Pope: Maybe Hookers with AIDS should use condoms

[Themightytom]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/2 ... es/?hpt=T1

Pope Benedict XVI said in comments released Saturday that the use of condoms may be acceptable in some cases to prevent the transmission of AIDS, possibly foreshadowing a shift in the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the issue.

The pontiff, speaking to the author of a book that will be published next week, cited the example of a prostitute.

"There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants," Benedict said.

The Vatican newspaper on Saturday released excerpts from the book, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times," written by German journalist Peter Seewald and pubilshed by Ignatius Press.

CNN Senior Vatican Analyst John Allen cautioned that Benedict's comments do not rise to the level of official Vatican policy, but show the pontiff has flexibility in the church's opposition to birth control.

Allen said that a portion of the book refers to condom use among male prostitutes.

"I think the point he was trying to make, when somebody is using a condom, not so much to prevent new life, which has always been the Catholic Church's big concern, but to prevent the transmission of disease than it would be OK," Allen told CNN.

Although Benedict did not mention it, his statements indicate he may also find condoms appropriate in the case of heterosexual couples where one of the partners has a sexually transmitted disease, Allen said.

Catholic theologians and a special Vatican commission have previously said that condoms may be acceptable in some cases to prevent AIDS, Allen wrote in a blog Saturday.

The pontiff's comments appear to signal a shift in his thinking about condoms and AIDS.

Speaking about AIDS in 2009, he told journalists during a trip to Africa that "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

So... is it ok for the hooker or ok for the John, I would like to point point the intersection of moral valuation here on an X Y Z Axis

[Stark]

The best part is that even if this is a shift in policy, its a shift to what EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY KNEW that took place after decades of bullshit killed millions of people.

YAY CHURCH SO GOOD!

[General Zod]

Just remember, according to hardcore Catholics it doesn't matter what the Pope says unless he does it officially.

[FSTargetDrone]

Just remember, according to hardcore Catholics it doesn't matter what the Pope says unless he does it officially.

And many less hardcore Catholic simply ignored the "Never use condoms ever because every sperm is precious" despite the official policy.

All that matters here is that the Pope's word is infallible, so now, magically, it's okay. Somehow. Sometimes.

Foot in door? Great. More, please.

[PeZook]

Wait wait but I thought condoms did not prevent AIDS at all!

I am confused! Has God made them stop AIDS? They didn't just two days ago...

[Zed]

Just remember, according to hardcore Catholics it doesn't matter what the Pope says unless he does it officially.

All that matters here is that the Pope's word is infallible, so now, magically, it's okay. Somehow. Sometimes.

The idea that Catholic doctrine holds the Pope's every word to be infallible is a common misconception. According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible when solemnly proclaiming an interpretation of scripture as dogma. There are only very few instances of which Catholic theologians agree that they were proclaimed under papal infallibility. Examples are the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

[FTeik]

The best part is that even if this is a shift in policy, its a shift to what EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY KNEW that took place after decades of bullshit killed millions of people.

YAY CHURCH SO GOOD!

Instead of cheering that they are moving in the right direction at all, you complain "what took them so long".

There is no gratitude for small favours anymore.

Considering, that it took them 400+ years to rehabilate Galileo, they're improving.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Instead of cheering that they are moving in the right direction at all, you complain "what took them so long".

There is no gratitude for small favours anymore.

Considering, that it took them 400+ years to rehabilate Galileo, they're improving.

If a rapist decides to leave his victim alive, I wouldn't applaud his mercy.

[bobalot]

The best part is that even if this is a shift in policy, its a shift to what EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY KNEW that took place after decades of bullshit killed millions of people.

YAY CHURCH SO GOOD!

Instead of cheering that they are moving in the right direction at all, you complain "what took them so long".

There is no gratitude for small favours anymore.

Considering, that it took them 400+ years to rehabilate Galileo, they're improving.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Catholic Church couldn't move too fast and make a mockery of the entire situation with Galileo.

[Zed]

Wait wait but I thought condoms did not prevent AIDS at all!

I am confused! Has God made them stop AIDS? They didn't just two days ago...

The Pope and the Vatican believed (and still believe) that condoms aren't the resolution to the worldwide AIDS pandemic - I've never seen any statement of theirs that implies that condoms don't actually stop the transfer of the virus. I might be wrong about this - and there most definitely are cardinals who believe this - but every time the media have hyped about this, further inspection revealed that the Pope didn't deny that condoms halt the transmission of the virus, but rather he denied that propagation of condoms would provide a solution to the epidemic. In other words, his claims were sociological rather than biological.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Speaking as ex-catholic. I can confirm the argument as being fully sociological. the claim I often heared was that "condoms fail" the assertion that was made was that they provide false protection or a false sense of safty. The 'conclusion' is that because condoms arn't 100% they should not be used at all and abstinence taught as the only alternative.

The thing that always got to me, and I have argued this with catholics before, is that because condoms are not 100% effective, they should not be used at all. I once got a catholic fundi to basically admit to me that he would rather have someone get an STD via unsafe sex then let two people use a condom.

[Zed]

The argument is broader than what Crossroads suggests. The following argument is written from the point of view of the Church - not mine:

The Church's idea is that the existence and promotion of condoms will promote sexual activity outside of its legitimate context, i.e. marriage. By doing so, it strengthens a social context in which there is a greater amount of sexual activity in general, which will also include a greater amount of transmission of HIV. In other words, for the Church, the answer is abstinence until marriage, because promoting condoms will not reduce actual HIV rates - in order to reduce HIV rates, one must tackle the crux of the issue: the great amount of sexual activity outside of marriage.

From this perspective, it's clear that the current remarks of the Pope on condoms aren't a change in policy at all - the Pope still doesn't believe condoms are a viable means of anticonception or a viable means of combating the AIDS epidemic. He believes that, if one chooses to commit an evil (e.g. choosing to have sex while you have HIV), then it is better to choose the lesser evil of using a condom rather than the greater evil of transmitting the virus to your partner. Condom use remains an evil, but a lesser evil is preferable over a greater evil. The ideal remains abstinence.

[Junghalli]

If a rapist decides to leave his victim alive, I wouldn't applaud his mercy.

I think FTeik was being ironic.

[PeZook]

I've been exposed to Catholic propaganda education all my life and had every single priest scaremonger us with how condoms aren't effective at contraception not HIV prevention. This continued from elementary school up untill our goddamned pre-marriage course,so forgive me for not realizing that the stance is actually laced with an extra layer of bullshit.

[Stark]

The Pope and the Vatican believed (and still believe) that condoms aren't the resolution to the worldwide AIDS pandemic - I've never seen any statement of theirs that implies that condoms don't actually stop the transfer of the virus. I might be wrong about this - and there most definitely are cardinals who believe this - but every time the media have hyped about this, further inspection revealed that the Pope didn't deny that condoms halt the transmission of the virus, but rather he denied that propagation of condoms would provide a solution to the epidemic. In other words, his claims were sociological rather than biological.

Don't they tell people that condoms actually have lots of little holes that let sperm/teh AIDZ through so they're useless and against god? They basically created the situation they're now trying to solve, and they expect to look like saints for doing it.

If they'd never been so fixated on the prestige of their dogma and power strucutre, and instead cared about actual human beings, they would never have needed to change their stance.

[Zed]

I've never seen the Pope or the Vatican claim that. I'm open to any evidence about it. I'm sure that there are lesser officials (including cardinals) that claim such a thing, though.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Instead of cheering that they are moving in the right direction at all, you complain "what took them so long".

There is no gratitude for small favours anymore.

Oh please. All this proves is what we already knew about the church; they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into progressive stances after years of losing stature in the public. This is a cynical, calculated public relations tactic and nothing more; do you think they barter with the public of countries too uneducated and poor to tell them to take their food and medical assistance and shove it like this?

The church is only as moral as your country's police are strong.

[Themightytom]

Don't they tell people that condoms actually have lots of little holes that let sperm/teh AIDZ through so they're useless and against god? They basically created the situation they're now trying to solve, and they expect to look like saints for doing it.

If they'd never been so fixated on the prestige of their dogma and power structure, and instead cared about actual human beings, they would never have needed to change their stance.

I've never heard that stated personally but i could see how someone might decide to release misinformation for the "greater good", once they had decided that

a. No sex before marriage is the ideal
b. Lying is less of a sin than letting someone get an STD

It would then become imperative that the truth not be discovered, not only would it undermine the argument, but it would discredit percieved mroal authority.
They would put enormous energy into discrediting any opposition, covering up evidence that backs up the opposition etc.

Not really out of character for the Church considering the sex abuse scandals.

Except what do they do when the pope starts slipping up... We may in fact see enough back peddling on this to halt the Earth's rotation and trigger the Apocalypse. Metaphorically speaking. Then Jesus would come metaphorically speaking and it would all have been justified From A Certain Point Of View.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Don't they tell people that condoms actually have lots of little holes that let sperm/teh AIDZ through so they're useless and against god? They basically created the situation they're now trying to solve, and they expect to look like saints for doing it.

If they'd never been so fixated on the prestige of their dogma and power strucutre, and instead cared about actual human beings, they would never have needed to change their stance.

That is exactly the case. As a teen in bible school I can specifically recall more then one "sex ed" session where the speaker went on in length about condoms having "Holes as big as a mountain that HIV can swim through" and that indeed the only thing a condom was good at was preventing pregnancy (which is of course a horrible sin against god) but useless for stopping the spread of STD's.

So basically trying to further shove home the message that any sex ouside of making babies is dangerous and sinful.

Which of course ties in with what Stark said. The church has spent the last 40 years saying "Condoms don't work, so don't use them!" which leads to people having sex anyways and causing vast unwanted pregnacies and spreading STD's. 40 years they seem to be going "Oh well, they actually do prevent STD's but are still evil and sinful"

[Gil Hamilton]

That's interesting, considering that you can verify that latex or polyurethane is water tight (and therefore virus tight, since the virus in question needs a solvent environment) simply by flling a condom with water and observing the outsider surface is dry. I'm not clear why they are bothering with a claim that can easily be verified either by experiment or by noting that the same material that is used in condoms is also used in medical gloves explicitly to prevent a transfer of fluid. If not that, note that the material used to make condoms is also used to make water balloons, and surely they notice that water balloons don't transfer fluid.

Of course, this is directly the Vaticans fault for not punishing cardinals and bishops and other church officials who deliberately spreading misinformation. It matters very little if the Pope has said these things or not, his people (those Cardinals, et cetera) do for him. The Vaticans silence has been deafening, particularly since it would be trivial for them to tell their representatives in the community to cut the crap on misinformation that anyone can verify if they get their hands on a condom and a water faucet.

[PeZook]

That is exactly the case. As a teen in bible school I can specifically recall more then one "sex ed" session where the speaker went on in length about condoms having "Holes as big as a mountain that HIV can swim through" and that indeed the only thing a condom was good at was preventing pregnancy (which is of course a horrible sin against god) but useless for stopping the spread of STD's.

The thing about pores in the latex is the exact same line that was used on me and my classmates and later on me and my wife. Verbatim, by four different priests across a decade. Except the priests also added they don't work against pregnancy, either. And that they lead to abortions and objectivization of women.

If the Pope's actual stance on condoms was that they screw with people's heads rather than that they actually don't work, then his office is doing a shitty job disseminating that stance to the lower clergy who are actually responsible for getting the propaganda information out to the little people.

[mr friendly guy]

I knew creating these Magic Bible the Gathering cards would be useful. It even has the relevant quote and person who said that thing Stark is referring to.
One Vatican cardinal, Alfonso Lopez Trujillo. I suppose someone could type the name with condom and then you search the original article where I got the quote from, which from memory was BBC. It was one of the N & P threads once upon a time.

[Stark]

Look, its not 'lying' or 'absurdly ignorant' if the church says it. NOT EVEN if millions of people die.