crispybits wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/next-pope-five-key-issuesPope Benedict XVI appeared to signal a break with traditional teaching on the use of condoms almost three years ago when he said the use of condoms was acceptable "in certain cases". If, for example, a male prostitute used a condom to reduce the risk of HIV infection, he said, that could be considered "a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants". The example, however, was carefully chosen: by deploying it, the pope avoided the issue of birth control and made no mention of condom use in heterosexual relationships.
The Vatican later clarified the remarks, stressing that the pope has "not reformed or changed the church's teaching" on the matter.
His spokesman added: "The pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a 'first step on the road to a more human sexuality', rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others."
In 2009, during his first trip to Africa as pope, Benedict provoked outrage after declaring that condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids – and could make the problem worse.
Speaking to journalists on his flight, the pontiff said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". His successor will have to decide whether this remains the position of the church.
Your quote, taken out of context, looks convincing TGD, until you realise that in context what is being discussed is whether an HIV positive male gay prostitute should wear a condom to reduce any harm he does to others, and had no reference to the discussions around family planning, which is what this debate is centred around.
Why does that make a difference?
Ultimately, it's taboo to have protected sex, whether you're married or not. The question was what was the Church's stance on contraception, not what the Church's stance was on family planning. I explained it before...
- Married - no protected sex
- Single - no sex, but if you're going to have sex, protection is better than no protection
It is puzzling to see people jumping to Player's defense without also providing some evidence of their own. Player made an affirmative statement that the position I laid out were some American parishes or priests. She had no links, no evidence, nothing. WTF?