As all right-minded people know, benighted Protestants, because of their blinkered commitment to sola Scriptura, lack proper moral guidance. They’ve been cast adrift. By contrast, the children of Rome have the inestimable direction of the Magisterium to point the way.
Case in point: apparently, the Vatican currently takes the following position on using or abusing prophylactics:
i) If an HIV+ callboy is servicing another man, then he may justifiably don a condom to reduce the risk of infecting his male client.
ii) If, on the other hand, an HIV+ callboy is servicing a woman, then it would be morally disordered if he donned a condom to reduce the risk of infecting his female client (since, by wearing a condom, the sex act would not longer be open to the possibility of conceiving new life).
iii) Likewise, while an HIV+ callboy can justifiably don a condom when servicing his john (to protect the john from infection), an HIV+ husband can’t justifiably don a condom when making love to his wife (to protect his wife from infection.)
It’s lucid examples like these that illustrate, as clearly as anything, the moral superiority of Roman Catholic ethics.
"It’s lucid examples like these that illustrate, as clearly as anything, the moral superiority of Roman Catholic ethics."
ReplyDeleteWhile they may be lucid examples to some, they are simple lurid examples to me of the destructive attack upon the Godly family structure of Sacred Scripture which indicates the immoral inferiority of Roman Catholic ethics!
Ironically, some of the prominent celebrity families of the Bible were lurid and destructive, however, that in and of itself did not exclude them from the Election and Calling bloodline that brought Our Christ into this world, devils full!
All that this goes to show is there is no rational basis for one's Calling and Election because as has been written has now become apart of Sacred Writing:
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Besides that, this question: "who has anointed Rome with the voice of moral clarity anyway?"
"As all right-minded people know, benighted Protestants, because of their blinkered commitment to sola Scriptura, lack proper moral guidance. They’ve been cast adrift. By contrast, the children of Rome have the inestimable direction of the Magisterium to point the way."
ReplyDeleteI enjoy witty sarcasm.
Yes, but who says that the Magisterium must be 'lucid'? I'm with you TUAD, a witty sarcasm indeed.
ReplyDeleteA Catholic responding to your post is likely going to be a lost cause, but hopefully some of the readers here will prefer an accurate and fair look at the Pope's remarks.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to note is that the Pope never said condom use is "justified" - even under certain circumstances - that's a distortion of the situation. What he said was that while illicit sex is always sinful, the use of a condom for the intention of not wanting to infect another shows a glimmer of awakening of one's conscience to morality (not wanting to hurt another person). It still falls well short of any ideal notion of morality, and certainly not a well formed conscience, but it's better than *nothing*. It's akin to the "reasoning" of many criminals who while engaging in sinful and criminal acts, none the less have a sense of conscience that prevents them from being as bad as possible.
Second, the remarks (which I believe were imprudent) were not official teaching, but rather a private interview. So regardless of what was said, at most it amounts to 'scandal' and not a change of teaching.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"The most important thing to note is that the Pope never said condom use is 'justified' - even under certain circumstances - that's a distortion of the situation."
i) I used the word "justified" because he was quoted by l’Osservatore Romano as using that word. Perhaps that rendering is inaccurate, but that's from the in-house newspaper of the Vatican, so it's hardly a "distortion" for me to reproduce the wording.
ii) Even if he didn't use the word "justified," that's still implicit in his statement.
"What he said was that while illicit sex is always sinful, the use of a condom for the intention of not wanting to infect another shows a glimmer of awakening of one's conscience to morality (not wanting to hurt another person)."
That's your lay interpretation, but there are Catholics who see it otherwise. They argue that since homosexual activity has no procreative potential to begin with, the use of a condom in that context has no contraceptive intent. Therefore, it doesn't violate the natural law argument against the use of condoms. Conversely, it might be justified in its own right by mitigating evil.
"Second, the remarks (which I believe were imprudent) were not official teaching, but rather a private interview."
Except that there is evidence that this is not an isolated remark, but part of ongoing Magisterial deliberations ever since Benedict 16 took office.
Steve,
ReplyDelete1) I managed to track down someone who showed me the quote in Italian and the term "justified" is there - so you are correct here.
What threw me off was that all the "official" English translations I've read do not use the term "justified."
What is also interestingly is that people are saying the Italian is actually speaking of a female, not a male prostitute - yet the English translations I'm seeing say "male."
2) It's not my "lay interpretation" if you're suggesting the Pope actually opened any doors here; he didn't. Anyone taking this quote as a green light is distorting the Pope's words and ripping it from context. The Pope is not speaking of contraception here (as you note), and he explicitly says condoms are not the solution to aids and will not solve the problem. To not recognize this is akin to (mis)interpreting the Pope as saying homosexuality is ok (when in fact he and the Church officially considers it disordered and gravely sinful).
3) I've yet to see that this is "not an isolated remark," and in fact part of "ongoing Magisterial deliberations." And regardless, it's not official, so it doesn't matter how many unofficial quotes one can muster, it at most amounts to scandal.
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"2) It's not my 'lay interpretation' if you're suggesting the Pope actually opened any doors here; he didn't. Anyone taking this quote as a green light is distorting the Pope's words and ripping it from context. The Pope is not speaking of contraception here (as you note), and he explicitly says condoms are not the solution to aids and will not solve the problem."
See the Guardian article I posted. This may well reflect a shift in Vatican policy.
"3) I've yet to see that this is 'not an isolated remark,' and in fact part of 'ongoing Magisterial deliberations.'"
See above.
Nick said:
ReplyDelete---
What he said was that while illicit sex is always sinful, the use of a condom for the intention of not wanting to infect another shows a glimmer of awakening of one's conscience to morality (not wanting to hurt another person).
---
This argument reads to me like saying "While torturing someone before killing that person is always sinful, killing them after only two hours of torture shows a glimmer of awakening of one's conscience to morality since they *COULD* have tortured the victim for three hours instead."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian is hardly a source worth putting any credibility in.
In the end though, I'm thinking all of this was done on purpose to generate hype and sell more books and newspapers.
Peter,
Yes, that's the logic being employed, but I wouldn't make the example as extreme as you are. It's more akin to a prostitute who gets pregnant, and despite not wanting to leave the "business" considers adoption over abortion. Nobody is saying it's ideal reasoning, but it's better than nothing, and reflects the reality of the human conscience even in the midst of living in sin (cf Romans 1B).
I wrote the following comment on Evangel in Jeremy Pierce's post on "Secondary Moral Obligations" in response to this article Vatican: Condoms lesser evil for heterosexuals too that was published today:
ReplyDelete"Well, here we go. He did not intend to restrict it to male-male acts but was just giving that as an example."
Wow, Jeremy! That link you provided was... illuminating. Here are excerpts that I thought was interesting:
o "But the latest interpretation of Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk."
o "Once the pope has made a pronouncement, his priests will be in the forefront in advocating for their perceived use of condoms," said the official, Dr. Brima Kargbo.
o "By acknowledging that condoms help prevent spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms," Martin said.
"We're not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We're now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth," he said.
o ""This pope gave this interview. He was not foolish. It was intentional. He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it's true that the church sometimes has not been too clear," Suaudeau said.
-------
#1. I applaud Pope Benedict XVI's decision on this matter.
#2. In keeping with the theme/topic of this post is there a "Secondary Moral Obligation" for the Pope and the Magisterium to be CLEAR on moral doctrines and practices when teaching the doctrines and practices of the Church?
I wrote the following comment in response to this article Vatican: Condoms lesser evil for heterosexuals too that was published today:
ReplyDelete"Well, here we go. He did not intend to restrict it to male-male acts but was just giving that as an example."
Wow, Jeremy! That link you provided was... illuminating. Here are excerpts that I thought was interesting:
o "But the latest interpretation of Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk."
o "Once the pope has made a pronouncement, his priests will be in the forefront in advocating for their perceived use of condoms," said the official, Dr. Brima Kargbo.
o "By acknowledging that condoms help prevent spread of HIV between people in sexual relationships, the pope has completely changed the Catholic discussion on condoms," Martin said.
"We're not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We're now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth," he said.
o ""This pope gave this interview. He was not foolish. It was intentional. He thought that this was a way of bringing up many questions. Why? Because it's true that the church sometimes has not been too clear," Suaudeau said.
-------
#1. I applaud Pope Benedict XVI's decision on this matter.
#2. In keeping with the theme/topic of this post is there a "Secondary Moral Obligation" for the Pope and the Magisterium to be CLEAR on moral doctrines and practices when teaching the doctrines and practices of the Church?
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"The Guardian is hardly a source worth putting any credibility in."
Feel free to document the factual errors in the Guardian article.
The various headlines for the Guardian articles covering the story put a false spin on the issue.
ReplyDeleteFor example:
"Pope signals shift away from Catholic church's prohibition of condoms"
I cited one article with one headline.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, you're dodging the issue, since the Guardian quotes high-ranking Vatican officials.