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
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- 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
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
eiriamach | Dec 04, 2010, 05:38 PM EST
When a NY Times reporter asked Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori what led her parents to convert from Roman Catholicism, she replied, "It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged" (11/19/06). I have a similar yearning as I read your replies to my request for a justification: that's just what RC doctrine is, you say, and those who question it simply do not belong. I note that you avoid construing the pope's exclusion of women and gay priests as in accord with Christ's truth. Rightly so, since Christ gave no such warrant. I understand "truth" as a living entity, whose meaning a human mind may grasp tentatively through dialogue and the seminal power of language, rather than as a dead letter whose meaning is forever delimited by human pronouncement. Trust, like truth, also arises in "wrestling with questions." How can a person of tolerance whose understanding of truth is tentative and dialogical trust an all-male group to have a divine sanction for excluding those who do not share their gender/alleged sexuality? If Christ were here in the flesh, I believe he would drive them out faster than He drove out the moneychangers from the temple.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 03, 2010, 07:15 PM EST
The invitation the Pope issued is not at all the same scenario as when Anglicans converted in the past. This is not just about converting to Catholicism, but it is about the setting up of an Anglican Ordinariate within the Church, so it is most appropriate that Pope Benedict issued such an invitation. Next, where does Anglicanorum Coetibus mention gender and sexual orientation? Nowhere - it mentions that all moves towards an Anglican Ordinariate, as I said earlier, must comply with Canon Law and the affirmation that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith. Granted, that infers that only males can be ordained Catholic priests, as has always been the case, but it raises the question again, to what point do you expect the Church to be inclusive? Because what you seem to believe to be inclusion is only an illusion if it comes at the expense of Christian truth. Also, the prayer "that they may be one", how did Christ envisage that they would be one? They would be one when they believe in Christ through the Word brought to them by the Apostles and their successors, who are consecrated in the truth. We are one only in an authentic following of Christ, not through an attitude of "whatever you're having yourself". And I would repeat just what I said earlier: why would one decide to join the Catholic Church if they are not prepared to accept its teachings? Presumably, one decides to join the Catholic Church because they believe that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it teaches the truth. Conversely, if one does not like, accept, or believe what the Church is teaching anyway, why would they want to join it or, again, why should they expect the Church to be inclusive at the expense of Christian truth, just so they may be accepted?
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 03, 2010, 02:56 PM EST
Again, the pope issued the invitation. The Anglicans did not "decide to join" and then propose an Anglican ordinariate to the pope. While individuals may have knocked at the door in the past, historically, these cases have been handled individually. The invitation came on papal initiative. So the question is quite properly laid at the door of the Vatican: why did Benedict preselect on the basis of gender and sexual orientation rather than, for example, on the basis of ability and desire to serve Christ? Christ issued no call to teaching and ministry "to heterosexual males only--no others need apply." He shed His blood for all and included all in the "oneness" that he prayed for His church to sustain. The contrast between Christ's approach and Benedict's is striking, and it's up to Benedict and his colleagues, not the ranks of the excluded, to justify the exclusion. It seems to us on the outside that Benedict intended the consolidation of conservative political alliances against the expanding social and legal equality of LGBTs and women, rather than a wider sharing of Christ's truth. What truth of Christ's requires such exclusions, and what purpose could justify fulfilling the desires of some precisely BY explicitly rejecting others?
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 03, 2010, 07:55 AM EST
You claim that "Anglicanorum Coetibus" was actually an exercise in rejection. This is not the case - why do you have such a problem with those who wish to be Catholic having to accept the central teachings of the Catholic Church - that is what "Anglicanorum Coetibus" requires, and it is hardly too much to expect for an aspiring Catholic to actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Everything in relation to "Anglicanorum Coetibus" will take place within the norms of Canon Law, and there must be a profession that "the Catechism of the Catholic is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith" (A.C.1:5). So, surely the question arises- why would one decide to join the Catholic Church if they are not prepared to accept its teachings? Presumably, one decides to join the Catholic Church because they believe that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it teaches the truth. Conversely, if one does not like, accept, or believe what the Church is teaching anyway, why would they want to join it or, again, why should they expect the Church to be inclusive at the expense of Christian truth, just so they may be accepted?
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 02, 2010, 07:53 PM EST
You write, "For those who claim to follow Christ, being inclusive is worthless if it comes at the expense of Christian truth." Including is an act of the will. An inclusive person does not first demand that the other conform with his or her limited understanding of truth. If we are all one in Christ ("neither male nor female, neither Jew Gentile"), then some of Christ's truth may be found in turning to each other in mutual openness. Christ allowed those who could not deal with his identity, his truth, to walk away, yes, but in October 2009, when the pope extended an invitation to Anglican clergy, he did not patiently endure rejection; he practiced rejection by identifying narrowly those he deemed worthy of inclusion: heterosexual males only. What "Christian truth" was he defending in his exclusive invitation, which contributed to the disparagement of gay youth, who need affiliation and acceptance, and of women, whom Christ called to serve no less fully than men?
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 02, 2010, 11:13 AM EST
I think you ought to look at what the Church teaches about homosexuals and homosexual acts. People often point to Christ as the perfect example of an inclusive person, but He was never inclusive at the expense of the truth (look at John 6, for example, where certain disciples didn't like what he was teaching: Christ let them walk away, even though He was telling them how they could gain eternal life). The Church, likewise, and contrary to what you seem to think, teaches that all persons must be treated with compassion, respect and sensitivity - the person and the acts which a person may choose to engage in are two different matters, and the Church makes this distinction. So, do you expect the Church to be inclusive even for all those who blatantly reject the Word of God that the Church has taught for two thousand years, or is the Church better off doing for the world what Christ Himself charged it with doing: preaching the Word of God to the ends of the earth. For those who claim to follow Christ, being inclusive is worthless if it comes at the expense of Christian truth.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 02, 2010, 07:37 AM EST
No, it's not the lesser of two evils. It's a positive good in itself though not a "good" you can approve of. Gays are human beings of full moral worth, equal to that of any other human being. As such, they are fully capable of moral agency. You may exclude them from your church and priesthood, but Christ loves them, and they contribute love, faithfulness, concern for others, and the work of God in this world. If they choose to remain celibate, their celibacy is not worth less than that of a heterosexual. Like everyone they benefit from association with others trying to do the same. If your church cannot be inclusive, it may as well stay on the path the bishops have chosen toward becoming another conservative partisan political lobbying group (lobbying against anti- discrimination laws to protect LGBTs, for example) so that no one suffers from the delusion that RC offers resources for the life of the spirit.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 02, 2010, 06:54 AM EST
So, if it's the lesser of two evils it's ok?
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 09:58 PM EST
Oh, let me hasten to add that I'm not a Kantian either. I offered a Kantian principle of moral reasoning simply to demonstrate that I am no relativist. There's more than one path to doing the right thing, but all paths require taking on the responsibility for thinking the choice through and never simply trusting someone else to do our thinking for us.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 09:46 PM EST
Carroll09, you argue an "either/or" fallacy: either I agree with your view of morality, or I am a moral relativist. But I neither agree with your position, nor am I a relativist. Also, I agree that "the world does not decide" whether Catholic teachings are right or wrong. We don't decide what's right by taking a vote. Lacking a divine voice in our age, we rely on our observations and reasoning, objective standards such as natural law and the living Word. If we fail to use these, both to arrive at moral judgments AND to decide who--if anyone--is an "authority" on such matters, we fail as moral beings. Matters of morality are not primarily matters of "truth." They are decisions. We decide which values and behaviors to embrace and which to reject, and we decide which truths, i.e., facts, are relevant to those decisions. In that process, it may be comforting to think that Christ gave one Church special dibs on "truth," but on my reading, Christ expected us all, including LGBTs, to make responsible choices. The sex worker who adopts Kant's principle and decides to treat others as ends in themselves, not only as means to his own ends, makes a moral choice in protecting his clients. Maybe that's not quite common sense, but it is good sense, and I trust that Christ would not reject it.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Dec 01, 2010, 04:20 PM EST
Perhaps I should clarify: I did not mean concerned as in worried, but rather with reference to the point of view of your argument. This teaching does not defy common sense about morality - maybe it defies what the world might call common sense or a moral choice. But the world does not decide that the Church is wrong, because Christ, not the world, is the Church's moral standard - measuring up solely to the world's values only leads to moral relativism, which is precisely why there is so much opposition in the secular world to the moral teachings of the Church. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, I want an authority that is right, not when the world is right, but which is right when the world is wrong. That authority is the Catholic Church - that does not mean believing everything blindly, and I certainly don't; so, yes, pause and think - but also trust that Christ was telling the truth when He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to teach truth always.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Dec 01, 2010, 07:12 AM EST
Carroll09, you're mistaken; I am concerned with Catholic moral teaching, which has had a devastating impact on the working classes of the US and which may well be the undoing of the nation if Catholics continue to cast votes out of obedience to their prelates. Freedom is not only at the center of the American system; it is also essential to moral right or wrong. When one is coerced by law to do X or not to do X, there is no moral praise in doing or not doing X and no blame because there is no freedom to choose. That's the problem with any system controlled by any church teachings. No intention matters when the force of law constrains the action. Such a nation does not become more moral or virtuous. On the contrary, people lose their capacity to make moral choices and the clergy becomes inordinately powerful. Ireland has found itself in this situation more than once in its history. So whenever Catholic teaching defies common sense about morality, as it does in this case, I ask us to pause and do some thinking.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Nov 29, 2010, 05:45 PM EST
Eiriamach- you are obviously not concerned with Catholic moral teaching, but that is the point of view with which I am approaching this subject, and I respect the teaching of the Church on such matters. The Church still teaches, despite what some in the media would like us to think, that condoms or other forms of artificial contraception are not morally permissible, and thus (as Pope Benedict said) cannot be regarded as a real or moral solution to the AIDS problem. Having a good intention when doing something does not mean that the act itself is morally justifiable.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Nov 29, 2010, 03:03 PM EST
Hairsplitting, Carroll09: yes, we all know that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions," but the sex worker's taking responsibility is not in that category of self-delusion. It is not a case of intending to do good and causing harm instead. Anyone who, consciously and deliberately, takes steps to protect another person from harm that he or she may inflict acts rightly, justly, honorably, responsibly, morally. Using a condom is a responsible action whenever an undesirable pregnancy or a transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is possible. Intention has much to do with it. If a rapist uses a condom simply to avoid leaving DNA that will put police on the path to arresting him, he takes a self-interested decision which only unintentionally helps his victim (if the victim survives the rape--many do not). But deliberately taking a precaution to protect another--this is certainly not immoral, nor is it morally neutral. It's simply the right thing to do, whatever the relationship or absence of relationship the person has.
Report abuse
Report abuse