Prostitutes' Use Of Condoms Is Not A Lesser Evil: Vatican

[webfact]

Vatican: Prostitutes' use of condoms is not a lesser evil

Vatican City - Remarks by Pope Benedict XVI in a book published in November do not represent a change in Catholic teaching against the use of condoms, nor do they imply that it is a "lesser evil" for prostitutes to use condoms in order to prevent HIV/AIDS infection, the Vatican said Tuesday.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) said it had issued the note to prevent continued misinterpretation of the pontiff's words as they appeared in the interview-book: Light of the World.

Some Church conservatives, had "lamented" the pontiff's remarks, while pro-condom activists, had "welcomed," them, the note said.

Both reactions stemmed from misinterpreting Benedict's words as signaling a "break" with the (Catholic) doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church's stance in the fight against AIDS, the note added.

"In reality, the words of the pope which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution, do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church," it said.

Benedict in the book points out that the use of a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a

"The Holy Father did not say as some people have claimed that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil ... However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity," the CDF said.

-- The Nation 2010-12-22

[isanbirder]

Putting its foot in it as usual... if the Vatican had four feet, it would put them all in it. I wish the Vatican PR office would simply shut up, instead of making a minor gaffe worse.

[TAWP]

If there was anyone waiting for more evidence that the Catholic Church is inherently evil...

[slapout]

Any religious venue/building can be viewed as a place of sanctuary/meditation for those who seek it. The human leadership element seem to be the leading cause of friction, condemnation between various religions/beliefs.

[thaicbr]

If there was anyone waiting for more evidence that the Catholic Church is inherently evil...

Not sure about Evil..... but stupid, backward, pontificating and a huge money hungry corporation....sure.

[Donnyboy]

imo, the pope lost all moral authority when he decided to protect those within his circle for those unforgiveable acts on the most vulnerable

[meom]

If there was anyone waiting for more evidence that the Catholic Church is inherently evil...

...There's nothing like a catholic girl

When they learn to blow...

Frank Zappa.

[Naam]

imo, the pope lost all moral authority when he decided to protect those within his circle for those unforgiveable acts on the most vulnerable

seconded!

[CheGuava]

And the link to Thailand is....

(Come on, be creative!)

[Loz]

Hard to understand how this is about thailand when the Vatican is in another country and the Pope is not thai. Also the discussion of prostitution was, I thought, persona non grata on the forum? At least prostition in thailand.

I have a hard time keeping up with the rules here. Sorry for being so easily confused.

I think people should spend less time worrying about the popes words and more time devoting their everyday actions to the good of humanity either as defined by the catholic church if they are followers, or whomsoever they see as fit, if not.

That'd be nice.

[carmine]

imo, the pope lost all moral authority when he decided to protect those within his circle for those unforgiveable acts on the most vulnerable

seconded!

And i will third that.

[Ulysses G.]

It does not forbid condoms in the Bible and the Pope has proved beyond any doubt that he is far from infallible.

[geriatrickid]

It does not forbid condoms in the Bible and the Pope has proved beyond any doubt that he is far from infallible.

No, but there are several edicts about not spilling ones seed and there is that thing about procreation. I believe that's what all this nonsense is based upon.

I'll leave it to the religious zealots to duke it out. :jap:

[Credo]

The consent to use condoms probably came about after the Pope's financial consulted informed he had just bought shares in Durex company.  

[dom samui]

And the link to Thailand is....

(Come on, be creative!)

1/ This forum

2/The OP

3/The Nation

4/The condoms (rubber made in thailand)

5/ half of one percent of Thai's -- about 300000 people -- are Catholics,

6/19 Jun 2009 ... 25th Anniversary of the Papal visit to Thailand of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

7/Another post here :

:jap:

[Bagwan]

Almost all the Catholic countries are poor and the people oppressed, not least by the Catholic Church. What a coincidence. Think of all those poor women, it is usually woman as they get the thin edge of the wedge in life, who have nowhere to turn other than the church. They offer their mites to the collection plate - and the Pope lives in splendour in the Vatican or his Summer Palace. One of his 'frocks' if sold would feed a few families for a year. Christian charity? His pronouncements push ladies even further into a mire.

I don't need any religious leadership. I have a conscience and that governs my behaviour.

[JurgenG]

And the link to Thailand is....

(Come on, be creative!)

Fail to see beside catholics bashing ...

Two days before Christmas, what a nice touch !

[elliss]

i am a catholic ,

however i cannot wear a condom ,

because my old boy is not hard enough , to put a condom on .

i go to confession regularly , every week . :jap:

[Thaddeus]

Wouldn't it be good if we had a Christian Forum to put all this friendly banter in.

[isanbirder]

Hard to understand how this is about thailand when the Vatican is in another country and the Pope is not thai. Also the discussion of prostitution was, I thought, persona non grata on the forum? At least prostition in thailand.

I have a hard time keeping up with the rules here. Sorry for being so easily confused.

I think people should spend less time worrying about the popes words and more time devoting their everyday actions to the good of humanity either as defined by the catholic church if they are followers, or whomsoever they see as fit, if not.

That'd be nice.

Nice post, Loz. But you've omitted to mention the fact that there are people on this forum who get their kicks out of abusing the Catholic Church.

Indeed, if we thought more about the Christian message, and less about the sinners, we'd all benefit. But then, paedophilia is such a fun topic, isn't it?

And a word to my old friend Ulysses G. (polumetis, or wily, as Homer called your namesake) (If you haven't worked out who I am yet, I'll tell you next time I see you). If you took the trouble to find out what the Catholic Church means by 'infallibility', you would do us all a favour.

Edited December 22, 2010 by isanbirder

[Ulysses G.]

And a word to my old friend Ulysses G. (polumetis, or wily, as Homer called your namesake) (If you haven't worked out who I am yet, I'll tell you next time I see you). If you took the trouble to find out what the Catholic Church means by 'infallibility', you would do us all a favour.

If you read some of my other posts, you will see that I am not against Catholics - in fact I was born and brought up one - but my remark about the Pope's "infallibility" was nothing at all to do with religious debate, but more a comment on the fact that the church knew that child abuse was going on for years and did little to stop it.

I am sorry, but I can not see any valid excuses for this. In fact, I simply can not understand how it could have been tolerated. It has made me question the Catholic faith more that anything else that I can think of.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[isanbirder]

And a word to my old friend Ulysses G. (polumetis, or wily, as Homer called your namesake) (If you haven't worked out who I am yet, I'll tell you next time I see you). If you took the trouble to find out what the Catholic Church means by 'infallibility', you would do us all a favour.

If you read some of my other posts, you will see that I am not against Catholics - in fact I was born and brought up one - but my remark about the Pope's "infallibility" was nothing at all to do with religious debate, but more a comment on the fact that the church knew that child abuse was going on for years and did little to stop it.

I am sorry, but I can not see any valid excuses for this. In fact, I simply can not understand how it could have been tolerated. It has made me question the Catholic faith more that anything else that I can think of.

I have indeed read many of your posts, G... trouble is, any mention of 'infallibility' in connection with the Church leads to misunderstandings, as in this case; others are not as well brought up as you were!

I have no wish to excuse the paedophilia scandal; I think it was appallingly mishandled and (although this is a bit of a red herring here) largely due to the insistence on priestly celibacy. Young men take their vows in the full flush of religious enthusiasm, and then find their human sexuality is too strong for them... the temptation comes to many in the shape of young boys... and we know the rest. I don't say this to excuse them, only to go some way towards explaining what has happened. The delinquent priests are God's children too.

[rgs2001uk]

And a word to my old friend Ulysses G. (polumetis, or wily, as Homer called your namesake) (If you haven't worked out who I am yet, I'll tell you next time I see you). If you took the trouble to find out what the Catholic Church means by 'infallibility', you would do us all a favour.

If you read some of my other posts, you will see that I am not against Catholics - in fact I was born and brought up one - but my remark about the Pope's "infallibility" was nothing at all to do with religious debate, but more a comment on the fact that the church knew that child abuse was going on for years and did little to stop it.

I am sorry, but I can not see any valid excuses for this. In fact, I simply can not understand how it could have been tolerated. It has made me question the Catholic faith more that anything else that I can think of.

I have indeed read many of your posts, G... trouble is, any mention of 'infallibility' in connection with the Church leads to misunderstandings, as in this case; others are not as well brought up as you were!

I have no wish to excuse the paedophilia scandal; I think it was appallingly mishandled and (although this is a bit of a red herring here) largely due to the insistence on priestly celibacy. Young men take their vows in the full flush of religious enthusiasm, and then find their human sexuality is too strong for them... the temptation comes to many in the shape of young boys... and we know the rest. I don't say this to excuse them, only to go some way towards explaining what has happened. The delinquent priests are God's children too.

Perhaps you could enlighten us at to what it means then.

This is something I came across,

"For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists"

Taken from the following link,

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I have difficulty accepting this when I consider such topics as the original sin and purgatory.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't need any religious leadership. I have a conscience and that governs my behaviour.

And your conscience is governed by ...? If you answer natural reason or natural law, then you agree with Catholic philosophy, at least that of Thomas Aquinas.

Of course, one's conscience could just be governed by evolution - the genes that dispose us toward certain survival-enhancing behaviours and against others have been selected and we are the product. In that case, you could say your conscience has you, rather than the other way round.

Still, with free will and a good upbringing you may have managed to discern what is good in conscience and what is simply expedient for social survival and ego-protection.

Very few Catholics take any notice of the pope's declarations re contraception and sexual practice. They have a conscience, too, and they follow it., and in doing so they have the church's consent (though not its approval).

I guess the pope is acting out of his conscience also, though it's hard to see where he's coming from - an approach, it seems, that puts too much emphasis on the physical processes of sexual behaviour and a fear of anything that looks like it will deny potential life. The commission of enquiry that reported to Pope Paul VI on these matters suggested a liberalization of the church's view on contraception, but the pope did not accept their advice and issued Humanae Vitae (1968), the greatest single impetus to people to leave the church before the abusive priests came to light a few years ago.

I don't know why the popes are so immovable. Probably most moral theologians would argue for change, but they get overruled.

[Xangsamhua]

Wouldn't it be good if we had a Christian Forum to put all this friendly banter in.

[Xangsamhua]

Perhaps you could enlighten us at to what it means then.

This is something I came across,

"For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that's why papal infallibility exists"

Taken from the following link,

http://www.catholic....fallibility.asp

I have difficulty accepting this when I consider such topics as the original sin and purgatory.

In brief, it means that when the pope is speaking with his full authority (ex cathedra), his teaching is to be regarded as infallible. The pope has exercised this authority once since the doctrine of papal infallibility was formalized in 1870, to announce that the Assumption of Mary was a dogma of the church (in 1950). Other teaching may be regarded as authoritative, but not infallible, the teaching in Humane Vitae on contraception is a case in point, so Catholics can in good conscience not follow that teaching if they genuinely believe it would be morally wrong or morally unnecessary for them to obey it. The overwhelming majority of Catholics ignore the pope's teaching in this matter.

[rgs2001uk]

Perhaps you could enlighten us at to what it means then.

This is something I came across,

"For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that's why papal infallibility exists"

Taken from the following link,

http://www.catholic....fallibility.asp

I have difficulty accepting this when I consider such topics as the original sin and purgatory.

In brief, it means that when the pope is speaking with his full authority (ex cathedra), his teaching is to be regarded as infallible. The pope has exercised this authority once since the doctrine of papal infallibility was formalized in 1870, to announce that the Assumption of Mary was a dogma of the church (in 1950). Other teaching may be regarded as authoritative, but not infallible, the teaching in Humane Vitae on contraception is a case in point, so Catholics can in good conscience not follow that teaching if they genuinely believe it would be morally wrong or morally unnecessary for them to obey it. The overwhelming majority of Catholics ignore the pope's teaching in this matter.

Picking up on your comment about exercising this "authority" only once, am I mistaken in thinking that in 1994 pope John Paul the second also spoke "infallabily" regarding the subject of woman being ordained and also decreeing that there should be no more talk on the subject?

I think you would agree there is a difference between, is to be regarded as infallabile and is infallabile.

[Xangsamhua]

Perhaps you could enlighten us at to what it means then.

This is something I came across,

"For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that's why papal infallibility exists"

Taken from the following link,

http://www.catholic....fallibility.asp

I have difficulty accepting this when I consider such topics as the original sin and purgatory.

In brief, it means that when the pope is speaking with his full authority (ex cathedra), his teaching is to be regarded as infallible. The pope has exercised this authority once since the doctrine of papal infallibility was formalized in 1870, to announce that the Assumption of Mary was a dogma of the church (in 1950). Other teaching may be regarded as authoritative, but not infallible, the teaching in Humane Vitae on contraception is a case in point, so Catholics can in good conscience not follow that teaching if they genuinely believe it would be morally wrong or morally unnecessary for them to obey it. The overwhelming majority of Catholics ignore the pope's teaching in this matter.

Picking up on your comment about exercising this "authority" only once, am I mistaken in thinking that in 1994 pope John Paul the second also spoke "infallabily" regarding the subject of woman being ordained and also decreeing that there should be no more talk on the subject?

I think you would agree there is a difference between, is to be regarded as infallabile and is infallabile.

Yes, I remember the 1994 gobstopper and the high dudgeon there was where I worked as a result. As far as JP2 was concerned that was the end of the matter, and I would think that is B16's view, too. However, the declaration was not formally an infallible one, though it was dressed up as the next best thing. Anyway, the talk has by no means stopped and a few hardy women have courted and gained excommunication by getting themselves "ordained". Although these mock-ordinations are statements rather than actions of substance they do highlight the fragility of the arguments against women's ordination. Having stressed in the past that Jesus only ordained men, therefore that was the natural order of things, the Vatican now seems to be wringing its hands and saying "well, even if we wanted to, we couldn't, as we don't have the authority" (but they seem to have authority for everything else). The Thai Buddhist authorities use the same argument against ordination of bhikkhunis.

There's some discussion of the 1994 declaration here: http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/burns.asp

Edited December 22, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[robblok]

I would say.. go on like this.. say more of those things and soon this religion won't be taken seriously

Just like all the scandals of pedophilia that plague the church slowly it destroys the church. The more they cover it up the more that will be found out in the end. The less credible they will be.

With friends like this who needs enemies.

[mahtin]

Jesus wept.