Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV (ritual, moral)

[Mister Emu]

- there will be people who care about being seen to obey the Church's teachings, and not so much actually obeying them. These people might be perfectly happy to have an affair in secret, but wouldn't want to be seen procuring condoms

I keep forgetting about this... my apologies...

As you may know, the Church doesn't accept "ends justify the means" philosophy... Benedict isn't going to proclaim "Because you in this way, that makes it ok by me to sin in this other way"...

For an admittedly absurd in severity comparison, nobody would be ok with killing everyone with AIDS, it would stop the spread, it would ease food problems, both things that would be good, but nobody would be ok with the method... The Pope can't be ok with a 'wrong' way of dealing with the issue... even if the 'right' is less effective...

"it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it"

I've harped on this sort of thing before, but I don't see the fundamental moral difference between "just war" doctrine and allowing condoms in some sort of limited way to combat AIDS.

I think that war is not nessecarily 'wrong', it just has a certain(I'd say very limited) window in which it is acceptable...

is harm that I don't believe actually exists.

I'm not asking you to accept that it does...

- does this role that the Pope and the Church have taken on carry with it some sort of moral duty or social contract? If so, what is it?

The Pope has a moral duty to lead the Church in being the "pillar of truth", and leading the Church in right and wrong... that is his primary duty, after that is physical needs...

- is the Pope using the Church's influence as a quasi-NGO to promote religious and doctrinal matters? If so, is this appropriate?

The Pope is the head of a religion. It would be absurd to demand that he not promote the Church's doctrine to the people he leads...

It really ****** Martin Luther off.

From what I understand, it was abuses, and not doctrine that caused Luther to split...

I believe that document falls under the category of inspired Papal decree.

That means it is as good as if from the very mouth of god to a Catholic.

Please correct me if I`m wrong.

It is currently considered dogmatic... but I believe there is a minority that dispute that...

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by challupa

What do people think of this latest comment from the Pope?

The Pope must have a wicked sense of humor.

[gnostic]

He's irresponsible.

He's out of touch with reality.

Essentially, he's an old prude. A closet ******.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by dallasapple

What if there was a vaccine to prevent AIDs?..Would that not be the answer either?Would he still then say abstinence was the answer?

No. I don't think so.

He will insist on abstinence, knowing that many would ignore him. That way, he get lot more followers, who are dying from HIV or AIDs, by saving their souls.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I keep forgetting about this... my apologies...

As you may know, the Church doesn't accept "ends justify the means" philosophy... Benedict isn't going to proclaim "Because you in this way, that makes it ok by me to sin in this other way"...

Wait - I agree that the Church doesn't generally take the position that the ends justify the means, but I think they do acknowledge that results do matter; bad ends aren't justified just because they were arrived at by "good" means.

For an admittedly absurd in severity comparison, nobody would be ok with killing everyone with AIDS, it would stop the spread, it would ease food problems, both things that would be good, but nobody would be ok with the method... The Pope can't be ok with a 'wrong' way of dealing with the issue... even if the 'right' is less effective...

I know that you picked this as an absurd example, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A big part of the problem of AIDS in Africa is the effect of the disease on the social framework of whole nations. If a country is in a food crisis because so many of their farmers have been incapacitated with AIDS, I don't think it would really solve anything in the long run to kill them outright.

"it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it"

Two thoughts:

- I think that's a pretty accurate description of what the Church is doing here: they're doing evil (i.e. following a policy with a definite and significant cost in human life) for what they consider to be "good" (i.e. furtherance of doctrine).

- in the relationship between a service provider (and by this, I'm referring to the Church's role as a quasi-NGO, not painting salvation as a "service") and the society it serves, who is the proper judge of "good" and "evil"? For non-religious NGOs, I personally think that they should take into account the values of the societies they serve... and I don't see a reason to make an exception to this for religious ones.

I think that war is not nessecarily 'wrong', it just has a certain(I'd say very limited) window in which it is acceptable...

If I understand the Church's position on war, it's that it is sometimes justified to give up something valuable such as life (both innocent and not) of the cause is great enough. What makes other arguably valuable things, for example doctrine on contraception, immune to this tradeoff?

I'm not asking you to accept that it does...

I know. My point was just that there's not even a moral dilemma in the first place unless you accept certain religious positions. There's more than one way of looking at the issue, and I think that if we cast it as a certain dilemma, we lose sight of this.

I mainly wanted to get that out there in case the discussion narrowed to Catholic doctrine alone.

The Pope has a moral duty to lead the Church in being the "pillar of truth", and leading the Church in right and wrong... that is his primary duty, after that is physical needs...

I meant the moral duties of the head of an NGO delivering aid and services to people in need. Basically, what are the moral duties that go along with being an NGO in general? Are the Church's religious duties in conflict with them?

The Pope is the head of a religion. It would be absurd to demand that he not promote the Church's doctrine to the people he leads...

But that's not his only role. He's also a head of state and the leader of an aid organization. These sort of roles have duties as well, and I don't think it's absurd at all to ask that an NGO supposedly helping a people not actively harm them at the same time.

[Ozzie]

I agree with the pope that you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. Condoms are only 99.9% perfect, while abstinence is 100% perfect. Pity those poor uneducated Africans can't control themselves perfectly *frown*/.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by gnostic

He's irresponsible.

He's out of touch with reality.

Essentially, he's an old prude. A closet ******.

There must be virtue in a wank.

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by J Bryson

So...what? He's trying to get people to salvation that much faster by having them die sooner?

This is a weird response to the discussion, to use condoms to continue in sin (not repenting ) is the way that Salvation is lost, the fastest way to salvation is repentance, actually is the only way. Death does not equal Salvation, where do you get this weird notions from?

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

And the only person in the RCC who could change this is the Pope, as other decrees have been reversed or dropped in the past, so can this. I still hold the RCC, and the Pope, as Gods mouthpiece on earth, responsible.

Strangely this is correct, the Pope is responsible in the discharge of his office, more than a billion and a half soul’s Salvations depend on it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
Encouraging people to continue in their sins is evil and unloving, and not fitting of a Christian, encouraging them to virtue is beneficial and loving, these are the characteristic that this man is showing us.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by emiliano

Strangely this is correct, the Pope is responsible in the discharge of his office, more than a billion and a half soul’s Salvations depend on it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
Encouraging people to continue in their sins is evil and unloving, and not fitting of a Christian, encouraging them to virtue is beneficial and loving, these are the characteristic that this man is showing us.

But as we have seen, the "sin" of non procreative sex is not Biblical, it is by Church decree. A decree which, like others before it, may be rescinded by the Pope and the RCC.