Pope says condoms OK
 

Have to admit I didn't see this coming, the Pope is about to tell the world that using condoms is alright as all as it's to prevent passing infections-

Source

My thoughts are "It's about time."

Any one else have thoughts on this?

My thoughts are simple (surprise!): don't take advice on sexuality from the largest organizations of virgins in the world. They clearly have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I wonder how many people died because the Pope dragged his feet on this.

"While he will restate the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes it interferes with the creation of life, he will argue that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death can be a responsible act – even outside marriage."

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...#ixzz15rDV9gu2

Wow, this is huge. But does his popeness now says it's okay to have sex outside of marriage, or that it's just less evil than before?

At any rate, welcome to the 19th century... better late than never.

He seems to say that IF you're going to sin, you should do it responsibly and not make it worse than it already is. (Written from his perspective, not mine.)

FINALLY something smart from the Pope. Amazing.

Hope he can come up with a Thousand more ideas that are even better than this one.

Wow....Wouldn't that be a great & incredible way to help those who follow his powerful words?

This is the best thing since they said it was okay for Jews to be Jews.

I wonder if he got God's okay on this? It seems he's been talking with scientists.

LOL, true, and this made my night.

That's actually... a very jewish argument they're using to justify this.

Holy shit! Er...no pun intended. I'm surprised, but definitely cool with this. Seriously, it's about time.



Also, less appropriately, I find myself singing "Every Sperm is Sacred" from The Meaning of Life in my head right now.

Not an orthodox Jewish one, no ding with no ring, yep marriage is a must, and condoms is a no no.

One part of me thinks that it's good, maybe it'll actually save some lives. Then, There's this other part of me that just can't bring myself to care about someone that risks their own health because some guy in a dunce hat told em so. I guess I'm just a dick.

It seems like a very strange exemption to me. I haven't read the full text, like it seems that SM has, but I wouldn't think that there's a high percentage of homosexual prostitutes that are avoiding the use of condoms based on the Pope's word. On the flip side, if there are and this helps prevent a bit of disease-spreading, this could be a good thing.

Further, if , then it seems it would be easy for a "good Catholic" to also apply that logic to using a condom during premarital sex. I doubt the Pope would agree, but if the door is opened a crack, someone will go through the door.

Maybe, but you're a covered dick, right?

Pikuach Nefesh overrides all but 3 other laws, saying that you're going to be permitting the use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission (and thus directly save human life) is by definition a very orthodox jewish line of reasoning.

Wooow. Yea, I definitely didn't see this coming.

I hope that this makes a difference in Africa, where AIDS and catholicism are both trying to take root.

It sucks that likely the only reason they're doing this is to increase good PR for the pope. If they weren't backed into a corner with several people trying to bring the pope to trial for crimes against humanity, I don't think we would've seen something like this.

For the lazy: Pikuach nefesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pikuach Nefesh kind of reminds me of the Asimov's third law of robotics.

As for the pope's about face... it's about time. This is the thin wedge that could bring about much more radical changes in the Catholic church.

Don't get your hopes up; he still condemns contraception, homosexuals, and female priests.

Sorry Pikuach nefesh does not mean you should be having sex outside of marriage. If you are saying someone puts a gun to your head and says have sex with this person who has aids and if you want use a condom, yeah I will give it to you. Just to have sex with someone and use that as a rule well now safety sorry don't put yourself in a "dangerous situation."

Xazy this isn't an election year debate, my post is right there. If you go off on a tangent about abstinence-outside-of-marriage people aren't going to forget what I said and suddenly think I said something different, they'll scroll up a bit and go "Wtf, Shadowex3 never even mentioned marriage".

Before I make that even easier for them though let me just point out that
married people get HIV too, and not always from sex. Especially in a war-torn third world hell like south africa.


Orthodox Jewish (which happens to be identical to orthodox EVERYONE'S) views on premarital sex simply have no bearing on Pikuach Nefesh's affirmative requirement that people act to preserve life. Maybe they're married, maybe they're not. I didn't specify because it isn't relevant, which is the really pathetic thing since you've gone through all the trouble of loudly embarassing yourself by ranting about something totally irrelevant to my point.

It's like if I brought up that the laws of kashrut for fish state they must have fins and scales and then you go off ranting about lighting fires on Shabbat. Great that you know the law but it's completely irrelevant to whether or not fins and scales make a fish Kosher. Just like Orthodox Judaism sharing the pretty much universal view of abstinence until marriage has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the pope's argument that it's permissible to use a condom to protect someone from HIV because it's directly saving lives is a very jewish argument.

Jumping at every mention of condoms and protection as being automatically some kind of campaign for premarital sex is just ridiculous.

You are trying to say that condom use argument was a Jewish argument, you then said Pekuach Nefesh, and I am saying that saving a life is a Jewish concept but not necessarily with condoms. I can not even say that if your spouse has HIV if you can use a condom, I plan on asking that today, but I do not think that is so clear and simple even. You want to come up with a case where it maybe ok in Jewish law, sure there is might potentially be a scenario hypothetically. I am saying it is not a Jewish argument.

No the Jewish concept is keep it in your pants then. You can not just say this is one Jewish concept without taking in to account the cumulative belief.

In Africa, where the Catholic church's prohibition against condom use has been felt most keenly, the most common manner of spreading the disease is through heterosexual sex. Just so you know...

I am very surprised and happy to see this turnaround from the Catholic church. My only regret is that it is coming so late and that it will, most likely, take many years for it to have an impact on the rate of HIV transmissions.

i think this is a funny sentence. maybe accidentally so.

like alot of others here, i'm surprised at anything that ratzinger does that is not explicitly reactionary. this is a good thing.

there is the question of how much difference it actually will make in the material world that is not what the vatican imagines it to be, so which is not made up of people who either work in absolute obedience or are who are going to burn in hell.

Well from a practical standpoint the real problem is going to be all the people on the ground that the vatican has had telling everyone that condoms come pre-infected with HIV, or have holes to let the virus through, or some similar nonsense.

Dude you can keep insisting all you want that I said something I didn't but my post is right there. I specifically said that allowing condom use because you're placing the saving of a life over the rules against condoms is a very jewish argument, nothing more, nothing less. That is more or less exactly how Pikuach Nefesh works: the commandment that one is to place the preservation of human life above all but 3 other laws.

I don't see why you insist on continuing to pretend that I'm saying something I'm not, and tbh the more you indulge your fantasy argument where I'm some kind of hedonism-promoting sex fiend the more it seems like you're actually operating under christian values and assumptions rather than jewish ones. I mean seriously man? You actually need to ask about a married couple in that situation? You really think that "keep it in his pants" and deny her right is the proper course?

And if you want to go "cumulative belief" that's fine, it just makes you even more wrong because Pikuach Nefesh still overrides all but 3 laws, she still has her rights, and the "cumulative belief" for unmarried people would undeniably be "Don't, but if you do, at least protect yourselves and others". I have never met a rabbi that said no out of spite like the christians do, sure they'll spend hours trying to weasel out of admitting it because of how much they insist on abstinence, but if you nail them down...

Its amazing that in 2010 THIS is somehow still an issue with the Catholic church. Regardless of ones stance on sex I can't begin to fathom the thought process behind "condoms are bad" that so many seem to advocate. To just ignore the risks of pregnancy/stds because people shouldn't be getting busy outside of marriage...in the bedroom...only at night...with the lights off... is simply absurd.

Bravo Catholic church on recognizing what modern medicine has been telling us for generations, you've taken your first steps into the 20th century just a little further and you'll be here in the 21st with the rest of us! YAY!

Not that I'm agreeing or defending the Catholic Church here, but the Catholic theology isn't quite so simple as "premarital sex is bad, condoms allow for easier premarital sex, therefore condoms are bad." That's the general Christian attitude toward making access to condoms easier, but it's not an accurate description of the Catholic attitude.

The Catholic Church's problem with condoms isn't strictly secondary (for what they allow) but is also primary (condoms themselves are considered bad). They understand modern medicine quite well - condoms artificially prevent contraception, and that is considered a sin.

The theological argument isn't a particularly strong one, and pretty much the only reason the church came out against condoms in the 60s was to avoid inconsistency with past teachings. Nonetheless, it's not due to any sort of misunderstanding of the function of condoms, rather it's that the church does understand how condoms work and believes that it is wrong.

Thats what I mean though, I know the Catholic Church isn't stupid making the argument against condoms all that much more ridiculous...but I suppose thats the trap you fall into when you keep having to realign ancient doctrine with modern ideas/science. I think I was trying to go in that direction above and went off track, its been a long day. (although to be fair I do often get their stance confused with fundies/abstinence/whatever crowd)

Anyway In order to stay consistent they simply condemn what should be a widely taught and accepted practice and for what purpose? To maybe prove they or better the word of God can do no wrong? Its just all around irresponsible and astoundingly ignorant thing to do especially in this day and age. For such a widely followed, respected and influential body that's just...so wrong on so many levels.

Oh, I know that. I was going off of my memory of the NPR story I heard in the morning, and the reference to "male prostitutes", of which I assume most are servicing men. I thought that was the entirety of the condom exemption.

ah, ok. I knew it had to be something like that.
A surprisingly large number of people still labor under the assumption that AIDS is a 'gay disease.'

“Whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/wo...pe/24pope.html

SecretMethod, thanks for the link!

Now....if the Pope could do something to prevent all those Fathers or Bishops or whatever they are - from abusing little boys! That would be the best papal surprise yet!

i for one agree with the "make condoms, not AIDS-babies" stance