Vatican shifts ground on condoms, HIV, conception

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Vatican shifts ground on condoms, HIV, conception

VATICAN CITY – In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.

The position was an acknowledgment that the church's long-held anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting lives at risk.

"This is a game-changer," declared the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

i've had discussions with people regarding the catholic church's stance contraception and this is very interesting...

do we have any catholics here and what do you think of this?
 
I always found it interesting how that which is proclaimed to be an everlasting, infallible truth can be changed. If the Catholic God is trying to keep up with social progress, he's doing a piss poor job!
 
The joy of orgasm it's gods way of creating children, if you have an orgasm without the possibility of children, you're cheating god. Just so you know.
 
Voltaire said:
I always found it interesting how that which is proclaimed to be an everlasting, infallible truth can be changed. If the Catholic God is trying to keep up with social progress, he's doing a piss poor job!
Click to expand...

Condoms and sexual practices have nothing to do with papal infallibility.

"It is not even correct to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium.[19] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify."

Also:

"An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
 
Yurt said:
Vatican shifts ground on condoms, HIV, conception

VATICAN CITY – In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.

The position was an acknowledgment that the church's long-held anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting lives at risk.

"This is a game-changer," declared the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

i've had discussions with people regarding the catholic church's stance contraception and this is very interesting...

do we have any catholics here and what do you think of this?
Click to expand...

About damn time.
 
christiefan915 said:
Condoms and sexual practices have nothing to do with papal infallibility.

"It is not even correct to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium.[19] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify."

Also:

"An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Click to expand...

So infallible means "sometimes wrong"?
 
Interesting. I wish the Church would never have tried to invent papal infallibility, and simply declared infallible doctrine, under the Holy Spirit. Historically, you can tell when the Church found a pope to be fallible, when a single pope failed to be canonized amongst a score of popes from the same era who were sainted. Of the first ten popes, one wasn't canonized, and it had to do with the Church disagreeing with him.
 
Finally 55 years later...!

How many people have been harmed in the mean time.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top