Condoms are ok now!?

Hey, guys!

I just read the news about the pope changing his position on condom-use, and I couldn’t be more pleased! :smiley: Me and my wife are using nfp to the best of our ability, but we do use condoms sporadically. With this change, I’m thinking that my wife can feel more comfortable with our condom-use.

I did notice that the pope didn’t give a blanket statement in support of condom-use, but rather, that he thought it was acceptable on the path to a more moral sexuality. Although I don’t see this as a moral question myself, it seems to me like my situation can be construed as such a path (at least from my wife’s perspective).

I look forward to speaking to my wife about this, and I hope my interpretation is correct. Am I understanding it right?

This is absolutely incorrect. Apparently you only read what you wanted to read from the news and not the actual book, context, or anything else.

What arrogance for a reporter to think that a pope would change church teaching in his interview. good grief. It doesn’t work like that.

Moral truths don’t change, it never will.

Ummm… not in the LEAST! :confused:

However, you are a victim of the media who have taken this statement COMPLETELY out of context… :rolleyes:

Here’s a decent response…

As I understand it only if you were a MALE using condoms when having sex with a MALE prostitute. But good luck in finding an out clause.

You need to read for yourself what the Holy Father said.
Don’t believe the media’s biased spin on this.

Hmm. Let me translate what the article said: “The pope accepts condom-use in certain cases… for instance in HIV-prevention… to the purpose of steering individuals in the right direction.”

It seems to me like that could be construed as saying that condom-use was acceptable as a step in the right direction. So, in my relationship, we used hormonal contraception a while before we got married. My wife stopped, and we are now practicing nfp with an inkling of condom-use. From a catholic point of view, this seems to me like being steps in the right direction, or as the pope said “to the purpose of steering individuals in the right direction”.

What exactly is wrong with this interpretation?

Edit: I just read another source, and it read quite differently. The interpretation used by the paper seems to be deliberately misleading. :mad: Talk about getting me excited for nothing :frowning: Shameful journalism. :mad:

No, Persuader, neither the Pope nor the Church have changed anything.

The only thing occuring is the media misreporting.

The Pope has made no such statement.

(a) There is no change in the Church’s teaching

(b) Contraceptions is now, and shall always be, grave matter (a mortal sin)

No. He did not say this.

To do so would be to completely MIScontstrue what the Pope actually said.

No, you aren’t.

See this article for an accurate explanation.

EVERYTHING… you didn’t read what the Pope *actually *said… You read the ARTICLE. :rolleyes:

I’m sorry, guys. :o I should have known better than to take a newspaper at it’s word. At least I got the paper to change the wording of the article.

'Concering this report from the AP regarding remarks from Pope Benedict XVI on condom use, everyone is expecting clarifications. We can be pretty certain of that, but in the meantime, I’ll offer one.

The key phrase that explains everything that will go right over the vast majority of people’s heads? ”Re-develop the understanding”.

From the AFP [emphasis mine]:

Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to *re-develop the understanding *that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes,” Benedict was quoted as saying.’

'Does this mean that the Pope is going to approve of the use of condom distribution to prevent AIDS? Nope. His very next statement shows where he is on that.

“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”’

What seems to be being missed by just about everyone is that the Pope’s statement really has absolutely nothing to do with condom use. The point he was trying to convey dealt with someone making choices that lead to a more moral and spiritual life. Sin is still possible (and probable) on this path. Contraception is still a sin.

Well condoms should be used in AIDS ridden Africa.

I just want to say: kudos to you for digging past the liberal media slant and asking the right questions before allowing the media tempt you into sinning. :thumbsup:

There is empirical evidence to suggest that reliance on condoms is not the most effective anti-AIDS strategy. Research by Edward C. Green of Harvard University shows that programs emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity have brought down infection rates more successfully than those which rely primarily on condoms. Green says that’s for three reasons: people often don’t use condoms correctly; they stop using them when they believe they know the other person; and condoms generate a false sense of security.

Bishops in Africa will tell you, that the condoms which reach Africa are often expired and defective, and in any event, that a young African male often regards a condom as a kind of talisman that renders him immune to harm, thereby inducing him into even riskier behaviors.

The same belief is held by a wide cross-section of other religious leaders in Africa. John Allen interviewed the Imam of the National Mosque in Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon, who agrees that Condoms are making HIV/AIDS worse in Africa.

Many secular AIDS experts in Africa, unaffiliated with the church, also hold the same view. Vanessa Balla, a physician in Cameroon who treats AIDS patients, said 'With condoms, people think they can do whatever they want. I’ve seen it myself … they take as much risk as possible." Insisting that “it’s incredibly hard to watch young people dying of AIDS,” Ballas said the solution is “not condoms, but changing behavior.”

Compare the African nations of Botswana and Uganda. Botswana promoted condom use from the beginning. Uganda, encouraged abstinence.

In Botswana, Cameroon, and Kenya - they saw AIDS prevalence rise alongside condom distribution until they both leveled out. In Botswana today, where condoms are available nearly everywhere, one in six people is HIV positive or living with AIDS.

In Uganda, where abstinence is strongly promoted, the prevalence of AIDS has dropped and now affects less than six percent of the population. Quote BBC News who stated that Uganda has done extremely well in fighting AIDS because, in many parts of the country, its prevalence ‘‘was at least three times higher in the early 90s.’’

Similar comparison, made between Thailand and the Philippines, where AIDS broke out at the same time. Thailand’s approach promoted the distribution of condoms while the Philippines promoted abstinence. Twenty years after the outbreak, the prevalence of AIDS in Thailand is 50 times higher than in the Philippines.

Despite the claims on condom packaging, which assert a 99% effectiveness, the NIH found that condoms are only 85% effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS and about 50% effective at blocking other STDs.

The calculus of condoms is very simple,You decrease the risk a little, increase the risk takers a whole lot, and pretty soon you get what they have in Botswana where one in six people has AIDS. Or you get what you have in America, where aggressively promoting condoms, yet every year, nine million young people under the age of 25 are getting an STD.

Lol, it was a joke… :shrug:
I hate it when people can’t tell when you’re being sarcastic or not. Darn. oh well.

Emily, I was just about to post that! What I found most interesting, that most people forget:

“The second false assumption beneath the condom story is that all papal statements of whatever sort are equal, such that an interview is an exercise of the papal teaching magisterium. That wasn’t true of John Paul II’s international bestseller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which the late pope replied to questions posed by Italian journalist Vittorio Messori. It wasn’t true of the first volume of Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, in which the pope made clear at the outset that he was speaking personally as a theologian and biblical scholar, not as the authoritative teacher of the Church. And it isn’t true of Light of the World. Reporters who insist on parsing every papal utterance as if each were equally authoritative — and who often do so in pursuit of a gotcha moment — do no good service to their readers.”


What the **article **said is not what the **Pope **said.

The Pope did not “accept” condom use in “some cases” or for the “purpose of steering individuals in the right direction.”

If that was what the pope had said, perhaps you would have a legitimate argument.

But, that’s not what the Pope said.

Yep. Purposely misleading. That’s the media for you.

The Holy Fathers statements DO NOT condone the use of condoms for a married couple. Benedict XVI is only speaking about homosexual acts. The teachings of Humanie Vitae ALL STILL APPLY to the Married couple.

You need to** ONLY** use N.F.P. or else the church teaches that you are commiting a grave sin. If you are having trouble with N.F.P. there are many great resources to help out.

Most importantly. Stop the use of condoms. Go to confession and talk to your priest about the situation he will give you moral guidence.

Do not worry you and your wife can have a fine marriage whilst abbiding by the teaching of the Church

God Bless and I will keep you and your wife in my prayers.

I agree with statement (a) but not with (b). The Church’s views on sexuality have changed drastically over the past 2000 years. Before we understood conception did we not assume a child was alive at “the quickening” (when the mother could feel the baby move) rather than conception?

We also understood sexuality from an Augustinian standpoint for many years, no longer.

Until about 100 years ago, shortly before some Protestants deemed it ok, there really wasn’t reliable forms of birth control so it really wasn’t an issue for the Church to take a stand on, at least not one anyone probably ever talked about.

The Church’s teaching in regards to these matters could change in the future… in the near future, no I don’t think so.

My point is just that I wouldn’t say never… If you asked someone in 1960 if they would be doing Mass drastically different 10 years later I’m sure the answer would have been “that will never happen”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit