Gay sex workers can use condoms, women can't
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 08:23 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
66 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," the Pope said.
The Pope cited male prostitution as an example of when people could use condoms.
This, if you're not aware, is a dramatic turnaround in Benedict's thinking. Just last year the same Pope said: "You can't resolve it (HIV) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Last year, remember, Benedict caused an international uproar when he told the press that condoms should not be used because they could worsen the spread of AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.
Of course the world's medical community have disagreed with him on just that point for almost three decades, to no avail. So how to explain his remarkable change of heart?
Apparently, 28 years of irrefutable reports from global AIDS crisis later, the Pope has finally gotten the message on safe sex and his response was immediate.
Immediate, that is, if you're the head of the Vatican and your eyes are fixed on the eternal rather than the here and now. For almost an entire generation of gay men the decision comes entirely too late.
But how, for instance, does this square with the fact that in the Church's sex is only for procreation?
The answer is it doesn't. One half the world's population were left out of his latest pronouncement: women. It's seem that a condoms ability to protect against disease become a problem if it also prevents pregnancy.
Gay sex workers are in the clear, but women will have to take a number. At the rate the Church is traveling now, expect a call back some time around 2040.
Meanwhile, last week the National Coalition of American Nuns denounced the continuing silence of America's bishops, who have refusal to even mention the shocking surge of suicides among young gay men, because - they realize - their strong opposition to marriage equality has been revealed as a major factor in prolonging anti-gay sentiment.
So instead of clarifying his views the Pope has instead contributed to the ever-deepening abstractions and moral confusion that surround Church teachings on homosexuality, again singling out gays as a special class of sinner, which gives succor to all the bullies and increases the suffering of the Church's victims.
The Church seems to have decided that the best way to address the international collapse of its moral authority is to continue to police human sexuality, as though it were the focus of Jesus' teachings and his primary interest, when perhaps a little kindness and compassion might have sufficed.
66 comments
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:41 PM EST
...Is it so unreasonable, therefore, to believe or expect that the Holy Spirit is still doing His job with regard to Sacred Tradition as He must have done for the first four centuries of the Church’s life? Also, a final point, Bibles are certainly not immune from being influenced by vested interests - I pointed out one thing earlier that Luther added to the Bible to suit his doctrine; the Protestant “reformers” rejected a number of books and passages from the Bible which had been included in the canon of Scripture from the fourth century, not to mention the fact that the early Church Fathers had used the Old Testament deuterocanonicals in their teachings, quoting them side by side with the canonicals as early as A.D.70. Eiriamach, I thank you too for the dialogue - my position hasn’t changed, maybe yours hasn’t either, but we have some food for thought! I do think, however, with all the talk we have done about history and tradition, it is worth bearing in mind the testimony of one of Church’s most famous converts from Anglicanism, Blessed John Henry Newman, who converted after long reflection and study having become convinced that (in his own words) one who goes deep into history ceases to be Protestant.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:40 PM EST
...Luther did, for example, when he put in the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3:28- the word "alone" does not appear in St Jerome's Latin text - an alteration which has changed the course of Christianity dramatically. Or how can we be sure that Christ actually said "it is better to give than to receive" as St Paul said in Acts 20:35 - Paul didn't know Christ, wasn't an eyewitness, and was therefore quoting someone who may have been quoting someone (etc. etc.) who was quoting Christ. Is it because we trust the Holy Spirit that we can take Paul at his word? Not to mention the fact that it was the bishops of the Church who, in the fourth century, decided which books would be included in the canon of Scripture- how can we be sure that it wasn’t vested interests which dictated what should be included and what should not? If it was vested interests which are responsible for Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition, the question must be asked - where was the Holy Spirit? Was Christ lying when He said that the Spirit would abide with the Church forever? Interestingly, it is only through trusting the Church, which survived and taught for four centuries through Sacred Tradition, can one know that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God...[continued]
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 08, 2010, 05:39 PM EST
But it [Sacred Tradition] was presumably ok for the early Christians who, for nearly four centuries, did not have the Bible as we have it today, since the canon of Scripture was not finally settled upon until the councils of Carthage and Hippo. The early Christians did not have the written Word to instruct them (apart from the Old Testament). What were they relying on? Preaching. And they could confidently rely on the teaching of the Church even before one word of the New Testament was written precisely because Christ had guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide them to speak the truth. St Paul exhorted people on a number of occasions to hold fast to the traditions that they have learned by word or letter (e.g. 2Tim 2:2, 2Th 2:15). Indeed, St Paul, in the former example, says that the faithful have been taught by him through many witnesses (St Paul himself was not a first-hand witness of the things which Christ said and did), so how can we be sure that these earliest Christians were not simply forwarding vested interests? Surely we can only know this through Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, if the Christian teaching was transmitted by men with vested interests which would not allow for the faithful transmission of Sacred Tradition, then surely the same argument can be made about Sacred Scripture: could the writers not put their own "spin" on things?...[continued]
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 08, 2010, 04:51 AM EST
I did answer the question. If you cannot show me where it is revealed, then you are asking me to trust 2,000 years' worth of memory, passed along from one male with a vested interest to another male with a vested interest in keeping the priesthood exclusive of people who are different from them. Why should I suspect that vested interests are at work? Look at what is happening today with refusals in RC and one group in AC to share the "authority" of the priesthood. Why would any rational person who can easily read the words of Christ as inclusive, not exclusive, believe that exclusion with such destructive results for the Body of Christ was Christ's intention? It simply does not add up. Exclusively-male authority has had its day and been found wanting. Can I be sure? No, and that's been my point--no mere mortal human being can have the kind of certainty you claim to have. To think you can know for sure is surely tempting; as Ernest Hemingway once said, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Nonetheless, this conversation has helped clarify, so it's been good. Thanks for the dialogue!
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 07, 2010, 06:13 PM EST
My fundamental question to you over the past few days was, how can you claim or be sure that Christ never mentioned such and such a thing? How are you arriving at this judgement? Is it because it is not mentioned in the Bible? And, if so, is that really a good enough reason? This is the fourth time I've put these questions to you; I'm not prepared to keep going round in circles with this, but I think it is an important question.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 10:22 AM EST
As for your question "How do you know...?" Surely you do not claim that Christ left secret unrecorded orders excluding some from the priesthood? You ask, "How can you be sure that it is human rules rather than authentic Christian teaching which 'have controlled access'? This "Christian teaching" just IS of human origin: you conflate "truth" with "authority," the authority of tradition or infallibility-- little difference. Call it faith, but realize it is faith in MEN. "To your point about schism: Anglicans have set up no "chair in opposition." Anglican hierarchy ends with bishops; decisions issue from the worldwide communion; Anglicans pray the Nicene Creed with a valid claim to apostolicity. Those who are leaving the AC or ECUSA for RC affiliation had not considered the ordination of women/gay males invalid; they had objected to conferring episcopal authority on them. Now they must label their own ordinations, along with those of female/gay colleagues, invalid until performed by Roman rite. Their trade-off for refusing to share authority with women is male authority adhering to a tradition that arrogantly considers itself unerring in truth. They must aver, falsely, they were never priests and that all sacraments they administered were invalid! But like Christ himself, Anglicans will watch them leave if they cannot deal with the identity of Christ in our time, in all its daunting homo/ hetero/ female/ male reality.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 07, 2010, 07:09 AM EST
You clearly misunderstand the meaning of Sacred Tradition - it is much more significant and reliable than you make out. Any chance you might answer my previous questions about how you can be so sure that Christ didn't say such and such a thing? Is "because it's not in the Bible" as good enough reason? Or how you can be so sure that it is the Church's position that is wrong and not that of the world? How do you know that the exodus to which you refer (in fact, the Church's membership as well as ordinations to the priesthood are consistently increasing worldwide) is as a result of the Church making mistakes and not the influence of the secular world which tells them (according to its fleeting trends) that the Church is outdated, behind the times, too restrictive? It comes back to the question, to what extent ought the Church change its teaching just to keep the people happy or because some find it hard to take. The Good Shepherd, as I noted earlier, cares so much for His sheep - would leave the ninety-nine to go after the one which is lost - yet those who reject Him and those whom He sent into the world, because they won't accept the truth (as in John 6), are allowed to stray from the fold; the Good Shepherd freely lets them go. Reading John 6, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Good Shepherd is not being true to His name like the psalm claims.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 02:18 AM EST
(Con'd) To claim otherwise is to dally with pride. Continuing dialogue might restore some sanity and credibility to Rome. As a conciliatory gesture, the Vatican could reopen the dialogue of ARCIC, on "reconciliation of ministries; the ordination of women; moral questions; continuing questions of authority, including . . . the role of the laity in decision-making within the Church" [Lambeth 1988]. But if it takes the line you lay out, the global results of the Anglican defections are greater polarization, disappearance of ecumenism, and politicization of religious sects. Christianity moves further from the "one" of the Creed and Christ's prayer. Reformist RCs suffer decisive setback. Those who crave the comfort of authoritative pronouncements are relieved of dealing with challenging questions; they become no less intolerant of ambiguity and struggle in the search for truth. One thing strikes me as most strange in all this: RC hierarchy seem content, even happy, to see the exodus of so many. That looks like an unholy happiness, directly contrary to the mission Christ bequeathed. To slow the exodus, they would need to take seriously the possibility that they have made mistakes, not only in handling abuse cases but also, for ex., in pronouncing women in "grave sin," excommunicated, for receiving the very same sacrament that confers on men the grace to call others together in Christ. (No doubt this was a sop to the defectors.)
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 07, 2010, 02:06 AM EST
Even if you could establish a history of consistent teaching on priesthood and social issues, finding such teaching right or wrong would still be a task of reason since blind obedience merits us nothing. And "We've always done it this way" is the least logical reason for continuing to do anything; it's a blunt rejection of the call to justify. So the existence of a tradition of teaching in itself is no reason to believe that the teaching is sufficient in truth. The ancients did not know HIV, nor did they have the means to prevent the suffering of a gravely handicapped newborn unable to assimilate nourishment, whose only destiny is slowly starving, screaming in pain, and instilling lifelong guilt in parents who, blindly obedient, knowingly brought such a pregnancy to term. Tradition unaided by facts and a reasoning approach to revelation yields no help for them. Your claim to an unerring tradition dichotomizes falsely: you construe my views as those of "the world" only because they differ from your tradition. I do not take my thinking about these matters from majority opinion. Matt. 10:26: "Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known." We may infer that before end times, we lack full revelation and perfect knowledge; thus we lack a basis for complete or definitive certainty in truth. Tradition has no special claim to trust. It's simply the position of greatest comfort.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:31 PM EST
...Or, as a final example among many, Optatus who, in A.D.367 wrote: "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner...Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church".
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:30 PM EST
...Also, the dogma of papal infallibility has nothing to do with this argument - again, the Early Church Fathers clearly held the belief of the primacy of Peter and his successors. Pope St Clement (the 3rd successor of St Peter) wrote in A.D. 95: "Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret...If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect". St Cyprian in A.D.251 wrote: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'...On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"...[continued]
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 05, 2010, 05:28 PM EST
Regarding my first point and your response to it - I ask again, how do you know that "Christ gave no such warrant"? Because Scripture doesn't record it? Is that a good enough basis? Where does Scripture say of itself that it is the sole rule of faith? Where does it say that everything that Christ said and did is contained therein? How can you be sure that it is human rules rather than authentic Christian teaching which "have controlled access"? Regarding my second point and your response to it - how do you, as I asked earlier, know that it is the Church's position on abortion, contraception, marriage which is wrong and not the world's? If you look into the teachings of the Early Church Fathers you will find that the Church is teaching what they taught, and what they taught came directly from the Apostles, to whom the Father sent the Holy Spirit to guide in the truth always, not just for one or two centuries. So there most certainly is a divine warrant for the Church's teachings, as there is a divine warrant and obligation on the Church not to change its teachings just because the world says they're wrong. Regarding my third question and your response to it - if, as you claim, I have reduced truth to authority (which I don't really accept), then it can only be because my authority and that of the Church is Christ, Who is Truth...[continued]
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 05, 2010, 09:12 AM EST
1) Nowhere in scripture is it recorded that Christ decreed exclusions from the priesthood. Human rules have controlled access, and these have varied greatly by era and locale.
2) "The Word is the same yesterday, today, and forever," yes, but human minds limit the meanings of The Word. Recent interpretation has founded doctrines about sexuality and intimate relationships -- abortion, contraception, male-female-only unions, etc. These are recent, not ancient as you claim--little more than a century's worth, not 2000 years'. Where is the divine warrant for such judgments and rules? And when they prove injurious to human development and the social fabric, have you nothing but "authority" to assert in their defense? "Authority" does not mean "truth." Claims to authority are paltry substitutes when reason fails to win the consent of reasonable people. Have the one-third leaving the RC Church today hardened their hearts against truth? No, they are in search of it. We turn to God not as priests, bishops, and popes with special access, but in the full garb of our questioning humanity, and it is our answering to each other that stands the audit, our willingness to engage in the dialogue, not our obedience to a human interpretation under the aegis of "authority."
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 05, 2010, 08:57 AM EST
3)No, change no teaching simply because some find it difficult or detestable. (Your example of the Eucharist, however, poses no doctrinal disparity between RC and Anglican minds--see Lambeth on this point.) Open a discussion with those who question whether you have too hastily limited your understanding of "truth" as it pertains to human nature and social relations. You might learn, as suggested earlier, some of Christ's truth in dialogue with witnesses on the outside. There is a way back from the dark cellar that the doctrine of papal infallibility has driven RC clergy into on such matters, if they can transcend the Thomistic mold and re-examine the meaning of "truth" in light of post-medieval understandings of how language works ("I see now as through a glass darkly," not perfectly). You have reduced "truth" to "authority," and as a result cannot grasp the meaning of the Word as it lives and offers itself ever anew to the world's questions and problems. You've made it a dead letter and given it a fundamentalist reading. Sure, what's dead cannot change, but that's not the sense of "unchanging" that Christ had in mind, is it?
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
Report abuse