[Peace-discuss] The Pope...

[Corey Mattson]

I don't fancy myself an expert on Catholic doctrine. But from being raised
Catholic, and from my long exposure as a child to conservative Catholic
thought via my extended family, I was under the impression that the Church's
prohibition on condoms stemmed from their obstruction of the natural process
of procreation. I was thinking, in my first post, that the permissibility of
condom use for homosexual males could now be justified by the Pope since two
males cannot procreate. This seems straightforward. Otherwise why would the
Pope not say heterosexual couples can use condoms as well? Is this not what
explains the Pope's statements, the Church's position against artificially
impeding conception?
---Corey

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

> The text as published in L'Osservatore Romano (in Italian) says "una
> prostituta," but the interview (and the book) are probably in German.
>
> I must say though that that this detailed consideration of what the bishop
> of
> Rome says has in my experience been limited to theologians, and indeed only
> some of them...  But apparently the interpretation is not easy: e.g.,
> Jenifer is
> surely not correct when she says "he's protecting just the guys and the
> gays."
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:49:53 -0600
> >From: Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.illinois.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Pope...
> >To: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> >
> >On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:28:28AM -0800, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> >> Yep, he's protecting just the guys and the gays when it comes to HIV-
> AIDS, continues to exclude heteros. He also sez gays should follow DADT if
> they're already ordained, and find another career if they're not. My
> personal
> fave is his saying that when a pope is unable to function he should
> "consider"
> resigning (paraphrasing). I tho'd "Catholic" meant "universal",but seems it
> really means "cover-up." More articles by googling pope condoms. --Jenifer
> >
> >The BBC last night noted that the Pope had said in
> >Italian "una prostituta", a word used for both male and
> >female prostitutes.  The speaker suggested that it was a
> >mistranslation to read that as referring to males only.
> >
> >
> >> --- On Sat, 11/20/10, Corey Mattson <coreymattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Corey Mattson <coreymattson at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Pope...
> >> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> >> Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> >> Date: Saturday, November 20, 2010, 8:17 PM
> >>
> >> 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>
> 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>
> >>         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
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Peace-discuss mailing list
> >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/20101121/9d4bd7b4/attachment-0001.html>