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.
