» News
Trojan Pope
In a shift that may signal muted opposition to the use of contraceptives among Catholic authorities, Pope Benedict XVI has announced that the usage of condoms can be morally justified, provided the right circumstances are involved. The Telegraph reports that the Pope declared these particular prophylactic devices are acceptable, provided the intention involved is to “reduce the risk of affection” from AIDS.
Did he say the “affection” of AIDS, or is this a Blaze typo?
So this Pope has virtually sanctioned the use of condoms in any instance, because the risk of AIDS, or any other disease, is always there, no matter who you’re having sex with – even your spouse.
RickeyG
August 8th, 2012
I’m guessing it’s a Blaze typo…they do that a lot!
And you are right, that “exception” could cover any situation. At least for a liberal.
Roscoe P. Soultrane
August 8th, 2012
Apparently, God’s gotten pretty fickle in his old age, but then the whole “meat on Friday in Lent is a sin, but raping little kids if you’re a priest is cool” doctrine sort of indicated that a while back.
Friend of the family
August 8th, 2012
I never did understand why some believe to keep it in because God meant it to end that way, while ignoring the option to simply pull out. It went that way for a long time. You leaked, tough, she got pregnant. Now, all these methods and aids have complicated the love nest: she takes a pill, he wears the rubber, she buys the cheap tester at Walgreen’s; if she’s with child, abortion is considered. Disgusting. Wedlock is dead, living in sin doesn’t exist, and having big families (like the big family I came from) is passe. A selfish lot indeed.
Sarthurk
August 8th, 2012
Popes are dopes. Sorry Caths. You all have good intentions. I’m not one but I’ve been close to them for ever. Good folks!
Chuck U Farley
August 8th, 2012
Well you know, those priests gotta have some protection when they’re doing the ‘Sandusky’.
Too soon?
Chuck U Farley
August 8th, 2012
And guess what? It’s a win-win ’cause Obysmalcare is giving everyone ‘free’ condoms!
Unneutral
August 8th, 2012
I consider condoms and iuds as being responsible, certainly much more so than the ‘leaders’ of this country in regard to our future.
Maudie N Mandeville
August 8th, 2012
Popes and bishops have long stepped in it every time they try to subjectively equivocate to ‘modern’ society.
Wearing a condom to protect against aids sounds compassionate, but if the Catholic purpose of the conjugal act is to create children, what is the point? And we know that 99.9% of aids isn’t contracted through IUV.
For decades, Popes and bishops have opened the door to liberal Catholics with their ecumenical bs. And you might think that Catholic leadership has learned its lesson with President Obama. Think again.
Newly elevated Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York has extended an invitation to President Obama to the annual Al Smith dinner. That’s right, the same Timothy Dolan that is suing Obama over the contraception mandate will be seen hobnobbing and glad-handing and all smiles and jokes and pats on the back with Catholicism’s worst enemy, creating confusion and scandal for untold numbers of Catholic faithful as well as many others of good will.
And the beat goes on.
Plain Jane
August 8th, 2012
Although I don’t propose to speak for God or the Holy Father, he might be saying that condom use is okay in such as the following scenario.
Suppose one of the spouses has AIDs either from the usual way of transmission, or via drug use, or because of blood transfusions. Is it not better for them to live as husband and wife and use a disease barrier than to attempt to live together in celibacy, fail, and the other partner contract AIDS.
reddecaesari
August 8th, 2012
this post and article from the telegraph do not convey the position of the Church.
he states in a book that a condom was the lesser of two evils is when a man or woman, infected with aids, would deliver a death sentence to his/her partner.
Ann Barnhardt
August 8th, 2012
This is years old. He said, in a nutshell, that a gay man in Africa who was HIV positive making the conscious decision to stop barebacking and infecting God-knows-how-many people and deciding to wear a condom was a first step in the right direction towards morality. It is not moral, but it is an interior progression towards morality, which is exclusively defined as chastity.
OBAMA ATE CLAUDIA'S CRITTERS?
August 9th, 2012
Really “Roscoe”? You actually think God thinks it’s ok for Homosexual Men to rape and molest young boys, as long as they’re masquerading as Men of God? Do you harbor some barely repressed anger at God? Were you sodomized as a child by some Marxist Homosexual “Priest”? You do know that God didn’t actually sanction that, right? That was done by radical subversive Liberals operating inside the church, operating under the spirit of anti-Christ, seeking to destroy the church from within! And No, I’m not Catholic. Jesus Christ is my High Priest forever, interceding on my behalf at the right hand of The Father, just like He said!
Robert Fine
August 9th, 2012
I can think of one completely justified scenario: imagine if a rubber would have been worn by Barack Obama’s father when he schtuped his mother.
Katechon
August 9th, 2012
“schtuped”
Here frog just learned a new word.
Roscoe P. Soultrane
August 9th, 2012
@Obama Ate: “You actually think God thinks it’s ok for Homosexual Men to rape and molest young boys, as long as they’re masquerading as Men of God?”
God doesn’t say much one way or the other. He holds few press conferences. His emissaries on Earth are equivocal at best on the issue. But, given that you seem to want to get all preachy about it, God does nothing to stop it. Who knows, maybe molestation is one of his “mysterious ways.” His will be done, right? The struggle is the glory and all that…
I’ve got no problems whatsoever with anyone’s faith. Far too often, the earthly institutions do no credit to any religion.
muddjuice
August 9th, 2012
@ Roscoe
Actually God does say. He has told us a lot. It’s called the Bible, God’s instruction to His creation.
I thought you were being funny in your first post, calling out the hypocrisy of some who claim to be “Christians”. I didn’t see that you were actually serious about it until I saw your response to Obama Ate.
A word of advice if I may. Don’t judge a faith based on the sinful acts of the followers, judge the faith based on the pillars of that faith and by the leader (who is it founded by) of that faith (i.e. Jesus vs Mohammed or John Smith or *insert cult leader name here*)….