[Peace-discuss] The Pope...

[C. G. Estabrook]

It's been an argument coming from church officials - bishops and clergy, 
particularly in the global south - for some time.


On 11/20/10 8:17 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
> Carl - I think I found where you're quoting from and don't agree with your 
> interpretation of it.  It says that the Pope has been criticized by even 
> church officials on his view that monogamous couples should not use condoms to 
> avoid disease. It doesn't mention how many church officials. Just before this 
> statement, the article says that the Pope did not mention couples where one 
> spouse is infected, mentioning only the case of male prostitutes. (BTW, I 
> support any move toward condom use, but of course for everybody, not just 
> males and male prostitutes. Didn't want to give the wrong impression.)
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 20, 2010, at 4:59 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
>> As the article points out, church officials have accepted  "condom use for 
>> ... couples [with an HIV+ spouse] to protect the uninfected spouse from 
>> transmission."  The pope's remarks will reinforce that opinion.
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/10 4:40 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>> Huh...Surprising. Like Carl implies, it looks like the Church can permit 
>>> condom use when it doesn't directly impede procreation. So tell me if I got 
>>> the Pope's view wrong: Condoms used to stop diseases are fine, only when the 
>>> sexual act in which they're used cannot result in pregnancy. This is 
>>> surprising, since someone opposed to homosexuality could easily argue that 
>>> allowing for condom use among homosexual males is also promoting sex that 
>>> does not result in procreation. Like everything coming from the Vatican, it 
>>> seems a little convoluted.
>>>
>>> Corey
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:56 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...was making the fairly obvious point that it's better not to risk the 
>>>> spread of disease.
>>>>
>>>> His comment attracts notice only because earlier popes had disapproved of 
>>>> condoms for birth control.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's fair to say that the pope doesn't approve of homosexual acts 
>>>> among adult males.
>>>>
>>>> On 11/20/10 1:32 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>>> Omg, color me shocked reading the Pope's stance on the use of condoms for 
>>>>> male prostitutes until I realized that once again, this benefits ONLY 
>>>>> males (double duty this time, ya might say). So the pope is okay w/ 
>>>>> homosexuality so long as it's limited to ADULT males?? Any chance that the 
>>>>> Christian right and tea-baggers will follow suit, do ya suppose??
>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms
>>>>>  --Jenifer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net  <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net  <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101120/a748f43b/attachment.html>