well well well...

it seems that condoms are licit sometimes after all. i apologize for teh tone lol, but all this time i have argued taht condoms can indeed be morally allowable ud er certain circumstances and at certain tiems, and i was right! i remember how i brought up rational arguments and you all just dismissed them sarcastically and basically ignored them. i hope you all learned a lesson in humility! you all know who you are. :stuck_out_tongue:

now the main point of this thread. i predict that eventually the pope will extend this allowance to married couples who have already had kids. this has been my argument so far every time i argued for contarception, and it seems the church is moving in that direction. so my hat is off to the church, they have truly made a very intelligent well reasoned decision this time. bravo pope Benedict!
does anyone out there share my opinion?

The Holy Father has acknowledged what the medical community has been saying all along; that condoms can be effective to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But he stopped short of saying it is OK to use them for this or any other reason. It’s more of a theoretical statement than anything else.

And it is old news. He mentioned this over two years ago.

sorry i forgot to reread my typing before i posted! i just noticed! :frowning:

so then doesnt it follow that contraceptive sex should be permissible if used for this purpose?

What the Pope said was *not *that condoms use was all right. What the Pope said was that a male prostitute who had previously not used condoms because he didn’t care was moving towards a position of considering others if he started to use a condom *for the purpose of stopping the spread of disease. *

Since there is *no *chance of pregnancy when only two men are involved, the only reason to use one in those circumstances is to stop the spread of disease.

The Pope’s comments have no relation to condoms as birth control.

Like another poster said, what you are referring to is old news. The Pope’s initial statement was not very clear, but it did look like he wanted to ease up restrictions on condoms. After conservative Catholics started freaking out, he backed off. I really doubt that the Pope will change any of the Church’s teachings on condoms or any other contraceptives any time soon.


What the person said is that condoms are effective to prevent “diseases”…

This again?

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Pope said no such thing, the teaching of the Church has not changed, and condoms are not morally permissible in any circumstance.

Poor reporting by the secular media completely misrepresented what the Pope did say.

…or at all, ever. The teachings of Holy Mother Church regarding contraceptives will remain the same.

No, the Pope did not want to ease up on restrictions on condoms. Unfortunately, in this sound bite age, very few people will listen to a statement that has more than one whole sentence. The Holy Father was talking about the fact that people can engage in immoral behavior that has several elements of evil in it. In the process of making some progress toward the good a person might begin to do something which is not actually morally good, but is done because the person is beginning to reach toward the good. Living the life of a male prostitute cannot be a moral way to live, and every sexual act in that context is immoral. If in addition to all the other problems with that immoral life a male prostitute has reason to believe that he is infected with a disease which could be communicated to his customers, he might take no precautions at all because he does not care about the health and well being of his customers. If during this time he begins to think that it would be good to care whether or not someone caught a deadly disease from him, he might begin to take the precaution of using a condom for the sake of a customer. That tiny movement toward caring for another could be a movement in his soul toward the good. That does not mean that in any way condom use can be part of a moral life. If we were trying to help that man toward a better life we would begin by trying to direct him away from his immoral life altogether.

If for instance there was a prison guard who required female prisoners to have sex with him in exchange for food or medicine, and then also would kick them out of his room naked in the cold, for him it might be a step towards the good if after forcing them to have sex he gave them warm clothes to put on. That would not excuse the coerced sex, but for him it would be a step toward the good.

If we were to know of such a tiny step toward the good on the part of a person living an immoral life, we would want to pray that it does not stop with that tiny step, but that the person continues to grow in love and service until they are actually doing some good.

I’ve read this story from several sources. It seemed to me that he said that it would be better for male prostitute to use condoms if they were going to do what they do. After people started getting upset about his statement, saying he was supporting the use of condoms, he seemed to back pedal a bit. I agree with what you said. My main point was that first he seemed to say it was better for male prostitutes to use condoms, but later it seemed like he was being a bit ambiguous about his actual position. Maybe it was bad translations, but thats what I got from most sources.

No. that is not what he said at all.

He did not say condom was morally licit for anyone. He said that it is possible that some man would think that using a condom was helpful for the other man, could mean it was the first step in a moral awakening. That does not mean condom use is good. It means the man was giving thought to the other person not just his pleasure. That the man’s moral reasoning is wrong does not mean his intention was bad.

The moral law cannot be changed.

This is a serious question. Does that mean that the Pope’s/the Church’s position is that it would be better for male prostitutes to spread disease instead of using condoms?

I will apologize before hand if what follows sounds snide or uncharitable but it has been my experience that too often in these discussions we lose sight of the larger issues - we strain the gnat and swallow the camel…

The church’s position is that it would be better if male prostitutes (or female for that matter) would cease doing what they do for a living.
So long as they engage in such activities their souls are in very serious - and I mean very serious danger - In fact, there is little hope for them so long as they remain outside of grace.

That is first and foremost.

Get a firm grip on that fact.

Think about it…

Hold that thought…

let it sink in…

OK - Now - Got it???

The Church wants prostitutes to stop prostituting - fornicators to stop fornicating…

That said…and clearly understood…

The Holy Father made recognition of the fact that - should such a person use a condom in order to prevent the spread of disease…it could be seen as a positive move (a small one) on their part toward a moral good.
They aren’t there yet…but it is a small, positive step.

They still remain deeply mired in mortal sin and whether they use a condom or not really become irrelevant in the larger matter…of fornication…


No. I learned when I was much younger that although it can make for an interesting parlor game, the Church actually does not play “which evil choice is better?” Our holy church always says that it is better to choose good, not one evil over another. Male prostitutes should neither spread disease, nor use condoms. They should stop having sex with strangers.


This point always gets lost. Whether a person uses a condom is a small matter if the person is already engaged in mortally sinful activity. We get this same question all the time about using ABC when engaged in pre-marital sex or adultery.

The teaching of the Church regarding contraception is ALWAYS given in terms of **marital **relations. If a person is engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage, nothing they do can make it un-sinful. But that doesn’t mean that other actions and intentions, such as protecting a partner from disease, are not good.

And this is also why attempts to stretch the Pope’s comments about prostitutes cannot ever be applied to married couples.

The Holy Father has acknowledged what the medical community has been saying all along

no he didn’t ,read the whole interview

After conservative Catholics started freaking out, he backed off.


After people started getting upset about his statement, saying he was supporting the use of condoms, he seemed to back pedal a bit

these are some of the most offensive statements about the Holy Father i’ve read,as if he is some political hack affected by opinion polls.

This is a serious question. Does that mean that the Pope’s/the Church’s position is that it would be better for male prostitutes to spread disease instead of using condoms?

no,his position is condom use doesn’t stop the spread of disease. again,read the whole interview.

Peter Seewald: On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on Aids once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all Aids victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Pope Benedict: The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on Aids. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim.

Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many Aids victims, especially children with Aids.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering.

In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.

That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

y’all nuance much

actually,i don’t find much nuance in the interview.very clear to me.if it is too ambiguous for you ,i’ll refer you to posts #10 & #15 JRKH and RFD have done a bang up job simplifying it.

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