Skip to comments.Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids
Posted on 11/20/2010 10:45:01 AM PST by Gamecock
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids. While he will restate the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes it interferes with the creation of life, he will argue that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death can be a responsible act even outside marriage. Asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms," he replies: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
IIRC, condoms are just barely enough protection from sperm, which are many orders of magnitude larger than HIV.
And, IIRC, HIV has no problem permeating the average condom.
Hey, Pope, whatever happened to, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”?
I don’t envy him having to dance between the sharp horns of so many dilemmas
It could be an “Alternate Title” if you wanted to be inaccurate and pretty much downright silly.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to be be rude here. What you say is facially absurd. It is perhaps one of the least scientifically sound statements I have ever seen. Ever.
I knew it was only a matter of time. If you can circumvent divorce through a new mechanism, what else can’t be approved?
At the risk of getting flamed...married priests.
This quote of yours is taken out of context. You need to research the entire story.
even outside marriageThe Pope would never condone sex outside marriage ... where did this article originate?
Clerical celibacy has never been a god-given commandment. It was only done as a matter of practicality to prevent the widows and children of dead clerics inheriting church property. There is no theological reason why priests shouldn’t get married...
Female condoms are more effective, but they are not yet available.
However, the University of California, San Frasicko, has a different take.
And finally, we see the Pope contradicting himself ...
... but that was seven years ago.
Hey, you know, it all depends on who and what you wanna believe.
This is a lose/lose situation for the pope.
They are promoting sex for just recreational purposes now?
That puts a real dent in their contraceptive argument.
If someone is having sex without the intent to procreate, doesn’t that qualify for the kind of condemnation that Onan received? Wasting seed and all?
What a can of worms this opens, especially the comment about sex outside of marriage.
And it can never be unsaid.
Well, condoms are widely recognized as the least reliable way to prevent pregnancy. Their failure rate is pretty high, 15%.
That alone demonstrates that their effectiveness against disease is not acceptable. Who would want to risk a 15% chance of getting HIV/AIDS every time they had sex?
Russian roulette is as safe.
Let me fix that for you:
Just out of curiosity...How many Catholics have contracted AIDS because they refused to follow Scriptural teaching by having sex outside of marriage?
use a condom (because of the Churchs stand)?
And your last link is from the former Pope, not the current Pope. At one time, the Church thought Heliocentrism was heretical, and they literally burned people at the stake for saying the Earth orbited the Sun, not vice versa. The previous Pope was wrong. This Pope is following the proven science.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at what the CDC said about it just this year (not in 1990)...
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.
You're original statement is not only intellectually vacant and devoid of any scientifically accepted finding, it's dangerous.
Do you have a link?
In 2005, the year he was elected pope, ,the BBC reported that "the spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said."
Less than 4 years later, the AP reported "condoms are not the answer to Africa's fight against HIV, Pope Benedict XVI said Tuesday as he began a weeklong trip to the continent."
So what is going on here?
Really, less reliable than the "rhythm method"? That's a fascinating hypothesis. Where did you read that? Care to provide a link?
Even with any failure rate, condoms are the only effective prophylactic measure one can take during intercourse to prevent the contraction of STDs.
"Who would want to risk a 15% chance of getting HIV/AIDS every time they had sex?"
So, you're saying you have less of a chance of contracting an STD without using a condom?
**Just out of curiosity...How many Catholics have contracted AIDS because they refused to follow Scriptural teaching by having sex outside of marriage?**
And to repeat that with a slight modification:
Just out of curiosity...How many Protestants have contracted AIDS because they refused to follow Scriptural teaching by having sex outside of marriage?
William Portier, a Catholic theologian at the University of Dayton, a Marianist school in Ohio, said he had not read the report in the Vatican newspaper, but he said it would be wrong to conclude that the comments mean the pope has made a fundamental, broad change in church teaching on artificial contraception.
"He's not going to do that in an offhand remark to a journalist in an interview," Portier said.
Why is the Catholic Church obsessed with legality over grace? Either the Grace of God is sufficient or it isnt. Either Jesus sacrifice was sufficient or it wasnt.
This is unsubstantiated gossip and rumor-mongering. When the pope actually makes this kind of a change, post away. Don’t hold your breath, though. It won’t happen.
But it has not happened and this thread is dishonest—it represents gossip as a bona fide news report.
This thread should be pulled.
Portier ia a lib who would probably favor such a change. When a lib offers an admission against interest as he does here, it’s pretty good evidence that the whole story is pure gossip.
I note that the usual suspects were quick to jump on unsubstantiated rumor and gossip and attack the pope.
Here is the truth -- Gamecock, I urge you to retract your untruthful statement.
Pope heads to Africa, stands firm against condoms
VATICAN CITY, THE VATICAN Mar 17 2009 13:49
We have here is a media is report conflicting with what you believe to be true.
How events unfold should determine the veracity of a thread, not one FReepers opinion.
Because grace affords no opportunities for control.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he will begin a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans, said Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa.
Does your church teach that contraception is wrong? Unless it does, it is encouraging sex for recreational purpose, by the reasoning in this comment. Unless your church condemns contraception under all circumstances, it is guilty of encouraging onanism, by the reasoning in this comment.
The story is bogus, the pope is not going to condone condomns. But in your eagerness to criticize the pope you condemn your own church, unless it consistently without exception condemns contraception.
First, this thread IS NOT in the Religion forum. Second, the Telegraph UK is one of the most respected (and balanced) newspapers in Europe. Lastly, the author is the Religious Affairs correspondent for the paper. He has a robust history of reporting breaking news exclusives on a variety of religious topics.
He says in the story...
The groundbreaking announcement will come in a book to be published by the Vatican next week based on the first face-to-face interview given by a Pope.
Simply put, Wynne-Jones has an exceptional record for accuracy. He's not a gossip monger.
That was a year ago Salvation.
Like we Prods have pointed out to our FRoman Catholic friends more times than I can count, Catholic doctrine is always changing, always shifting. It is a faith built on the whims a man who changes out every few years.
If this is false reporting, the thread will die a quite death. If it’s true you have to deal with the fact that Catholics can claim they just preventing the spread of HIV when they are engaged in sinful behavior.
More than dishonesty.....isn’t it more like calumniating the Pope? What that the poster’s intention?
I agree that the thread could be pulled due to dishonesty and calumny.
It’s not one Freeper’s opinion—see the other comments on this thread. It’s also the opinion of a theologian (Portier) who would be overjoyed if the story were true but points out that a change of policy is not going to be announced in a casual comment to a journalist.
It’s unsubstantiated gossip upon which you and your coreligionists jumped with glee.
Yeah, you can post unsubstantiated gossip if you wish.
It doesn’t change the fact that what you posted flies in the face of everything this pope has said and written, as several comments show.
Posting unsubstantiated gossip about groups you disagree with is not a way to stimulate honest discussion. Its provocation.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
>> Because grace affords no opportunities for control.<<
That pretty much nails it. I couldnt believe they actually put themselves above the authority of Scripture.
This thread IS in the religion forum.
It is in the religion forum http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2630531/posts?page=40#40
Gee, personal attacks/mind reading are always forbidden on the RF.
Yeah, you can post unsubstantiated gossip if you wish.
Like I said upstream, if it is false, the thread will die. If it is true Rome is once again changing the "truth." < sarc>
It doesnt change the fact that what you posted flies in the face of everything this pope has said and written, as several comments show.
Time will tell. I urge you to click over on Google News, there are Scores of News outlets reporting this. This is hardly something posted from the National Enquirer or The Onion.
Posting unsubstantiated gossip about groups you disagree with is not a way to stimulate honest discussion.
Neither is resorting to the Liberal tactic of censorship.
The truth holds true regardless of the date.
And please don’t poke me with your cattle prod.
I think you are talking about Protestants rather than cattle prods.
FR constantly points out the truth of liberal media bias, and yet, you believe what the media reports about the Catholic Church?
I expect the issue to be on the table for several days: if one were pulled another would pop up elsewhere. Therefore I will not pull this thread.
The link said Guardian.
The book in question is embargoed until sometime tomorrow. Wynne-Jones or his informant has broken the embargo. Whether he himself actually had an advance copy of the book or whether he has an informant who has a copy is not clear.
Prima facie some of these quotes (”sole intent to avoid infection, even outside marriage”) make no sense: sex outside marriage is wrong—does Wynne-Jones think the pope is also going to abandon that? Therefore the intent of using a condom outside marriage cannot be solely to prevent infection because there can be no reason at all for sex outside marriage. The pope may be many thigs but stupid he is not. The author of the book in question, Seewald, has done 2 earlier books with Ratzinger. He’s also not stupid.
Forming any sort of judgment based on these quotes is irresponsible gossip.