the breath OF LIFE into Adam & he became a living SOUL.....alive...life[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]UNTILL the fetus has begun to gestate it is just an empty egg that MIGHT make it or MIGHT not...[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]Partial birth although THAT gets to the realm of evil & after the Gestation begins.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]It is a matter of WHY is the baby being killed .... is the mother in danger....the child is deformed beyond any comfortable or sustainable life at all ? [/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]What is in your heart.....FOOLISHNESS & FAKE are the hearts of these caTholics....
[/size][/font]

[MIKolbe]

well at least it's not spam....

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ReXteryalizerUri' timestamp='1296379441' post='2206656']
[font="Arial Black"][size="2"] Millions of eggs & SPERM both are dying in our bodies every second MALES are RE-CREATING more sperm[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]MORE ARE dying EVERY second OF our LIVES....[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]If ROME & CATHOLICs were really interested IN SAVING the lives of these UN NUMERABLE amount of eggs & SPERM [/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]They would be following U and I around trying to gather the sperm & eggs to keep them in a safe warm place to life for the few moments they live..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]But Catholics are not REALLY interested in saving anyone..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]THEY vote the SAME pro ABORTION officials into office every year..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"] gathering the sperm & eggs to keep them in a safe warm place to liVe for the few moments they live..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]Woukle be saving the SEED they claim is life..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]ITS A GERM, a SEED.... no breath ,, no heart, no blood.....no genetic growth will ever COME from an unfertiled seed & egg..[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]God breathed the breath OF LIFE into Adam & he became a living SOUL.....alive...life[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]UNTILL the fetus has begun to gestate it is just an empty egg that MIGHT make it or MIGHT not...[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]Partial birth although THAT gets to the realm of evil & after the Gestation begins.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]It is a matter of WHY is the baby being killed .... is the mother in danger....the child is deformed beyond any comfortable or sustainable life at all ? [/size][/font]

[font="Arial Black"][size="2"]What is in your heart.....FOOLISHNESS & FAKE are the hearts of these caTholics....
[/size][/font]
[/quote]
Every sperm is sacred.

[MithLuin]

Women do not have millions of eggs, and they do not die on a daily basis. Mixing up eggs and sperm is never wise.

And...that's as much as I'm going to say about that comment!