What did the Pope really say?

Bring back Sir Humphrey, at least he was a straight talker !!

I am not here to take cheap and cynical pot shots at the Catholic Church. Although I am not a Catholic I respect quite a lot of what that church stands for.

However, I do wonder whether Christian morality should really be so prescriptive, as seems to be the case with this teaching on the use of condoms. The Bible, in my view, presents many moral conundrums (e.g. Rahab being praised twice in the New Testament for her good work, and yet a bare-faced lie was an intrinsic and necessary part of that work). Shouldn't a key part of moral teaching be aimed at encouraging Christians to think for themselves? And this is especially true when it concerns something as personal as sex.

I am reminded of the following verse from the Psalms:

"Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you." Psalm 32:9

I find the whole issue of the use of condoms a matter of debate, and each of us, as Christians, has to work through these kinds of issues with our own (spiritually enlightened) understanding of the general teaching of the Bible.

Or is this just a typical Protestant way of seeing things? If so, then I would be interested to know how Catholics interpret Psalm 32:9, which clearly talks about having a personal understanding, rather than simply being dragged along by the reins of external authority.

Or maybe the Pope's recent comment is a recognition of the truth expressed in Psalm 32:9? If so, how much moral latitude are Catholics really being granted?

William

I think the scenarios you give are faulty. The sexual equivalent of someone robbing a bank would be someone raping another, not merely having sex with another.

Possibly, Will, I just think that if the distiction is to be relevant, surely the analogies should be equivalent, no?

This is all smoke and mirrors. Catholic Church teaching will still do nothing to reduce the large number of children born with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

On a related note, has the Pope said anything recently about the perforated condom (canonical condom) that Richard Holloway has written about? I forget the details, but where a man's sperm is required by medical staff to assist with making his partner pregnant this condom apparently gets around some theological considerations. Sperm obtained from this sort of condom is fine, but sperm obtained from an ordinary condom, or other means, is not.

LSV
"Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you." Psalm 32:9

I must take issue with you on this point and refer you to numbers 22:28-30 when the beast in question is more than understanding and actually expresses his point quite well.

So while the Pope inches agonisingly from his churches stated position,and people try and translate what he actually means, untold damage is done to real human beings throughout the world. Thats immoral you know.

This is the most accurate article I have read so far on this issue. Thank you for looking at the facts and for not believing the hype.

At least Sir Humphrey could muster a cogent argument that didn't contradict itself (until later on when policy changed..!). What was refreshing about Sir Humphrey was his open display of and rejoicing in his ultimate loyalty to his organisation (the civil service) and the moral flexibility inherent in doing his job to the best of his ability. But then, if we could see in through the fourth wall of the Vatican the way we saw into the Department of Administrative Affairs, do we really think the level of media management or the prevalence of self-satisfaction would be any different?

The comparison is a relevant one. Sir Humphrey and Bernard teach the minister to separate public declaration from private policy from public declaration, and to remain vague on issues of contention in order to garner tacit support from both sides of the debate. This is precisely what's going on here. The attempt to assess the moral implications of such a carefully worded and easily misinterpret-able statement distracts from the political skill necessarily displayed in its construction.

The liberal wing of the Church will be able to infer progress in the debate from the softening of rhetoric. They will hope for more progress, and will be encouraged to maintain loyalty as a result.

The fundamentalists will be able to (more correctly) grasp the true implications, which are that policy has not changed. Way to build a coalition!

By contrast, the Anglicans will suffer schism as a result of their encouragement of public theological debate. Which goes to show that democracy is no way to maintain unity; strict internal discipline serves the stated Catholic priority of unity much better. Of course, there may be a moral cost involved, but of course, the Catholic Church won't worry about that because they reserve moral judgement for people who are high enough up the hierarchy as to be aware and supportive of the overriding priority of unity.

I think what you are saying Will is that if the robber was to use a plastic gun because he believed that, if the case where the robbery went belly up, no one would be harmed (as opposed to using it because he could't get a real one) is the pope saying that that good intention, while not mitigating the crime, is in some way a movement along a moral continuum in a positive direction and so has some value in that persons development.

Personally I think that understanding is clutching at straws (by the Pope I mean) and seems almost like trying to find the act which is seen as immoral by most people and suggesting the most restrictive use of condoms in order to be able to defend against the accusation that the pope bans all condom use. Either he is being cynical or I am and I know which one my money is on.

I wonder what the answer from the Vatican would be if some one invented a cheap pill which stopped the HIV Virus from being transmitted (at least as well as condoms do) during sex but did not prevent contraception. Would it treat the pill the same as a condom as currently the condom use is banned whether procreation is possible or not (except now by male and female prostitutes). The pill has the same impact on the promotion (or not) of sinful acts as condoms as it is the freedom the risk reduction gives which is the Vatican's stated objection to their use.

If the answer is yes, then it would be obvious that the Vatican is using the risk of infection purely as a social engineering tool. If the answer is no then there should be a much wider group of people than prostitutes automatically and without added sin able to avail of condoms.


Hepatitis B is spread the same way as HIV but a vaccine is used to prevent infection, does the pope oppose it's use on the basis that the way to combat the disease is by morals and abstinence and that the use of the vaccine increases sinful activity and infection rates ?


What if someone invented a cheap and simple cure, would it be restricted in order not to promote sinful acts?

Does the Vatican oppose needle exchange schemes which make it safer for intravenous drug users to engage in their self harming activity on the basis that the risk reduction promotes the activity.


Is it morally defensible to expose people, or restrict availability of protection simply to try and socially engineer set of morals on them based on a set of beliefs they may not subscribe to?

If the pope had the power he used to have in Ireland, would he have ensured that condoms were not available in Ireland to anyone (regardless of their beliefs unless you went to Trinity) and allowed HIV free run ?

There is a mass on inconsistency in the Popes approach to theses things which seems to be bound up with the RC church not really understanding people, sexuality, sex and peoples approach to living in the real world and their approach to risk. They may understand their bible, but that has little to do with reality today.

Lots of questions.

Phew! now I sound like Sir Humphrey.

So in other words William is now saying precisely what I said last week when I used the analogy of the bomb warning. Would have been better, William, if you hadn't headlined "Pope says condoms can be used in the fight againts Aids" last week.

I've discovered during my time on this blog that very few people seem to understand the concept of analogy.

It's not that they don't understand analogy. It's that attacking the analogy is often easier than engaging with the criticisms being raised by it, and often serve as a useful distraction when the heat is on. Or as the superspy hero Archer once called it, 'Classic misdirection!'

William

I do understand your point. I simply think that a better analogy would have been rape, not consensual sex between two adults which, as you say, the Pope regards as a grave sin (outside marriage) but which many others would not consider wrong.

One is a criminal act,(robbing a bank) the other isnt. (What was in my mind was the Church's recent putting together of child abuse and the ordination of women.)

However, as I say, I do take your point on the lesser of two evils.

So Mccamley, you're avowing celibacy as the only recourse for someone who has Hiv/Aids, rather than using a condom then? Maybe you could teach Priests a thing or 2 about analogy. Some seem to be getting their analogies in a twist. They think it's ok to indulge in sex, murder and paedophilia. It seems many Priests and others in the Church heirachy pay scant regard to doctrine or what the Pope says - his words are castrated by the very actions of those who represent him.

With each passing year the Popes influence in the real world (outside of the Catholic Church) diminishes. He's seen as a curiousity, perhaps like a rude great aunt or uncle by many & the media.

To tackle the subject of condoms by highlighting Prostitution shows the Pope is shackled by his own dogma and the mindsets of many in the Church which are firmly in the gutter. What about couples, all around the world, who are serodiscordant. Or the use of condoms as- wait for it- contraception ,to those in parts of the world who are so poor they and their environment can't support another mouth to feed.

The way Will uses a criminal act as his analogy serves as an oblique reminder of how far the Catholic Church's teachings are from the morality which underpins the legal systems in place today.

Jellybean - how dare you use "child abuse" and "ordination of women" in the same sentence - are you saying they are the same thing? How offensive to women. How insensitive? See what I did there.

One of the "consenting adults" you mention was a prostitute which is illegal in most jurisdictions. But again, analogy relies on the concept you are trying to compare - not the similarities of the bits and pieces in the story.

Ryan - you do understand this was an interview with a journalist over several hundred pages - the Pope wasn't "tackling an issue", he wasn't issuing an encyclical, he was discussing something, the same way we do here. Very few of us would takew what we say here and present it as a manifesto. We discuss the issues that William raises.

That's a bit snarky and personal - I'm quite able to help myself - just don't chose to. I accept your point that the article was more nuanced but the headline wasn't and headlines convey a lot. "Obama proved to be a muslim" headline turns into a quote from some crazy red-neck but people remember the headline.

But lots of good points for coming back to the story and understanding it.

Of course the point that needs to be made over and over again is that the pope is operating off some grossly absurd premises. Condom use, contraception etc can only be regarded as "sins" if your theology itself is nothing short of *stupid*.

Mcc,

As the resident supporter of the current view on doctrine from the Vatican, can you give me an official answer on some of the questions I posed on post #12,

Thanks.

Mcc,

You said,

Jellybean - how dare you use "child abuse" and "ordination of women" in the same sentence - are you saying they are the same thing?

If that is the case why does the catholic church, and other churches, keep using homosexuality and child abuse/bestiality etc in the same sentences?

Sorry to stack up the questions on you Mcc, maybe Pastorphilip could help you out ?

Helio -

"Of course the point that needs to be made over and over again..."

No it doesn't! It needs to be made over and over and over and over and over and over ... again...

Just keep going. Don't stop!!

If you stop then people might start asking where your evidence is. But if you keep up the appearance of movement, you might continue to con people into thinking that you know what you're talking about.

That's my advice to you, pal. Keep it up. It's all good fun watching you running around (in circles). ;-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

William

I did logic, philosophy and morality. I understand your point - for the third time.

Analogy - a similarity between like features of two things.

Sex between two people and robbing a bank was a bad analogy to use, albeit you made your point. Underlying all of this discussion is the feeling - expressed by others on here - that the Catholic Church has a woeful attitude towards human sexuality. Sex is BAD.

You reinforced that attitude, albeit unintentionally, by the analogy you chose to use. I am simply saying that a better analogy, a more accurate analogy, would have been to use the case of rape.

Heliopolitan claims, in effect, that Catholic theology is "stupid" - but Pope Benedict XVI has an intellect as powerful as any human who has ever lived. Before he became Pope, one of the other Cardinals said of him that "he has the brain of twelve professors".

Theophane,

Did they say where he keeps them?

William

Dont know if you read this, and I'm not a great fan of Mr Allen, but his opinion on the background to all of this re relations between the Vatican and the Media, is interesting.

https://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/defense-l%E2%80%99osservatore-romano

Will: In regards to "your" anaology, can you give credit to Dr. Janet E. Smith as it's actually her anaology?

With reference to Natman, thankfully we can rest assured that Pope Benedict has a sense of humour. He once cited our very own G.K. Chesterton, that "the angels can fly because they don't take themselves too seriously. Maybe we could fly a little bit, too, if we didn't think we were so important".

Thank you William Crawley for your helpful contribution, though might it be worth quoting part of the Vatican's clarification:
Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution that clarifies and deepens a long-debated question. It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refusing an illusory path like “faith in condoms”; on the other hand, however, it shows a sympathetic and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering small steps — even if they are only initial and still confused — of a humanity that is often spiritually and culturally impoverished, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.

LOL @ Theophane & Natman. Yes, very bright indeed. Not at all affected by his upbringing in the Weimar Republic and then as a young Nazi.He's certainly learnt a great deal from his childhood leader, Adolf:Unwavering in his right wing beliefs and for his commands to be obeyed.

Perhaps his condom contribution should have been made towards the demographic timebomb that is the Philippines ,a Catholic majority country that obeys his stance on contraception.

Btw Mccamley, it's not the same. Everything the Pope says in *public* is carefully crafted to reflect where he's taking the bumbling behemoth that is the Catholic Church. Shame that he's so caught up talking about the seedier side of sex, when there's other pressing issues. But I guess that sums up the church as a whole

Post 32-
This is why you need a pragmatist at the healm not an Idealist. Let's see how many more people will suffer under the musings of the Vatican.
The Catholic Church, as an entity, no longer has the validity to make proclamations on sexual issues. In the same way a serial killer doesn't have the right to comment on the sanctity of life.

Tomorrow Joan Bakewell will consider the attitudes of the Catholic and Anglican churches to sex, condoms etc.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w243x

Ryan - have you not heard of Mc Camley's Law - cos you just failed over your Nazi reference to the Pope which is tiresome beyond belief.

Dave, re your point in #23 - I was taking the hand out of Jellyboy who complains that the inclusion of references to child abuse and the ordination of women in the same document on canon law was somehow an equation of the two. He doesn't understand analogy as he's shown and he doesn't understand that it's possible to have two things in a document without saying they are equal.

As regards your questions in #12 - let's see:

>>>>is the pope saying that that good intention, while not mitigating the crime, is in some way a movement along a moral continuum in a positive direction and so has some value in that person's development?

Precisely. The Pope has no desire to be seen "moving on condoms" or offering openings, or backtracking on former stances - he's interested in the person as a human agent, the person who might present themselves to him in the confessional or in spiritual direction, the person the Pope want's to help move from their current position.

>>>>>Either he is being cynical or I am and I know which one my money is on.

You'd lose your money.

Here's the thing with the new pill you posit or the condom - the Church doesn't teach people how to commit sin - two gays having sex is sinful with or without a condom - by nature it is inherently contraceptive - that's what's wrong with it in the first place - the condom doesn't make it more so. There is a question of public policy - you guys thinkg the promotion of condoms makes for safer sex, the Pope thinks the promotion of condoms makes for riskier sex and hasn't worked at the population level. Two heterosexuals who aren't married having sex with or without a condom, still sinful. Sex should be committed, open to life and loving. In this case it's not committed, with the condom it's not open to life either.

>>>>the Vatican is using the risk of infection purely as a social engineering tool.

That's a tad cynical, but you are right that society has used the Aids crisis for social engineering purposes. They've used it for massive condom promotion. In the States, homosexuals used the crisis to change their behaviour - they reduced their promiscuity and the number of partners. You have to remember, Aids didn't fall from the sky - it spread because or dodgy practices, promiscuity and drug abuse.

>>>>Hepatitis B is spread the same way as HIV but a vaccine is used to prevent infection, does the pope oppose it's use on the basis that the way to combat the disease is by morals and abstinence and that the use of the vaccine increases sinful activity and infection rates ?

Not that I'm aware of - don't know enough about it to comment.

>>>What if someone invented a cheap and simple cure, would it be restricted in order not to promote sinful acts?

Don't be stupid.

>>>Does the Vatican oppose needle exchange schemes which make it safer for intravenous drug users to engage in their self harming activity on the basis that the risk reduction promotes the activity.

I don't know - lots of people don't support needle exchange programmes.

>>>Is it morally defensible to expose people, or restrict availability of protection simply to try and socially engineer set of morals on them based on a set of beliefs they may not subscribe to?

No, but it's also immoral to encourage promiscuity when it will lead to the death of many people.

>>>If the pope had the power he used to have in Ireland, would he have ensured that condoms were not available in Ireland to anyone (regardless of their beliefs unless you went to Trinity) and allowed HIV free run ?

I'm not aware that the Pope had any power in Ireland. Could you identify where in the Constituion he was given power? Laws are made by politicians based on their beliefs and opinions, and by people in referendums.


>>>>There is a mass on inconsistency in the Popes approach..

Au contraire - the Pope's position is entirely consistent, you just don't like it or agree with it.

Will: Here is a link to Dr. Janet Smith's anaology as reported as a web exclusive in the Catholic World Report:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70

In regards to the question "When they meet a married couple of mixed HIV status and the couple ask if they can continue to enjoy sex as part of their marriage, what pastoral advice should they be given?"

I am no theologian however I will ask three questions:
1. Are condoms 100% effective?
2. If the answer is "no" then why would a HIV+ man have sex with his wife, using a condom, knowing that there is a possibility that the condom could break and she be infected?
3. Can my advice truly be to tell them to take the risk, to put their sexual pleasure above the wife's health and the possibility of a HIV+ child?

Theophane, to a rabbit every headlight looks dazzling, whether it comes from a juggernaut or a Robin Reliant. Benny's intellect is not *that* fantastic. Besides, Andy McIntosh is a professor, and we all know how bright he is. And even if Mr Ratzinger was cleverer than the average punter, the Jesus to whom he really only pays lip service intimated that from those to whom much is given, much is expected.

I reiterate my previous point - if he can't challenge his premises that are quite obviously dopey, he can't really be called that smart.

He has the Fail of twelve popes.

>>>He has the Fail of twelve popes.

Is that supposed to mean something?

Heliopolitan claims, in effect, that Catholic theology is "stupid" - but Pope Benedict XVI has an intellect as powerful as any human who has ever lived. Before he became Pope, one of the other Cardinals said of him that "he has the brain of twelve professors".

Theophane - I would hardly laud the opinion of one Cardinal on another as a scientific examination of either intellect, or indeed any cognitive capacity. Was the Cardinal who made the comment themselves an expert in neurophysiology, cognitive psychology or any field which may have given credence to such an outrageous remark - I think not, or was that same individual displaying yet another example of the arrogant belief in absolute certainty of their own opinions displayed by catholic hierarchy.

I was brought up as a catholic and readily informed all throughout my formative years that "the pope" was infallible - ie everything that comes out their mouths is the word of god and that they never get anything wrong. Were this the case then "the pope" would not and could not change any of his churchs positions on any issues as it would mean that at some point he had gotten something wrong, thereby contradicting the doctrine of infallibility.

I think the main thing to remember here is that the catholic religion is a belief system, just that and no more, based on subjective writings about incidents which may or may not have happened as described in the history of Palestine and the surrounding area. The modern day interpretation of these writings whether by a pope or whoever is influenced by that persons' life experience and their own personal outlook and therefore is highly subjective.

Coming out a belief sytem such as the above, to have one individual/institution impose upon another psychological distress and torment based upon the premise that they will be punished for actions that they take for the right reasons, as they see it (for example protecting their partner from STDs), is perverse in the extreme if that individual/institution claims to care about the person in question.

I recall, as a youngster, being told by an RE teacher, "had I ever burned my finger in a candle, well to imagine that pain all over my body for eternity, that's what would happen if I didn't obey the word of god"

Hmm, words like indoctrination, psychological trauma, control etc spring to mind.It is the same issue for the peoples of sub saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the world. They are led to believe that they are doing something wrong by preventing transmission of potentially fatal diseases to their partner / wife / husband - whoever.

Such dogmatic adherence to self righteousness displays exactly the same attitude that the catholic church has displayed to the rampant levels of abuse within its midst.

Yes lets have some scripture, Helio, that always confuses them.

What about, "I bless you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth for hiding these things from the learned and the clever, and revealing them to mere children."

ak35; Without knowing for certain, the Cardinal who made that comment seems to have been American, but i can't say if he was "an expert in neurophysiology, cognitive psychology or any field which may have given credence to such a... remark". American humour is quite distinctive, don't you think? "Is the Pope a Catholic?" - that's one of theirs. For an experience of the very best of intlligent American comedy i heartily recommend the film version of "The A-Team" which came out this year.

Mcc,

So the most that can be said of all this discussion over condoms is that what the pope was saying that people get some acknowledgement for doing things with a good intention, it amounts to no more than they did a terrible thing but ach they meant well - now don't do it again.

The tactic of using two things in the same sentence is a well used tactic by the church to draw an inference and create a defensible but inexplicit connection between the two. It is a similar tactic to which you chastise Will for in the use of headline, it is the inference or connection that people remember and that is the cynical ploy.

two gays having sex is sinful with or without a condom - by nature it is inherently contraceptive - that's what's wrong with it in the first place

So you are saying that homosexual sex is wrong because it is inherently contraceptive, it is basically on a power with masturbation as far as a sin goes (Careful, you are starying onto Christine O'Connell territory here). Are you saying that masturbation is as bad as homosexuality in gods eyes. There are many sex acts which go on between heterosexual married couples which end up being 'contraceptive' in your terms are they all as bad a gay sex.

you guys thinkg the promotion of condoms makes for safer sex

By you guys you mean everyone else, the experts, medical people, the research, the evidence, those working with the problem and not solving it from a book which has nothing to do with the problem. At a population level the rise and fall and rise again of HIV infections in the UK and USA is directly related to levels of condom use, your statement on population levels is patently false.

I am not stupid, (second time you have called me that) I just see things differently from you, some might say I show some intelligence for not following like a sheep. I see an hypocrisy in this example even if you chose to ignore it.

Sex should be committed, open to life and loving,

that's simply your morality, and if you chose to follow it then that is your choice but other people are free to live by other morals of their choosing and you have no right to denigrate (dodgy practices ) or penalise them (intimidate them into not using condoms) for their choices. My way of thinking is that sex should be for fun and enjoyment and only procreative when specifically intended. I regard that as free and responsible. I think that it is relationships that should be committed and loving. Sex within a loving relationship adds another dimension to it which is great but is neither enhanced or diminished by whether that act is contraceptive or not.

Why I would expect a group of people to understand what they are supposed to have no direct knowledge of I am not sure, is all the sex scandals in the priesthood simply field research?


but it's also immoral to encourage promiscuity

No one is encouraging promiscuity, it is a choice people are free to make, of itself it is neither bad or good. You choose to paint it as bad, but again that is just your morals and you are free to live by it.

I'm not aware that the Pope had any power in Ireland.

You are not aware that in Ireland the catholic church (headed by the pope I seem to recall) used it's influence over the government to stop the availability of condoms in Ireland. I can remember going to Dublin and the only place you could get a condom was in Trinity College.

Next you will be telling us that the police and state were not influenced by the church and helped cover up child abuse for some other reason of their own.

Au contraire

Au contraire

StJude,

Can my advice truly be to tell them to take the risk, to put their sexual pleasure above the wife's health and the possibility of a HIV+ child?

Why do you think it is your place to give them advice on their decision? Give them the knowledge to make their own decisions. When they understand the risks and what they can do to reduce them they can make an informed choice as to what to do.

I love the pope.. He rocks my world.. Cormac Lennon 2k10 x

Will, thanks for that Egan point - I think it helpfully demonstrates the flaw in that sort of moral reasoning. Egan incorrectly places the locus of the "moral essence" (if we can call it that) on the *act* rather than on the *decision process*. the amputation Thingy is quite apt, in that Jesus seems to make a comparable error: "if thy right hand causeth thee to sin"...

I suppose since "sin" must ultimately stem from the brain, Jesus's logic must be that on the decerebrate can inherit the Kingdom of God, and between Benny and the US religious Right and Uslamic fundamentalism, it looks like he was right after all...

Helio,

By US religious Right do you mean like this guy. I think he has already been decerebrated.

I also think he his description of men in showers gives away more about himself than I am sure he intended.

Dave: Re - your post #48. Your question "Why do you think it is your place to give them advice on their decision?"

I was merely responding to the question posed in the article: "When they meet a married couple of mixed HIV status and the couple ask if they can continue to enjoy sex as part of their marriage, what pastoral advice should they be given?"

Will: Thanks for your comment and I apologise as I accused you of using her anaology as your own.

StJude,

I know what you are saying, but my question to you is why are you telling them what decision they should make. I would have thought the correct thing to do was to give them the information in a truthful and non judgemental way and let them make their own decision.

Your own 3 questions show a lack of knowledge of the real world evidence, statistics and HIV transmission and so I hope that you are not in a position to advise anyone on this subject.

I would have thought that the failure of so many priests at their own celibacy would have taught the catholic church that celibacy is not a particularly good answer to stop the transmission of viruses, in fact it may even be less reliable than condoms given the rates of HIV among priests quoted elsewhere on this blog.

Dave - you gotta lighten up a bit as you're now accusing people of all sorts. You're getting as bad as Jellybean.

Must I repeat myself about the two things in the same sentence issue - I was pointing out a previous foolishness spouted by RJB - it was irony.

two gays having sex is sinful with or without a condom - by nature it is inherently contraceptive - that's what's wrong with it in the first place.

Sex is wrong the further away it moves from what God intended - loving, committed, open to life - I'd include pleasurable under loving and committed. And you're right, homosexual sex and masturbation are similar.

>>>Are you saying that masturbation is as bad as homosexuality in gods eyes.

I'd be reluctant to list a hierarchy of sin as it tends to become "well, that's better than that" and you need to know the state of the person to answer completely - both constitute grave matter. Intention is important in an act and while a good intention doesn't render a bad act good, it does affect the subjective moral situation of a person.

>>>>you guys thinkg the promotion of condoms makes for safer sex >>By you guys you mean everyone else, the experts, medical people, the research, the evidence, those working with the problem and not solving it from a book which has nothing to do with the problem.

We had this discussion at great length the last time and there's not much point repeating it. Changes in US rates are mostly due to reductions in partners. You can look up the older discussions for Dr Green's views in support of the Pope.

>>>I am not stupid, (second time you have called me that)

I didn't call you stupid, I encouraged you not to be stupid. The suggestion that the Pope and Church would be opposed to a cure for Aids was ridiculous.

>>>some might say I show some intelligence for not following like a sheep.

Plenty of sheep on this site - a great herd of independent minds as Rosenberg called it.

>>>that's simply your morality, and if you chose to follow it then that is your choice but other people are free to live by other morals of their choosing and you have no right to denigrate (dodgy practices ) or penalise them (intimidate them into not using condoms) for their choices.

Who else's morality would it be but mine? Part of my morality is to recognise "dodgy practices". Part of my morality is to evangelise. You think I have no right to do that? I don't think that's intimidation, unlike the practices of the UN and IPP in some countries.

>>>>>>My way of thinking is that sex should be for fun and enjoyment and only procreative when specifically intended. I regard that as free and responsible. I think that it is relationships that should be committed and loving. Sex within a loving relationship adds another dimension to it which is great but is neither enhanced or diminished by whether that act is contraceptive or not.

I'm very happy for you. That's your moral position.

>>>Why I would expect a group of people to understand what they are supposed to have no direct knowledge of I am not sure, is all the sex scandals in the priesthood simply field research?

That's just snide, and if I may say in comparison with some of your other discussions, unworthy of you.

>>>>You are not aware that in Ireland the catholic church (headed by the pope I seem to recall) used it's influence over the government to stop the availability of condoms in Ireland.

I am aware that most voters and members of the government were practising Catholics and they considered it appropriate that the laws reflect their views. In the same way that most people don't like smoking so we got a smoking ban; most people don't support prostitution so we ban it.

william, the problem with Fr Egan's analogy is that it is rare to decribe acts in a way that is empty of intentionality. I don't think I can agree with his first premise that cutting of a limb is bad because already we know that it depends why you're cutting it off, and the word bad, if used has to be understood as referring to something other than morality.

Frankly Dave, if you believe Catholic priests are in a high-risk group for HIV/AIDS, you'll believe anything.

Just reminded of another splendid saying of G.K. Chesterton:
"When a man ceases to believe in God, he comes to believe, not in nothing, but in anything."

Theophane,

Frankly Dave, if you believe Catholic priests are in a high-risk group for HIV/AIDS, you'll believe anything

I would suggest that any group with 4 times the rate of infection over the general population particularly a group who should be having statistically less sex would be a group who could use a safer sex message.

Frankly Theopane, If your're that dazzled by your belief structure to see the reality, then there's nothing anybody will ever say to you to help you think impartially. You'll just have to wait util you die. In the States, Priests are beng treated for HIV/AIDs. According to a study published over here in the Independent- they're 4 times more likely to die from the conditio- possibly through fear and shame by not getting it treated soon enough. Thy're not supposed to be having sex. They are supposed to be celibate. The Catholic Church no longer commands respect because many of those *closest* to God, serving their communities are crippled by their hypocritical beliefs and are in many ways victims of what the're sent out to preach.

The bottom line is, there are better choices out there for the religiously inclined that aren't so teinted by brazen hypocrisy and double speak. In reality, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to the majority of the worlds population what he says, and he's certainly not winning over many converts.

People with Hiv/Aids can lead lives of dignity in serodiscordant relationships with the responsible use of condoms.They can even have thier sperm cleaned to procreate safely if they wish. That's all the majority of people want to know. Some people have this condition through being raped and blood transfusions. It's disgusting to see the attitudes of devout Catholics on here and the Pope who are so insensitive to human suffering to reduce it down to the analogies used.

I think alot of you need to grow up, and quit playing word games.If this is what devout Catholism reduces people to it's pathetic. No soul. No empathy. Dead vessels with a dusty book for a heart

Dave: From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of ADVICE
1: recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct

Let me reiterate again the question in the article "what pastoral advice should they be given?"

Do you equate giving "advice" the same a "telling them what decision they should make?"

We know that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth.

We know that he was unhappy at Tubingen University where the students were not afraid to think and that he went off and helped form another Uni where the students were forced to be far more docile and conforming.

We know that as Archbishop of Munich he failed to take appropriate action against an abuser priest. The priest went on to abuse more children.

We know that over 25 years as head of the CDF he sacked, defrocked, excommunicated or silenced dozens of priests and theologians but did nothing to take action against abuser priests and enabling Bishops.

We know that he sent a letter to all Bishops reminding them of their oath of silence.

We know that he did very little to help victims of abuse, in fact, in the case of the victims of Maciel, he did his best to thwart them by imposing a statute of limitations on his crimes in 2001.

We know that he continues to allow Cardinal Law a place of honour in the Vatican.

And we know that, even with such a questionable life, he still has the arrogance to preach to other people about their morality.

Nothing this man has to say outwith, "I'm sorry and please forgive me" and "I resign", is worth listening to.

I agree Romejellybeen, and the Vatican/ Catholic Church heirachy should be brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague

Chris, I call a Poe.

RJB (@ 61) -

"We know that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth."

This, of course, is a fact. But is the insinuation behind it fair?

What do you think of this article? I would be interested in your comments about it.

By the way, RJB, I'm not disputing anything else you're saying!

LSV

A quote from the article you provide:

"...Joseph Ratzinger huddled with his father and older brother around a radio and listened to Allied radio broadcasts, volume on low. It was a small and risky act of defiance..."

So as well as all the criticisms I listed, he was also disobedient!

LSV- This link here shows there were infact conscientious objectors who opted out of the Nazi war machine who were independently minded and morally strong enough to join youth resistence against the Nazi's. https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3059255

In Terms of the Catholic Church- Most historians consider the 1933 Reichskonkordat "an important step toward the international acceptance of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.[13] Guenter Lewy, political scientist and author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote:

"There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."

Here are some of the *religious & good* of the German Catholic Heirachy at the time of the young, impressionable Ratzinger.

-Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the “Brown Bishop” because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a “sponsoring member” of the SS

-Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime

-Cardinal Adolf Bertram ex officio head of the German episcopate also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group “which has no very close bond with the church.”

-Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews “justified self-defense” in the face of “overly powerful Jewish capital.”

-Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that the true Christian religion “made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them.”

It's notable that only a few high profile figures in the Catholic Church in Germany spoke out . According to historian Micheal Phayer "Heinrich Wienken (a post-war bishop) very likely personally hid Jews in Berlin during the war.[34] Clemens August Graf von Galen was a well-known public opponent of the Nazi "euthanasia" program, if not the Holocaust itself."

Phayer places the responsibility with the Vatican, asserting that "a strong papal assertion would have enabled the bishops to overcome their disinclinations" and that they could have done more to save the Jews. But I think there should be as much empahsis placed on the individual responsability of Bishops within Germany to have done more to save life and stand up against evil.

Clearly something not many in the Catholic Church were willing to do if it meant putting themselves on the line. They were only willing to galvinise their own power. If this is religion then life is a twisted joke

Ryan -

I hear what you are saying, and I cannot dispute the arguments you have assembled about the Catholic Church's attitude to the Nazi regime.

However, I think it is unfair for people living in the comforts of our democracy to pass judgment on a teenage boy living under a vile tyranny. What would you have done in the same situation? It's all very well imagining that you would have made a stand against the Nazis, but it is impossible for us to say from this vantage point of comfort no matter how much we may convince ourselves of our own moral backbone and courage.

Whatever one may say about the Pope, and however culpable he may be in other matters, the jibe about the Hitler Youth is just totally unjustified, and it seems that those who seek to keep the memory of the holocaust alive do not wish to hold this against him, as the article I linked to makes clear.

In fact, this reference does the cause of the anti-Ratzinger lobby no good at all, as it just makes them look cheap and desperate, in my opinion.

However unfair you feel it is to question the past. There were youth who provided active resistence against the Nazi's. Ratzinger wasn't one of them. That fact alone- that he didn't have the moral or emotional strength or *backbone* as you put it, to make a stand shows he didn't grow up with the necessary qualities to be a Religious leader, standing up for christs principles, representing God and 1 Billion people.

That you see it as a jibe, cheapens all of those who died. Just because it's x amount of days,months, yrs ago doesn't detract from its significance and its human-beings clear inability to learn & understand lessons from the past that keep us shackled to the animal within us

Ryan -

So you condemn this person as well for having failed to be a 'principled martyr'?

Okay, LSV, I gave you a flippant answer to what I considered to be a question which was not genuine. (i.e. I suspected that you already had your mind made up, which you then go on to show in your next post.)

I made a stand which cost me nearly everything. Ratzinger didnt and still doesnt. He has played with the lives of real people, real children and their parents and never once taken the risk of putting his job - never mind his life - on the line for his principles.

You present an article where his apologists (who all also happened to be in the Hitler Youth!!) excuse his behaviour.

He was just a kid... he was under pressure... we dont know how bad things were.

If it was so bad for him as a 14 year old boy, he should have had far more compassion on all the 14 year old boys who were subjected to far, far worse evil than he ever was.

He was in the Hitler Youth and many of us think he still is.

RJB -

Fair enough.

But what gets me are the judgments some people make about those whose moral dilemmas are (I suspect) far greater than their own.

OK, Joseph Ratzinger perhaps should have made a stand. He didn't in the way we (after the event and looking on from a less horrific vantage point) think he should have done. What would we have done in the same situation? And is it ever possible to really believe those who say that they would have made a stand without actually having to face such a situation?

Furthermore, isn't this criticism of Ratzinger an implied criticism of all those German people who reluctantly had to "go along with" the regime, but who quietly deplored the Nazis? And, by extension, is it not a criticism of all those who have to live and suffer quietly under other totalitarian regimes? Perhaps not everyone can 'man the barricades' and heroically die in a hail of gunfire, as it were.

"Those who wish to keep the memory of the holocaust alive do not wish to hold this against him.."

What planet are you on LSV? Ratzinger is presently trying to make Pius XIIth a Saint. There is huge Jewish opposition to this. Ratzinger refuses to release the documentation asked for by the joint Jewish/Catholic commission into the role of the Vatican during the second world war. Ratzinger welcomed a holocaust denier back into the fold, Bishop Williamson.

Do you know that the Titanic sank?

LSV, why did you even think of joining in this discussion? Is your telly broken?

RJB -

I was actually referring to the article I linked to, which includes the following statement:

"The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center in Jerusalem doesn't see a need for further investigation of Ratzinger's Hitler Youth membership, said spokeswoman Estee Yaari."

I thought the topic under discussion was Ratzinger's membership of the Hitler Youth. No?

LSV- Someone with the responsability he has been entrusted with would need to show a greater degree of independent thought and action against tyranny. Unfortunately- his set of circumstances - growing up in Nazi Germany coupled to being a devout Catholic didn't equip him with the necessary skills that some other people his own age were able to exhibit, by mounting a resistence to the tyranny.Instead Ratzinger was a sheep, who obeyed and went with the flow, who briefly was enrolled in an Anti-Aircraft unit before he was sent to Hungary, where he set up tank traps and saw Jews being herded to death camps.To quote Ratzinger "You need a good shepherd to lead your flock"
LSV , your link shows twisted logic. My whole point is that Ratzinger didn't help save anyone. But if you feel comfortable with him as God's representative on earth that's your choice

In fact, it's quite hard to find anyone who's spent their life so vividly on the wrong side of history as Ratzinger

Agree with LSV. Any attack on Ratzinger because he was conscripted into the Nazi Youth at 14 years old dilutes legitimate criticism of his subsequent career choices.

paul james -

You managed two sentences.

Feeling alright, mate?

Ryan (#59); In this country we have a paper called the 'Guardian', more or less the BBC's in-house newsletter, which is very far from being a Vatican mouthpiece (for example they have an editorial policy, usually, not to give 'Pope' a capital 'P'). Professor Tina Beattie writes today: "If we are to find a truthful consistency in the Catholic tradition, we will find it not in its changing social and moral norms, and not in its far from perfect history, but in its most enduring beliefs about God, the human and creation. From these beliefs stems the complex and sometimes confusing task of asking how we should live in terms of love, desire and embodiment".


The Church stands for eternal principles such as Truth and Justice, and also Mercy, Compassion and Forgiveness, in an age which is determined to dilute, distort and belittle such things. Am i completely wrong in crediting Tammy Wynette with the maxim "You've gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything"?

Theopane, we always live *in an age which is determined to dilute, distort and belittle such things*

Maybe if we strive to keep a balance in all areas of our life. Don't hurt anyone else. Offer help and support to others whenever we can and attempt to take a reasoned and pragmatic approach to life & the potential existence of God we wouldn't get things into such a twist.

Amen.

OK never made a post on discussion like this before but wanted to make a few points. Not a fan of the Pope or the Catholic Church (even though raised RC) but any debate on the current Pope (and any other Pope for that manner) could disintegrate into a do as I say not as I do shout.

But back to the analogy that was used for the condoms / fake gun real gun. On surface a nice analogy but lets run the scenario a bit further. If a person robs a bank with a fake gun and is caught then the law will judge that the criminal has committed the same crime as the person who carries out the crime with a real gun. Therefore their punishment will be exactly the same therefore at he end of the day the person doing the judgement will punish the "criminal" to the same extend.

Using that analogy therefore could be used by both sides of the debate to justify both positions 1st the fake gun user is more moral as they dont want to hurt anyone and can be 'praised' or 2nd the fake gun user will be punished in the same way as a real gun user and so the act is just as bad in the eyes of the law.

Hope this made some sort of sense.

Everything you say makes sense, dmcl31, but if you knew someone was going to rob a bank, wouldn't you advise them not to use live ammunition/a real gun, because in that way it is at least much less likely that anyone will get killed; and such a choice would indicate some respect for the lives of others?

Anything which appears at first sight to "liberalise" the Church's stance on artificial contraception, of course, is bound to generate headlines, but there is much more to Pope Benedict's recent interview which might be overlooked; as happened famously when the Pope gave a very learned and sophisticated address at Regensburg in 2006, and the media pounced on his quotation of disparaging words about Islam from a Byzantine Emperor, after which, incidentally, he didn't hesitate to apologise for any offence caused. Later that year in Turkey he quoted Pope Gregory VII to a Muslim Prince in North Africa, in 1076; speaking "...of the particular charity that Christians and Muslims owe to one another...because we believe in one God, albeit in a different manner, and because we praise Him and worship Him every day as the Creator and Ruler of the world."
From "Light of the World" (the recent interview) the following also, surely, deserves some attention, on the issue of unborn children:
"How many children are killed who might one day have been geniuses, who could have given humanity something new, who could have given us a new Mozart or some new technical discovery?"

Mcc,

Part of my morality is to evangelise. You think I have no right to do that?,

That is the view of every religion, but they all believe different things. Only, at most, one can be right the rest are peddling lies and deceit.

Do you think people should be allowed to peddle lies and deceit ?

Dave, if you want a snapshot of the inner workings of upper echelon Catholic thought this might be of interest https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,730520,00.html
Right wing conservatives in Catholism believes in Jewish global conspiracy,Catholic Jihad, Catholic Fundamentalist States & pretty clearly- are smoldering with jealousy at the power Muslim clerics exert over their populations in some Islamic countries.

If the underlying cruelty needed to inact such a thing wasn't so apparent it would be hilarious. Tactile,*celibate* men in colourful robes calling each other Monsi and Bunny, so desperate for power & to suppress their own homosexuality they want to sacrifice others freedom ,happiness & free choice for their own selfish ends. Tragic. These people have learnt nothing.

Theophane

Aaah! And now the main course... abortion.

In the States, it is the favourite subject for the right wing. They fight aginst abortion at every turn, vilify politicians who would support it and keep quiet when gynaecologists are shot dead at the front door of their practice.

Then of course they fight every piece of legislation that would afford financial help to a struggling young mum, and totally ignore that young child until it reaches.... military age.

Their pro-life stance also tends to go out the window when it comes to the death penalty.

I also find it incredible that a man who preaches so vehemently about the right to life - along with his Cardinals and Bishops - did nothing about the plight of children who were victimised by so many of his own priests. Something very, very wrong there, dont you think?

RJB (@ 86) -

While we may not see eye to eye on everything, I do sympathise with the following comment you made:

"Then of course they fight every piece of legislation that would afford financial help to a struggling young mum, and totally ignore that young child until it reaches.... military age."

Although I am against abortion (while recognising some very serious and terrible moral dilemmas associated with the termination of life in the womb), I can't accept that free market laissez faire ("I'm a winner, you're a loser, so let me rub your face in the dirt") capitalists have any credibility when it comes to this issue. I made a similar point here, using some admittedly rather emotional language.

I think it's extremely sad that such people are the ones perceived to be defending the lives of unborn children. However, it does raise the serious question as to why states with greater social welfare (social justice) should oppose the pro-life position.

Just because the lives of the most vulnerable members of society are being defended by a bunch of hypocrites (including those in the Catholic Church who turned a blind eye to child abuse) does not mean that their lives should not be defended.

romejellybean: The Catholic Church is pilloried for speaking out on behalf of unborn children. Did you have a voice when you were an unborn child? Denying these children the status of human beings is to take exactly the same attitude as the nazis took towards those they considered "sub-human"; hence millions were killed.

Theophane

Did you ever consider how gullible you and millions like you are? All any political/financial group have to say is that they are against abortion and you all jump in to vote for them - regardless of what other insidious policies you are supporting.

In the US the Catholic Bishops should have supported Health Care Reforms for millions of poor - then looked at abortion. Instead, they ignored all the basic human decency of the reforms and the benefits for millions, while they of course dont have to worry about their own health care!

romejellybean: Even in the United States, surely not everyone who espouses pro-life views subscibes to everything that might appear in a 'Tea Party' manifesto. For one thing, many people would affirm their belief that the sanctity of human life extends to all classes of criminal, as well as the unborn, the sick and the very elderly; Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI among them.

Theophane, wouldn't it be a healthier environment for all concerned if people were educated in human biology outside of a religious context. Sometimes peoples ability to deal with a situation is closed down if they're ashamed/fearful after doing something that deviates from a strict religious code.
If just the practicalities were dealt with instead- how things work, what contraceptive measures are available, what support is available. Perhaps equipped with knowledge and information,people will be fully aware of how their body works and the implications to them & a baby beyond pregnancy. Here's a link to a story in Thailand
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11845572
You would think that the laws already in place in Thailand are sensible, yet they don't work because a sizeable portion of the public isn't educated enough to take onboard the implications involved. Along with the fact they don't have the infrastructure & support available to deal with unplanned pregnancies that go full term .

So a practical solution seems to be education, contraception and full support through pregnancy/birth for those who still find themselves falling through the net.There should always be the provision/choice of abortion for those who are victims of incest,rape,abuse or medical reasons/complications

Ryan; from the Thailand story you refer to, there's this quote which finds an extraordinary echo in Pope Benedict's recent interview:
"Monks must do more than telling people it [abortion] is a sin. We have to find solutions too”
Phramaha Vudhijaya Vajiramedh, Buddhist monk.

"What did the Pope really say?" One of the things he said, in view of the fact that vast swathes of society, especially in western countries, ignore the Church's teaching on sexuality, was that "statistics do not suffice as a criterion of morality...We should try to do as much good as we can and to support and put up with each other. We should also try to express the teaching pastorally, theologically, and intellectually in the context of today's studies of sexuality and anthropolgy so as to create the conditions for understanding so that people can realise that this is a great task on which work is being done and on which even more and better work needs to be done." He also spoke in favour of the "natural regulation of conception...something fundamentally different from when i take a pill without binding myself interiorly to another person, so that i can jump into bed with a random acquaintance."
Artificial contraception is of course a multi-squillion dollar industry, so there's no shortage of people queueing up to pour scorn on studies which show that natural family planning, such as the Billings Ovulation Method, is at least equally effective in avoiding pregnancy as the pill.

And how do you square all of that with his total innaction over 25 years over the abuse of children by priests?

Artificial contraception is of course a multi-squillion dollar industry, so there's no shortage of people queueing up to pour scorn on studies which show that natural family planning, such as the Billings Ovulation Method, is at least equally effective in avoiding pregnancy as the pill.

Would that, perchance, be father of nine John Billings?

Seriously, the method's failure rate is three in 100, compared to one in 100 for condoms, one in 1,000 for the pill and one in 10,000 for implanted devices.

So, at least as effective as the pill?

What advice can the Pope offer, for example, to a couple who wants a child but where the man is HIV positive?

newlach,

"What advice can the Pope offer, for example, to a couple who wants a child but where the man is HIV positive?"

The advice should be "go an see a medical expert I'm not qualified to give advice or up to date information in that field. I mean would you ask a doctor about transubstantiation, it's not his area?"

but I won't hold my breath.

newlach wrote: What advice can the Pope offer, for example, to a couple who wants a child but where the man is HIV positive?
Perhaps the same advice as for any couple where one partner has an incurable, sexually transmissable disease. What is the pope supposed to suggest within Catholic teaching??
It brings to mind the saying "God forgives -always, Man -sometimes, Nature- never."
The Pope cannot suspend Natural Law.
And re Natural Family Planning: it works both ways-to plan a pregnancy or to delay the same.If a family has several offspring & uses NFP, don't presume they practise NFP to avoid conception & it didn't work.Many use NFP to increase their chances of conception.It may be a foreign concept to some, but there are many couples who welcome large families.(My daughter's an NFP instructor for our diocese & can attest to the method's validity.)

grokesx; Without evidence to disprove your figures i concede the point about the relative reliability of the Billings method; going back to the Holy Father's words "...this is a great task on which work is being done and on which even more and better work needs to be done." Even so, assuming your figures are correct, how often do people hear that natural family planning is 97% reliable - as well as being free, and without any suspicion of increased risks of breast cancer? That link will no doubt be contested, but there is a huge and highly profitable industry at stake - is anyone else reminded of the tobacco industry?

romejellybeen; On the issue of child abuse, these words from Pope Benedict at Westminster Cathedral (London) in September of this year must at least show the gravity with which he considers such things:
"I think of the immense suffering caused by the abuse of children, especially within the Church and by her ministers. Above all, i express my deep sorrow to the innocent victims of these unspeakable crimes, along with my hope that the power of God's grace, his sacrifice of reconciliation, will bring deep healing and peace to their lives. I also acknowledge, with you, the shame and humiliation which all of us have suffered because of these sins."

What advice can the Pope offer, for example, to a couple who wants a child but where the man is HIV positive?

newlach; no one would pretend that there's an easy answer to this question, (not even, i would suggest Dave, a "medical expert"), one reason being that there is not yet, unless i missed something, a cure for HIV/AIDS. It is said that, when Blessed Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) was asked "Why is there no cure for Aids?" she replied; "We aborted him [ie, him or her; the person who would have developed a cure]". Also, as for any couple who "want a child" but can't, for all sorts of reasons, there are always children who they might adopt.

just quickly; didn't see mscracker's post before posting mine, but clearly very useful angle on NFP.

If a serdiscordant couple want a baby, and let's say the man is positive , he can have his sperm washed. The woman can then have the sperm inseminated