Pope's condom remarks leave much unsaid

Bill, the inherent thesis is that in this "messy" world that people would be better off using condoms since they are going to have sex anyway. But that ignores the fact that providing condoms encourages riskier behavior than normal and has the affect of causing more, not less AIDS infections. In case you think that's from some biased Vatican source, it from an AIDS researcher from Harvard.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227110/saint-peters-square-harvar...

So the Pope is right on both counts about condom use. They encourage immorality and in fact encourage it so much that their use actually spreads more, not less, HIV infections. For those who are chomping at the bit to disagree with this I suggest they at least read the linked article before they comment.

There is an ongoing plethora of statements from members of various hierarchies around the world assuring us that,the recent musings of Pope Benedict XVI regarding condoms to the contrary nothwithstanding, the Church's hard line on condoms remains cast in concrete - contraception remains immoral, under any circumstances, even though it may may not be the intent in using a condom.

Not one of these prelates has had the courage and integrity to admit that millions of monogamous women in Africa have been needlessly infected by their HIV-positive husbands/partners over the past 2+ decades because John Paul II, on whose watch the AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa began, and Benedict XVI (upon until now) and their sycophants have failed to tell these HIV-positive men that, if they cannot or are unwilling to refrain from sexual relations with their women, they have a moral obligation to use condoms on a consistent basis - this relying on well-established principles of pastoral moral theology, viz. lesser evil, double effect and the right to self-defense.

Their failure to act as real pastors in this life and death issue for these innocent women, Catholics and many non-Catholics under the care of Catholic Relief Services and Caritas Internationalis, simply reinforces the refusal of many, if not most, African males to use condoms -they demand sex and if a woman refuses a husband’s or partner’s sexual overtures, she risks ostracism, violence, and destitution for herself and her children. Condoms in those real life situations are a "pro-life" strategy.

These so-called shepherds continue to fail to protect the women in their flocks and are therefore morally complicit in that horrendous holocaust of suffering and deaths in Africa. Their support of dogmatic orthodoxy over Christ-like orthopraxy is lamentable and pathetic. They have lost their moral authority to lead and do not deserve our respect.

Wm. J. Schuch

Naples, FL & E.Aurora, NY

Basically the Catholic “tradition” about sex has been flawed from the start. While it is true that sexuality is the means of human procreation, it is not logical to conclude from that, that “every act of sex has to be ‘open to procreation’.”

Until we get a good philosophy and theology of sex a lot of Catholics can conclude with good conscience that a lot of "Church teaching” about sex is simply wrong,

Thanks for the Presbyterian News. Always glad to hear from our separated brothers and sisters.

I don't think that talking "frankly and realistically about sex" is within the capacity of the Roman hierarchy.

Bill Tammeus's observation that we must find a way to talk about sexuality is spot on. In the Catholic Church, the problem is compounded because the people we leave to make the rules, and so the ones who mostly talk publicly about sexual ethics in Catholicism, are precisely the celibate clergy who have no real-world experience of sex. Our clergy desperately need to hear from the rest of us the truth of sexual experience. Sadly, we seldom do talk to them about it, except in the decidedly one-sided context of the confessional.

We need to find ways to speak out in other contexts too - or to turn the confessional into a genuine sacrament of reconciliation, where in addition to telling the priest how we have sinned, we can also tell him how we have been hurt by the totally out of touch sexual teaching of the church.

you say: "I also know that, finally, the only safe sex is sex inside marriage or a committed relationship between faithful, uninfected partners." In our church, we are all called to celibacy, except inside the sacrament of marriage. People who practice homosexuality are called to celibacy, as are the rest of nonmarried heterosexuals. Just because some of us do not give in to the teachings of our secular American society about sex does not mean we are unrealistic. We know there are consequences to ignoring the boundaries our Church and Our Lord have set for us. There are spiritual, emotional and physical consequences to sin. And sex outside of the sacrament of marriage is a sin - it harms me and anyone else I draw into that sin. That is the reality we learn when we do not follow our church's teachings. I do not understand why some people make appalling choices over and over again. I never understood why I did when I was a practicing alcoholic and drug addict. The only solution to my disease is spiritual. My Catholic faith is the spiritual solution in my 12 step program. I was not told that I should remake the world so I could fit into it or that my church should change to accomodate my sins. I was told to accept the things I cannot change and one of the things I cannot change are the rules and also bad choices, other people's and my own, sins and the consequences of sin. I do not know why some of us never heal in this world, but I do believe that when we die we continue to be called into the embrace of His merciful love. We can reject that then as some of us do now. These teachings of my faith are not hard to me nor do they seem unrealistic because I have experienced the consequences of my sins - that was very hard - and the grace of my recovery. It is ok to set a boundary as we Catholics do about sex. Inside the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman it's ok. Anything outside of the sacrament of marriage is a sin and you can expect the consequences of sin. And those consequences will harm you and others over and over again.

Bill,

You tell us: "the church has struggled in this way with issues of sex for a long time. Perhaps the most damaging example is the 1968 papal encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae."

This makes me wonder how long it will take for a Roman Catholic leader to say the same thing, or perhaps, "Humanae Vitae was the low point of Church History in the 20th Century." Or something like that. Oh well, we wait in agonizing patience.
JR

Perhaps we should all take a close look at The Theology of the Body.
When we become aware of what the real meaning of life, and relationships, is, above and beyond any physical act and attachment, we might finally begin to understand what our Popes, and our Church, have taught us.

Thank you Bill. Well said. Maybe we needed someone outside the Catholic church to point all this out.

Your central point is definitely right on the mark.
Until the Church can address sexual issues with either arguments from natural law or scripture or church teaching that make sense, no one will be listening to the good news of sex that the Church should be explaining.

A case in point is the Church teaching condemning gay sex and unions "because the Church has always so taught."

When I remind our local clergy that for some reason our loving Creator has had a hand in letting 400 million gay people with a sexual drive slip into our world not to give them lifelong frustration, the answer is...'but, the Church has always taught that any sexual act outside of the marriage covenant is a serious sin."

When I then ask, could you realistically ask 400 million heterosexuals never to act on their sexual drive, the response is "of course not, that's a ridiculous comparison." Are these convincing arguments?

So,heterosexuals have an avenue for acting on their sex drive, but gays are expected to be celibate. Are they given the grace for this and simply failing to cooperate with the grace? "Yes, that's the answer." Well then, how come the Church is also discouraging gay males from giving their lives to a celibate priesthood?

The questions go in circles and lead back to the big unanswered question:
In creating gay persons with a sex drive, why did He do that and what are His expectations?

I'm waiting to see the "you Tube" of the pope explaining to some guy in Africa whose wife was raped by half a rebel army that it would be preferable for him to have an uninfected partner.

A strange comment. The catch-all words--modernity, postmodernity mesmerize us into thinking the world is new, we are new, we are postmoderns. I'd rather the old-fashioned--human beings-- in all there glory and shame. Our church has, at times, been glorious (witness the church-women in Central America, witness the young people in big cities going out at night rescuing kids from the streets.) And on the other hand the sexual shames of our church from the abuse activities of priests to the more formal sexual inhumanity our church displays to gays and women. Our pope showed himself a human being with this example but at the same time showed such outrageous moral superiority thinking that this is the beginning of moral sense about things. Let him not judge etc. Tammeus misses all of this.
Whether Tammeus knows it or not,Catholics have moved on from the old time document "Humanae Vitae", whether out Popes or Bishops have nor have not. Tammeus and his Presbyterian friends may be stuck back there--most Catholics are not.

"Pope's condom remarks leave much unsaid."

Mr. Tammeus, you (or the editor) are being much too generous here.

Fact is, B16's condom remarks leave everything unsaid.

He essentially said nothing meaningful since liberals and conservatives, progressives and reactionaries, all believe he either articulated new doctrine (liberals & progressives) or said nothing new (conservatives & reactionaries).

As I've mentioned elsewhere, when theologians, editors, writers, PR folks, etc. must try to decipher (a) what this pope meant to convey and (b) what, if any, his statement might portend for further doctrinal development, it's a sad day, indeed, in the Church of Rome. I think this episode illustrates there are times when a pope should just keep his mouth shut. I would find this whole story quite funny if it weren't for the good folks dying because of idiotic church teaching on the use of condoms.

"Out of the mouths of babes comes wisdom", it's been said.

This pope ain't no babe!

Thanks, Bill, for this insightful commentary from a small c catholic on the problems and challenges of the Big C Catholic Church regarding sexuality and HIV.

As another small c catholic and a retired minister I'm glad I discovered this page.

Yes, we in the Catholic Church must find a way to talk realistically about sexuality. I tried to find a way to make a contribution to a renewed theology of marital sexuality in my book, The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse: from St. Paul to Pope John Paul II (Lexington Books, 2009).
Robert Obach

Yes, we need a way to talk more realistically about sexuality in our Catholic Church. I tried to make a contribution to this conversation in my book, The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse: from St. Paul to Pope John Paul II (Lexington Books, 2009)
Robert Obach

It is true that the Pope didn't really say much on the issue & he didn't change Church teaching on the issue either. But quite frankly is there a specific condom Church teaching at all? As far as I can ascertain the Church teaches that contraception is a sin but it is only a sin within the context of marriage. I don't think there is a specific Church teaching on condoms in general or even on the use of contraception outside of marriage.

In terms of the sin of contraception (within marriage), the Church draws a distinction between natural & unantural means. The only natural means is the pill since its use does not interfere with the sexual act. The Church does see condom use in marriage as both unnatural & contraceptive. That's the only specific condom teaching.

If the translation of the Pope's remarks is accurate then he was only referring to a male hustler (gay male prostitute). So the question of contraception which would only be relevant in a heterosexual scenario did not come up in the example he used. The only question here given the evil of homosexual sodomy is the question of the transmission of disease. Trying to prevent the transmission of disease can't be a bad thing. In fact it is in line with the Fifth Commandment.

So the scenario is that the male hustler & his trick enter the realm of evil to engage in homosexual sodomy. Both could be infected with the AIDS virus, so if both use condoms given the dynamic of their sexual tryst, both could be helping to prevent disease thereby mitigating the evil of their act. Since they have both entered the realm of evil, they are both guilty of at least objective mortal sin. Mortal sin itself is always a question since three are three conditions to fulfill.

However, it seems to me that the matter for mortal sin (the evil situation) is somewhat mitigated by the careful condom use of both partners. In this situation it would be accurate to say that the objective mortal sin is a lesser one than it could be otherwise, i.e, without the careful condom use by both partners.

Now it is hardly incumbent or even prudent for the Church to be giving out this kind of advice. The Church can only tell people to do good & avoid evil. However, in the context of confession or counseling for people who have sexual problems, this kind of advice could be licitly given.

Yes,   life in this world is untidy and complex,   and human beings are messy creatures (it goes with the territory).     Those who assume they are above it all and exempt from human messiness are merely deluding themselves in a kind of magical thinking — and in those cases,   perhaps called the cockiness of certitude — life experience can grab the person by the scruff and give him/her a good shake when it's least expected.     The hierarchy of the RCC has found itself being shaken by the scruff quite a bit over the past decade.
.
A theology that doesn't meet humanity where it is,   in real common sense human terms,   becomes just another interesting intellectual discussion over wine and cheese.     Absent human perfection regardless of even our best efforts,   sometimes the best we can do is to mitigate the damage of our imperfection.
.

"...as one who has been with dozens of people, including at least one Catholic priest, as they’ve fought AIDS and lost."

Me too, Bill. And I had two priest friends, one religious order and one diocesan, who also died in the late 80's before the current prophylaxis was discovered. Their treatment by their respecive infrastructures was like night and day. The religious order priest was hospitalized and embraced in his struggle by his brother religious. The diocesan priest was stigmatized, marginalized and died practically alone in a hospice facility of second rate quality.
Just one more thing "the Church" doesn't want "the faithful" to worry their pretty little "praying, paying and obeying" heads about:
http://kcsweb.kcstar.com/projects/priests/index.html
http://www.dignityusa.org/content/priests-aids-flawed-humanity-or-flawed...

Finally, some clear and simple clarification. Thank you!

I have come to understand Humanae Vitae in terms of external authority verses internal authority. When it all started, Catholics, accustomed to let external Church authority guide all their thoughts and actions, begged the highest external authority for permission to practice artificial birth control. External authority, afraid that a yes might damage external authority, said no. And so millions of Catholics realized that they had the right to act according to their own prayerful internal authority.

This was an historic step. For the first time, Catholics chose to be their own inner guide. And this drives the hierarchy nuts. They want to continue to control. And so the everlasting ongoing effort by the hierarchy to reassert that kind of control over people who have gone beyhond it. The only ones to yield to this external authority are young "Pope John" Catholics who have not grown to the point where they can be their own inner guide.

I continue to wonder why Mr. Tammeus has a column here. Although he tones it down for the Reporter, it is indisputable that he has a reputation for Catholic Bashing on his blog.

(Although today he is bashing Israel.)

Clearly, no matter what the Pope says, Bill Tammeus is going to have problems with it.

As for me, I think the Pope's approach to dealing with this problem was, and is, very far sighted.

(Mr. Tammeus, if you want to bash Catholics on your blog, that is your business, but not allowing them to respond with comments on your blog is, well, shall we say, weak.)

Bill you are right, Catholics are sick of hearing about it and I've worked in the field of HIV/AIDS for 18 years. The Pope's announcement was a monumental shift which is a good thing and yes, long overdue.

And you are right about something else, you are not in a position to tell the Catholic Church anything unless you know it's teachings inside and out!

Leave it alone and let the Pope do his job!

Tom Fox wrote a 1995 book about how the church has struggled with sexuality for a long time. That means that Tom Fox has not struggled with sexuality? Tom Fox has all the answers? He can formulate a policy that covers conscientious couples and cheating husbands and thrill-seekers of all ages? Could he please tell us all what that policy is? So far all we can tell from reading NCR is that all the popes and bishops are wrong, but all gays and lesbians are right. Is that the new and enlightened policy Tom wants us to follow?

Maybe Pope Paul wrote an encyclical in 1968 that said we should all be careful that in the "free love" sixties we're not giving everyone license to exploit themselves and others without worrying about any consequences at all. So now we have a Presbyterian telling Catholics what their popes should have said because Tom Fox wrote a book 15 years ago that said sexuality is not easy to figure out.

You can't lead a billion people by telling them to follow their consciences. Some will follow them as well as they can. Other will follow whatever they want and call it conscience. Others will exploit people and say the church told them it was all right.

Mr. Tammeus,

You've seriously got this one wrong. You state, "...Perhaps the most damaging example is the 1968 papal encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae."

That could not be further from the truth. Humanae Vitae is one of the seminal writings of the 20th Century, from the Popes. It ranks up there with Fides et Ratio and Mediator Dei. The courage it took Pope Paul VI to write that in a time of social unrest, defending life and defending the sexuality of mankind is awe inspiring. To simply state that it is damaging is not only callous, but naive. There is nothing damaging about protecting human sexuality from the sinful nature of the human person.

You go on to say, "That document, by its refusal to find a pastoral way to help faithful Catholics manage their complicated lives more effectively, did a great deal to estrange large parts of the American church from the Vatican. That’s an unhealed wound."

It is only unhealed to those who don't understand what is being said. You also make a mistake in defintion. We are not the American church. We are the Catholic Church in America. Notice the distinction? The Church doesn't belong to the American people, but rather the American people who are Catholic, belong to the Church. With that being the case, we have to be cognisent of the teachings and assent our wills to the teachings of the Church. An encyclical is certainly a teaching, and we must certainly accept that teaching.

You state, "But our churches must find ways to talk frankly and realistically about sex (and lots of other subjects) if we want to have any influence at all."

The Catholic Church did find a way to frankly and realistically talk about sex. It was through Humanae Vitae. The problem is that society didn't want to adhere to the standard that the Catholic Church has been supporting from all time. It is funny, those who embrace Humanae Vitae don't have to deal with condom use, they don't have to deal with abortion, they don't have to deal with seaxual immorality in their lives. These issues are moot. Why? Because they are leading a life that is morally consistent with traditional socital and Catholic norms. That is what we are talking about after all, isn't it?

We can't have those female whores using condoms. It's better they spread AIDS, have abortions or perhaps even give birth to HIV positive babies. Yes, those are better options than using condoms.

How can you catholics take your religion seriously? And now time for the story of Mary's conception. I think Joseph should have used a sheep skin condom before got diddling with Mary. Then none of this prattle would be taking place.

I hate to be just another post that adds to the dilemma that most of the posters on hear seem to be grappling with. However, I hardly think that Holy Mother Church has a hard time speaking "frankly and realistically" about human sexuality considering the many times She has defended this subject matter via encyclicals, documents, speeches, etc. Who ever would have said that Humanae Vitae "estranged" faithful Catholics is clearly not understanding this fantastic document in defense of human sexuality, the dignity of marriage, the beauty behind the marrital embrace, and the end in which it was deigned. I would go so far as to say that it probably did "estrange" unfaithful or ignorant (in the sense that they lack an understanding of their faith)Catholics. Moreover I find it ironic that a the author is commenting on estranging faithful Catholics as if he were one. This is more like listening to a screaming baby that his going to the doctor for his vacinne to save his/her life.

If you care for a Catholic perspective that is consistent with the teachings of Holy Mother Church, perhaps you would like to read the below link:
http://catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=12425

I would suggest for everyone to consider a new approach in viewing comments from our holy pontiff when reading and trying to interpret documents or comments from Holy Mother Church. Consider the statements in light of Christ and how it was meant to be understood. Read and listen to it in context. Do not give in to judging it simply from your perspecitve, which seems to be why we are so focused on judging the Chruch because it is not comfortable to us.

I am not sure how many of the commenters on hear are Catholic (in union with Rome), but I find it rather disconcerting that there are some many comments against the Church and not in defense of the latter. Where has the faith gone.

Above all we need to pray for guidance on this and all matters. God bless.

+AMDG

WHY ALL THESE??? GOD HELP US.