2

Veritas

Pope Benedict XVI did NOT approve the use of prophylactics by homosexuals, heterosexuals or transexuals to prevent the spread of HIV. The secular media took his words OUT OF CONTEXT and whenever you TAKE A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT YOU GET A PRETEXT.

“Pope OK’s Condoms” appeared on one cable network while another said “Vatican Allows Everyone to Use Condoms” to “Pontiff Says Certain Circumstances Warrant Condom Use”

All of these are FALSE.

Let’s look at this statement:

‘all acts of rape are gravely evil, immoral and sinful’

that is true and no one would debate it, would they?

How about this statement?

‘intentionally infecting someone with a disease is also evil, immoral sinful’

Now, if someone were to say “better a rapist to wear a condom and not infect his victim with a venereal disease” does that DE FACTO translate into the person saying “condom use makes rape acceptable” ? Of course not. That a rapist who previously never used condoms but knew he had AIDS now all of a sudden begins to use condoms to prevent infecting his victims is still committing heinous evil (rape) but he is showing a sign of moral improvement insofar as he does not want to infect an innocent victim with a deadly disease. But it is not construed as a green light for rapists to attack women just so long as they use condoms.

Similarly, the Pope was NOT approving condom use. He was saying it can be a sign of moral improvement that someone engaged in immoral sexual intercourse is at least trying to prevent infecting a person with a deadly disease. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Rape is always wrong. All sex outside of marriage be it between an unmarried man and unmarried woman or between two men or two women. Yet, if someone has a VD, not only should they do everything to prevent spreading the disease, they should also ABSTAIN FROM ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Rapists have no right to rape. Sex is not a right but a privilege of marriage which is a covenant between one man and one woman. Married sex must be oriented to love (unity) and life (procreation) otherwise it is sinful behavior. Contraceptive sex is immoral just as in vitro fertilization.

If a bank robber handed out bullet proof vests to the customers and employees at the bank would that make his act of robbery acceptable? Of course not. Handing out condoms to prostitutes may prevent venereal disease but it also promotes immoral activity since the removal of the threat of physical harm can tempt many to give in to temptation. No immediate consequences to actions leads some people to fool themselves that evil actions can sometimes be tolerated.

Why not give condoms to teenagers in high school? Most are having sex anyway? Could condom use lure some who would normally abstain now try “protective sex”? How about just saying NO? As draconian as it sounds, human beings are able and have been able to abstain from sex until marriage for millennia.

Pope Benedict was merely making a moral statement that someone already involved in evil and sinful activity shows signs of moral improvement when they choose the lesser of two evils. HOWEVER, any and all evil should be avoided. Why not give clean needles to college students so they will not get infections from tripping on heroin? How about not doing drugs at all? Why not have wives give their husbands a condom whenever he goes out of town for a business trip? Is it not better he not impregnate someone he is not married to OR that he not bring home a VD? How about he remain chaste in marriage at all times?

The Pope did NOT promote condom use. He made a comment on an evil situation which could be less evil in one way but ultimately the BEST way is to avoid all immoral and evil acts COMPLETELY.

Report abuse

4

Martino

Ha, ha, very prescient of you Vic, highlighting how the Catholics have got themselves into such a moral and philosophical fix with their dogma on this issue, then what do we get?
A whole load of dogma babble from our own resident Catholic dogmatist. Says it all really!

Report abuse

6

TL

“As draconian as it sounds, human beings are able and have been able to abstain from sex until marriage for millennia.”

In a minority of cases, yes. But in general, this exists only in some make-believe fantasy world espoused by an establishment that has not shown itself able to adhere to its own dogma.

In the real world, we should be accepting that human desires exist, educating people to be responsible in how they respond to those desires and mitigating any negative impact.

Report abuse

8

Beanjar

Assuming that Popes are on the hotline to God most of the time, I cannot really understand why they have waited 25 years to do a U turn on this. Aids has been killing people all that time and condom usage would undoubtedly have saved many, perhaps millions, of lives. What has changed other than the Catholic Church wanting to become a bit more ‘user friendly’ in the light of all their recent bad press? Seems like hypocrisy to me but why should we expect anything different from the people who brought us the inquisition and centuries of bestial behaviour towards children.

Report abuse

10

vic gamble

If you really analyse this new doctrine, it suggests that immoral folk can use condoms, whilst ever so good and religious Mr & Mrs Smith, lumbered with thirteen children, cowering in fear of their Catholic Church, have to either abstain, or keep upping the grocery bill….

Report abuse

12

Ormerman

I remember I had this girlfriend when I was about 18 who was raised a devout Catholic in an extremely strict environment, where talk about the disgusting act of lovemaking was taboo, as was any form of even remotely inappropriate behaviour.

I vaguely remember being allowed to hold her hand in front of her parents, but that was the tolerance limit for physical contact, a hug was a “get out heathen”!!

At 18 she suddenly had an awakening, which oddly enough involved the use of a prophylactic.

Over the next 6 months all those years of Dogmatic oppression worked out great for me!!

Keep it up Cat Licks, for the good of all the young ormermen out there!!!

Report abuse

14

Paul

P B Falla

I think you mean kerygmatic.

Report abuse

16

Paul

vic gamble

With a bit of imagination there is other places to put it.

Report abuse