Steve Kellmeyer of The Fifth Column has written a post called Condom Use Is Moral? But he misses the mark in his rebuttal of an Opus Dei priest’s article. Kellmeyer thinks that any use of a condom constitutes prevention of procreation, even when two males engage in sexual acts. Really? So there is some possibility of a man conceiving a child with another man if they don’t use a condom to prevent it? He misinterprets the Pope’s condom comments and makes the claim that Pope Benedict stated that a “good” was occurring when the Pope said "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” I would love to know what kind of magic telekinesis punditry he uses to get condom use is “good” out of the Holy Father’s comments? Then, he does a major twist, reverses course, contradicts himself and responds to my comment:
"Does a "first step in the direction of moralization" really constitute a "good"? Does recognition of a moral responsibility really mean that a person is cooperating in a "good act"?
With:
“In both cases the actor is cooperating with grace.”
Here is the whole exchange below:
7:49 AM, December 09, 2010
Teresa said...
Since the Holy Father didn't say that the "use" of the condom was a "good" but rather that it was a lesser evil and a recognition of a moral responsibility to prevent another individual from getting HIV I don't see how that departs from previous Church Teachings. It's not like two homosexuals can procreate so by using the condoms they wouldn't be preventing procreation. I am not saying either act or the use of condoms is good but rather that the condom would be preventing a greater evil from occurring.
Okay, what about when a "contraceptive pill" is used for a disease such as endometriosis? Since the "pill" is normally used as a contraceptive wouldn't that be a similar scenario as the Pope's condom scenario?
5:54 PM, December 09, 2010
Steve Kellmeyer said...
The Holy Father did indeed say the use of a condom was a good, in the sense that, if the user had the right intent, it moved the user towards the good.
The use of the pill for endometriosis is a different situation since there it is not necessarily the case that the woman using it is having sex at all. However, in order for the condom to be effective for reducing disease transmission, it must be used during the sexual encounter.
Thus, the use of a condom necessarily entails a sexual aspect that the use of the pill for endometriosis does not necessarily entail.
6:34 PM, December 09, 2010
Teresa said...
The Pope said: "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Pope Benedict says “may” and not “is”. Then, Pope Benedict goes on to reiterate that “it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”
Where did Pope Benedict say that the condom use is a good?
6:50 PM, December 09, 2010
Steve Kellmeyer said...
"Good" equals "this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility."
If you don't agree that these things are good, then you're right, he didn't. But if you do, then he did.
6:53 PM, December 09, 2010
Teresa said...
Does a "first step in the direction of moralization" really constitute a "good"? Does recognition of a moral responsibility really mean that a person is cooperating in a "good act"? This is not stating that the person has come full circle and is taking part in a moral or a "good" act but rather is accepting some responsibility for his bad actions which may lead the person to form a better conscience and make a good decision in the future to avoid engaging in sex altogether.
Two homosexuals engaging in sex without the use of condoms is an immoral act. Two homosexuals engaging in sex while using condoms is an immoral act. Two homosexuals engaging in sex when one has HIV is an immoral act. Two homosexuals engaging in sex when one person has HIV and uses a condom is an immoral act but the preventative measure used so that the other partner doesn't get HIV is better than not using a condom.
Better does not mean "good".
7:27 PM, December 09, 2010
Steve Kellmeyer said...
"Does a "first step in the direction of moralization" really constitute a "good"? Does recognition of a moral responsibility really mean that a person is cooperating in a "good act"
In both cases the actor is cooperating with grace.
Again, if you think cooperation with grace is not a good, then you're right about what the Pope said.
On the other hand, if you DO think cooperation with grace is a good, then you're wrong about what the Pope said.
7:31 PM, December 09, 2010
Teresa said...
How could two people committing sodomy be cooperating with grace?
The Pope never said that the use of the condom in this instance involved the cooperation with grace.
So if Mr. Kellmeyer’s interpretation of the what the pope said is sound, that would mean that the pope believes that the male prostitute who commits sodomy with a condom on in order to lessen the risk of HIV transmission is “cooperating with grace”. Is that a fair, let alone charitable, reading the pope’s remarks?
That’s not the only off the wall thing he said in the comment section of his blog post. He also said that “rape is morally superior to sodomy”. In all fairness, the context of the remark makes a charitable reading of it possible: he might not be making a general statement about rape, but referring to a specific instance. He says this right on the heels of an analogy between a rapist intentionally trying to beget a child on a woman by force and a sodomite using a condom on a willing partner to prevent disease. He may not be passing that bizarre judgement on all rape. But even when exercising the sort of charitable judgement on Steve’s words that Steve so rarely exercises in his evaluation of others’ words (even those of the Pope!), the statement about the specific case still seems quite outrageous.
5 comments:
Thanks for the attempt at analysis, but I do NOT think condom use between homosexuals is contraceptive.
If you'd bother to read any of the other articles on the subject, you would have noticed that I was just about the first one to point out that the Pope's comments will work only if you consider the male prostitute to be servicing another male. In that case, there is ONLY disease-prevention to consider, not contraception, and the Pope's comments make some level of sense.
The problem is, in his initial comments, the Pope spoke about the USE of the condom being a movement towards the good (not the intent - he only made that amendment on the follow-up question) and the clarification by Fr. Lombardi demonstrated that he was willing to extend his remarks to ANY sexual encounter, heterosexual or homosexual.
Now, if we consider the use of the condom in a HETEROSEXUAL encounter, then the intent to reduce the spread of disease is a much lesser good than the willingness to accept the procreation of a new human being. So, in a heterosexual encounter, choosing to prevent the spread of disease is simultaneous with and identical to choosing to contracept - you are simultaneously choosing both a lesser good and a mortal sin.
How any private theologian figures this to be a "movement towards the good" has never been explained. Furthermore, any attempt to characterize the condomized act within marriage as a marital act is a violation of Magisterial teaching, as I pointed out to Jimmy Akin on two different occasions, and as the Opus Dei priest in question even admitted when he pointed out that his own interpretation is in conflict with the ancient teachings of the Church and canon law.
As for rape being superior to sodomy, that's correct. It is. If you don't like that, take it up with Thomas Aquinas, since I'm merely echoing the Summa.
Rape is at least ordered towards nature.
Sodomy is not.
If you find what was said "off the wall" then I ask you to demonstrate where what I've said is out of step with the Magisterium.
If you can't do that, then you are in error.
@Steve
Logically, the moment you recognize the moral superiority (lesser turpitude) of one sin in comparison to another, as you do when you compare rape to sodomy, you are by definition recognizing that when someone consciously chooses a sin with lesser evil, he is making a choice that is morally superior to a choice for a greater evil. A conscious choice of a lesser sin over a greater sin to which one has been inclined in the past is therefore, in a very trivial, but logically necessary sense, a movement toward the good. But it is not a good choice. Moving toward something is not the same as being there. The pope’s remarks need not imply anything other than that very trivial movement, which I would hardly wish to characterize as a cooperation with grace in any meaningful sense, since clearly the lesser evil, the sin mixed with the concern to prevent disease transmission, is still a sin. There is a sense in which, as the saying goes, “EVERYTHING is a grace” - that is not a very meaningful sense of the word to apply to an argument about the term. I don’t see the pope affirming that either. That is your interpretation, and if there is a more charitable interpretation of his words, even when they are off-the-cuff remarks and not doctrinal statements, shouldn’t we be using that one instead of an interpretation that attributes a serious error to His Holiness’ prudential judgment?
As for taking something up with the Angelic Doctor, I do not see any serious problem with doing so when necessary. Neither, I think, would he. It’s not like he was right about everything. He was not always right about the Immaculate Conception. His strict Aristotelian position on when human life begins is open to serious doubt. He had a noticeable blind spot, at times, when it came to valuing women. This is one of those times. All other things being equal, sexual sins which directly violate nature are clearly worse than ones that do not (it is significant that an argument could be made, from Thomistic principles, that masturbation, as a species of sodomy, is also worse than rape - an argument I would reject out of hand as absurd) . But it is a very significant violation of the natural law as well as the personal dignity owed to one who is made in the image and likeness of God, to commit rape. THAT violation of nature is not trivial. Rape is one of the gravest violations of neighborly love possible. Consensual sodomy is not nearly so grave a violation of neighborly love as rape. I do not see Aquinas’ argument here as unrelated to his insistence that females bear the image of God in a lesser sense than do men because men are allegedly more rational. With respect, I must differ with the Common Doctor there. Men and women do not typically reason in exactly the same way, but women are not less rational by nature. Aquinas deserves some credit for being more open to the value of woman than Augustine, but more progress was needed and has, thank God, been accomplished since St. Thomas’ day!
Ok, so moving towards the good is not a good choice. I don't see how you get to that conclusion and remain Catholic.
Stop with the stupid comments about Thomas and the Immaculate Conception. It's a canard, a falsehood, a lie. Thomas agreed that if the Virgin Mary had a human soul from the moment of conception, then she would have been immaculate from the moment of conception.
The fact that you reject Thomas' argument about the relative merits of masturbation "out of hand" merely demonstrates something about you. It says nothing at all about the merits of Thomas' argument.
The Summa was enthroned on the altar with the Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent. Nothing you write will be enthroned anywhere (outside of, perhaps, a bathroom).
You don't present any arguments from the Magisterium. I have. You seem to think your opinions are as valid as anything the Magisterium has to say.
Consequently, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.
That is good, because you are a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal at best. This latest set of comments are in line with your other comments and the one post over at your blog,The Fifth Column, which were uncharitable. Your accusatory bullying nature is unbecoming of a Catholic who is in the public eye. If you don't want to be thought of as uncharitable and a misguided individual when attempting to analyize a priest's opinion then don't do a pitiful job of it and don't make remarks consistent with nonsensical tripe even in one of your blog comments or postings. Don't kid yourself and your male ego and put everything that you think is true up on a pedistal just because you may be a "theologian" and you say so. I follow Church Teachings, humbly follow Christ. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so have fun treating people like crap with your know-it-all pride. Go ahead and live in your world of ignorance and deception, in thinking your always right. It's a sad state of affairs when a so called "theologian" or "apologist" can't even recognize "going in the direction of the good" does not necessarily constitute a non-trivial good in itself and confuses that with the fact that moving toward a good is referring to different levels of sin or evil.
Your inability to see a distinction between moving toward a direction and being at the destination is mere blindness and may be innocent ignorance. Your inability to see how someone who can discern such a distinction can "remain Catholic" is not only culpably uncharitable toward me, it has rather disturbing implications when applied to the Pope, since I was defending his remarks from you, you may recall. But more disturbing is your consistent demonstration of a serious lack of charity. Calling my comments about Thomas and the Immaculate Conception "stupid" while offering a non sequitur defense of that error as being consistent with his other famous already mentioned error (denying zygotic ensoulment), making puerile innuendo about masturbation in response to a position that is not only moral common sense which only a moral idiot would dispute, but is consistent with Church teaching about it as presented in the Catechism (a hotbed of heresy in your eye, I don't doubt!). It is ridiculous to compare the Summa to my blog. The Summa deserves all the honor it was given, but it is not inerrant, and St. Thomas Aquinas was not infallible. St. Thomas himself, who I revere, would rebuke you for making an idol of him. You usually won't go wrong in consulting him, as so much of what the Magisterium later defined officially as dogma comes directly from his work, but he is not the Magisterium.
Kellmeyer is such a buffoon. Does anyone invite him to come speak anymore?
Post a Comment