Catholics and condoms

CONDOMS & CHURCH TEACHINGS:
I am wondering if the Pope was saying that it is better to choose the lesser of two evils than to choose one or both evils. Namely, it would be better for a male prostitute infected with AIDS to wear a condom than to possibly cause the death of one of his victims by not wearing one, since the sin of wearing a condom is a lesser evil than for manslaughter of one of the prostitute’s victims or the impregnation of an infected AIDS child that would be endanger of being aborted.

There’s another problem, namely, condoms are immoral because they block the natural process of the purpose of sexuality, pro-creation. However, same gender sex renders procreation moot. So the purpose of the condom would not be to prevent pregnancy but a deadly disease and possible death.

Further, even more so, it seems it is even more greater an evil to be a possible cause of the victim to die in his sin than either prostitution or wearing condoms. Namely, it is a greater sin to destroy the soul than to only destroy the body and not the soul. To cause the possible death of a victim from AIDS, in the state of mortal sin, is a greater evil than wearing a condom, or prostitution. Namely, it would give the victims more time on earth to come to their senses of the evil in which they participate.

Although wearing a condom is a grave sin in the eyes of God, nonetheless, since intentionally transmitting a deadly virus that could cause the death of another, viz. manslaughter, (the killing of a human being without malice aforethought), is still a greater evil than either prostitution or wearing a condom or both.

Under the interpretation of the ethic of "the choice of a lesser evil," the Pope would not be condoning the use of condoms or prostitution, but only mitigating the seriousness of the deadly sin of reckless manslaughter. Subsequently, the Pope only would be condoning the lesser of two evils, although both prostitution and contraceptives are still damning to those who participate in such deadly ignominy and disorders their society as well.

I'm still trying to figure out how a bunch of men who never have sex - at least not with women - can think they know anything about sex at all?

Sure, you can know that two fertile people having sex will probably result in conception, provided one of those people is a women, and not more than one.

But that's biology, even a religious fool can know that.

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

Nudge-nudge, wink-wink. What's it like?

For a mouth piece for an infallible deity, the Pope sure does stick his foot in his mouth a lot. The really sad part of this whole thing is that I actually understand where the Pope is coming from. Condoms are a sin because they prevent child birth which is part of God’s divine plan. Gay prostitutes are already sinners and living a sinful lifestyle as far as the Pope is concerned. Plus, they can’t get pregnant. So if they are already living in sin and they can’t get pregnant, why should the Pope care if they use condoms or not; in for a pinch, in for a pound. Of course it does seem that the Pope is more concerned with condoms use than child rape and molestation.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/gVvzV9

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Just more amunition and evidence that this antiquated institution and authorian sham needs to be abandonded by its adherants. Its evolutionary adaptability is nill and it acts like a boat anchor, retarding human progress. It is at the same time irrelevant yet influencial; obsolete yet valued, thus, it is dangerous.

Anyone who thinks that the Pope has any moral authority that should be headed by anyone is delusional. Unfortunately there are millions of such delusional people.

Old clerics in robes should not be giving medical advise on an epidemic that is a continent and a generation away from them. That the Pope is making a very wishy washy statement only a year after saying that condoms had tiny holes that allowed HIV to pass through (on his way to visit Africa), strikes me as too little to late.

The Vatican's attitude is no better than the people who wore shirts like 'AIDS kills fags'. They view HIV as a scourge against sin, and are perfectly comfortable with their lies killing countless people because those infected should have been more moral. It is not a sin, it is a disease. You would not see the Pope banning wearing gloves, hanging mosquito nets, or purifying water, but because HIV involves sex, it is suddenly in his domain. I hope the Popes remarks are the start of a realization that *he* is the one who is sinning, by using his vast organization to spread lies that get people killed. And I hope it means in the future he will take advise from people who have an MD rather than a Doctorate of Theology.

"What are the implications of Pope Benedict's statement on condoms in terms of AIDS policy, the church's teaching on sex and its view of women?"

Does it really matter?

Yeah, I'm sure lots of rent boys are paying close attention to what the Pope says and are following his guidance.

Folks, let's get real! One tiny concession to the reality of the HIV/AIDS epidemic can't conceal the sad fact at the heart of the matter. Namely, the Vatican's entrenched opposition to condoms has resulted in numerous deaths and untold suffering. And this will go on as long as the Roman Catholic hierarchy keeps living in a dream world, more focused on its maintaining its own power than relieving the misery of the powerless.

Yeah, I'm sure lots of rent boys are paying close attention to what the Pope says and are following his guidance.

Folks, let's get real! One tiny concession to the reality of the HIV/AIDS epidemic can't conceal the sad fact at the heart of the matter. Namely, the Vatican's entrenched opposition to condoms as contraception has resulted in numerous deaths and untold suffering. And this will go on as long as the Roman Catholic hierarchy keeps living in a dream world, more focused on its maintaining its own power than relieving the misery of the powerless.