AmericanPapist Comments
There's a problem here, Thomas. If the pope truly means everything, then he is including condoms. I have the sneaking suspicion that there will be an official clarification later on regarding permission for the use of condoms.
The Pope doesn't have to explicitly qualify his statement to exclude immoral means. That's presumed. For instance, it is not permitted to prevent HIV/AIDS by shooting people who might spread the disease. That would, technically, fight the spread of the disease, but would be immoral for separate reasons. The use of condoms, in many of the situations in which they are currently being used, the Church teaches, is wrong.
Hi Thomas:
I agree that it shouldn't need to be said. I also presume he is not including using condoms. But I've simply heard far too many progressives justify too many things. I can just picture it now where folks will say that condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS is ok. I hope I am wrong.
I see your point Kim. I remember on another blog a poster took the news item (which was pure rumor mind you) that B16 was making a commission to look into permitting condoms for married couples with AIDS. Not only did she claim that there was a commission (possible), but that it's subject was the serious consideration of liberalizing on condoms (dubious), and that the conclusion that condoms were acceptable in this case was already made and we were just waiting for its release (laughable). So yeah, I agree so people can run away with this.
But on the other hand, if the pope had to spin-proof every word he said, he would never be able to lift his head from his desk.
Does the issue with what Reuters reported involve them getting their facts wrong or simply the "tone" of the reporting? Seems to me to be a pretty straightforward snip of reporting.
Commenting by HaloScan
