Support This Website! Shop Here!

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Pope Benedict's Outrageous Nonsense

For those who think Pope Francis stinks and Pope Benedict could do no wrong, does anyone remember when Pope Benedict endorsed the use of condoms? 

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?

Benedict's remarks were indefensible, many liberals took advantage of them, but "orthodox" Catholics either remained silent or tried to square the circle and pretend Benedict's condom remarks were acceptable when they clearly were not.

If Pope Francis had made these remarks, imagine the outrage! But since it was Benedict, ho-hum, nothing to see here, or even remember...

Saturday, Nov. 20 2010
http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-and-condoms.html


Monday Nov. 22, 2010
http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/stop-presses.html


Monday Nov. 22, 2010
http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/answering-questions.html


Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2010
http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/anyone-can-use-condom.html


12 comments:

BenYachov said...

Pope Benedict said a Male Prostitute who uses a condom to prevent the spread of HIV may be showing the beginnings of a moral conscience and concern for others.

The media ran with this and claimed the Pope was giving the Green light for condom use.

Anyone with an IQ over 3(which excludes most members of the media & sadly it seems the Catholic media these days) can see that is not what he meant.

I could say a bank robber who uses an unload gun for bank robberies to avoid killing others when he steals might be showing the beginnings of a conscience and concern for others.

It doesn't mean I am giving the green light to rob banks.

A bank robber who doesn't want to kill anyone might by continued grace come to the realization it is wrong to steal.

The male Prostitute who doesn't want to infect people with AIDS might also conclude selling his body to others is wrong.

It's not hard.

But you are right. Radtrads and psuedo-Cons would have a fit if Francis said this.

Heck these chuckleheads are still bitching over "Who am I to Judge" and acting like Pope Francis was saying homosexual sex acts where no big deal.

BenYachov said...

Also the clear mistakes you make in your analysis Steve are obvious.

The issue is AIDS which is a disease largely associated with homosexuals so when the Pope is taking about a male Prostitute using a condom he is clearly implicitly taking about a male prostitute having homosexual sex not natural sex with a woman so it is not an issue of the sin of contraception.


You will find the vast majority of male Prostitutes in the world service men only a small number service women. I have never heard of a Hustler on the streets or ever saw one here in NYC offer his services to a lady.

I know I used to ride the subway and politely tell these "guys" I am not interested get the Blank away from me buddy.

It is most likely worst in Europe.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Google "female sex tourism"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2401788/Sex-tourism-Meet-middle-aged-middle-class-women-Britains-female-sex-tourists.html

BenYachov said...

Doesn't matter in popular culture most people identify male Prostitution with homosexuality.
That is the natural interpretation of most people.

Besides it's not like a male prostitute can't do something un-natural with a female client & in the Pope's statement it is not stated how this hypothetical male postitute uses the condom.

On himself or his male trick?

BenYachov said...

Oh & on the way home from work I just thought to this...when the New Testament refers to male Prostitutes is it ever referring to dudes who sell themselves to women?

I don't think so.

Thus the natural interpretation here is Benedict was referring to homosexual male prostitutes using condoms which by definition is not the additional sin of contraception added to fornication.

Being that Benedict is a Bible Scholar that is likely what he has in mind.

It's obvious.

BenYachov said...

Oh & on the way home from work I just thought to this...when the New Testament refers to male Prostitutes is it ever referring to dudes who sell themselves to women?

I don't think so.

Thus the natural interpretation here is Benedict was referring to homosexual male prostitutes using condoms which by definition is not the additional sin of contraception added to fornication.

Being that Benedict is a Bible Scholar that is likely what he has in mind.

It's obvious.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

He made a clarification that dispensed with the sex of the prostitute or the "john."

And he had days and days to think about it. If he failed to think it through, that just compounds the error and makes Ratzinger quite the idiot.

BenYachov said...

Physician heal thyself Stevo. It looks too me like your trying to save your bad analysis at all costs by even more wild attempts at eisegesis of the Pope's words.


Quote""I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

Which applies to my analysis in the first post. It is that the action as motivated by concern for others (the taking of responsibility) that is paramount here. Like when a bank robber uses an unloaded gun to rob a bank because he doesn't want to hurt anybody. Well it is clearly an accidental good to use an unload gun when you rob people though on the essential level you are adding a deception to your essentially evil crime coupled with an unjust threat of deadly force so you are still doing something essentially evil. I don't see the Pope denying this in respect to condom use except though your wishful thinking.

You wrote:
>{There is that insistence that condom use is a move towards objective good. Again.]

Rather the concern for others and the accidental good condoms provide in the prevention of HIV is what is at issue. That is the good present in this act a "a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility".

Read your Aquinas steve no evil act is completely devoid of some good.

The essential evil of condom use as a contraceptive or the instrumental evil of it's use as something that adds in the performing of un-natural sex remains.

Here is where you really screw up guy.
>In order to be able to use condoms, the principle of double effect must apply.
In order for the principle of double effect to apply, the following must be true:

Here you go off into left field big time. It is clear the Pope isn't trying to make an essential moral argument for condom use or a moral justification for using condoms.

"[The Church]of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution."

There is none nor has the Pope said any different.
In fact he said the opposite and there is no contradiction.

Just as there is no real or moral justification for robbing a bank or using deception to make your victim think you are pointing a loaded gun at them to coerce them into surrounding their money. Never the less one can say there is "a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility" if a bank robber doesn't put bullets in his gun when he robs a bank.

Here is moving toward the good and Benedict is recognizing this.

Why is this hard?

BenYachov said...

edit:surrendering their money.

Lord Almighty the autocorrect on my iMac sucks!

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I'm comfortable with my analysis and I don't see you bringing forth any points worthy of debate.

Let readers read and decided for themselves.

BenYachov said...

As you wish.

BenYachov said...

BTW Steve on another note.

The Pope hosts inter-faith conference on how marriage is between a man and a woman.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404527.htm

Gee to hear the "Conservative" Catholic press carry on I thought the Holy Father was against that sort of thing eh?