Over on the Evangel blog, Jeremy Pierce explains the moral reasoning behind Pope Benedict’s recent comment on the use of condoms:
There’s a category of moral obligations that occur in funny circumstances. Given that you are doing a certain immoral thing, there are nevertheless obligations that you have. The pope has recently conceded (finally) that there are such obligations involving condom use. It’s wrong to be a male prostitute, but it’s “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” if the prostitute uses a condom. In other words, if you’re going to be immoral, you do have the moral obligation of wearing a condom. You shouldn’t be doing the initial immoral thing to begin with, but if you’re going to do it you still have another obligation to be responsible and wear a condom, or else you fail at a further obligation.
November 22nd, 2010 | 8:32 am
“The pope has recently conceded (finally) that there are such obligations involving condom use. It’s wrong to be a male prostitute, but it’s “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” if the prostitute uses a condom. In other words, if you’re going to be immoral, you do have the moral obligation of wearing a condom.”
The “in other words” clause does not restate what the Holy Father said. He said that using a condom could be a sign of an awakening moral conscience.
November 22nd, 2010 | 10:59 am
I find the “hairsplitting” on this a bit mind-numbing. The Pope, I think, was looking for ray of hope amidst the despair that is sin and in particular, the enslavement of sexual sins. From the perspective of moral theology, the prostitutes act (male or female) is already deadly than AIDs could ever be, namely an offense against God that makes friendship with him simply impossible. Sin. The Pope’s comment is simply saying, “Well, at least there is something there to indicate a hope of a moral awakening. They are not completely calloused and indifferent.”
The only analogy I can think of making is saying a Mafia hit man is willing to one-off someone with a single shot to the head rather than club them to death.
November 22nd, 2010 | 1:05 pm
It is really quite simple. If you are committing homosexual acts, you may not want to ad murder to your sins. AIDS is still very prevalent in the homosexual community.
If anyone has any questions on our REQUIRED beliefs, read the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”, first printed in the US in March, 2000. (Dark green cover; copyright held by the Holy See.) Imprimi Potest by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Homosexual acts are grave (mortal sins) and can never be approved.
#2357-2359
In addition, see Bible: Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10.
November 22nd, 2010 | 8:20 pm
This is the best and most accurate comments concerning the Pope’s statements.
But second only to Fr. Lombardi’s article on statements on Zenit
.http://www.zenit.org/article-31024?l=english
For other secondary obligations demanding exceptions on use of contraception, please read these:
http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-contraception-necessary-outside.html
http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-p-noy-should-go-on-with-his.html
November 22nd, 2010 | 8:30 pm
FrH, you’re right that the words he used had to do with an awakening moral conscience. But what is an awakening moral conscience? In this case it’s a recognition of something you ought to do, or rather something you ought not to do. There are two obligations. One is not to have sex with that man you’re having sex with. The other is not to engage in behavior that risks spreading HIV. Both obligations are met easily by abstinence from sex. But one of the obligations can be met by wearing a condom while violating the other obligation.
This means there is an obligation that’s met while another is not met. That means that, if you violate one of the obligations, there’s still another obligation that could be met and ought to be met if possible. I don’t think describing that as a secondary obligation is all that far from what he actually said. It just provides a theoretical background that makes sense of it philosophically.
November 23rd, 2010 | 6:46 am
The idea of a sort of sliding scale between good and bad is, literally, nonsensical. Good and bad choices are no more equivalent than apprehension and misapprehension, truth and error are equivalent species of an identical genus; rather, bad choices are paralogisms.
The good choice, “This – being such – is to be done,” is intelligible, because intelligent (for acts of the understanding are specified by their object); the act of the bad will is a surd, ultimately unintelligible. True enough, we can often trace its causes to instinctive or dispositional factors, but it remains logically incoherent.
November 23rd, 2010 | 1:07 pm
This is all so simple, and the attention given to it by the media so silly. Sure, if you’re going to murder someone, at least you should do it in a quick, painless way, but to suggest that because someone says that he is in any way moving towards accepting murder is ridiculous. Same goes with this condom thing. Honestly, when the media talks about religion, you need to deduct 20 IQ points, but when it talks about the pope specifically, make that 30.
November 24th, 2010 | 10:11 am
Overpopulation is the biggest cause of human suffering and environmental destruction worldwide. In fact every other major problem around the globe is either caused or exaggerated by the global population problem. So, if the catholic church was really serious about relieving human suffering they would promote family planning and help people have smaller families. The best thing anyone can do for the future of the children they do have is have fewer children. If everyone had smaller families (one, or two, three at the most) everyone would be better off. Pope Benedict, too little, way to late, all thinking people should leave the church NOW.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact