One of the the things about the whole Pope condom coverage is that almost always it tells you more about the person/group reporting the story than what the Pope actually said. People read into the Pope’s comment what they want to see, they read into their own thoughts.
One of the reasons I so respect apologist Jimmy Akin is that he is extremely careful to not give his own opinion on a subject, but what the Church has taught or a very close reading of the extent of what the Church has taught and how fare the application is. When he gives you his opinion he tells you it is his opinion. This was especially true with his coverage of what the Pope actually wrote and the extent of what the Church has taught.
Unfortunately such a treatment is very rare. The careless headlines which so dominated the coverage implied something else entirely and took no care at all in the reporting. The World Health Organization saying they “agreed totally” with the Pope’s comment did not mean that they are giving up passing out condoms as a way to help. They issued a statement when they had no idea what they were talking about. Gives you a lot of confidence in WHO. Other organizations did similar things.
But the press and secular organizations getting things wrong is nothing new and a stereotype that rings constantly true. My annoyance is with Catholics who did the same.
“It’s a step forward, because it is at the highest level the recognition that a pastoral approach in certain some particular cases is necessary where as before the use of a condom was always seen as intrinsically wrong,” he said.
“We should praise him for this. It shows that the Pope is a nuanced thinker. It also shows his awesome intellect.”…
“It’s the first admission from a pope that a condom can be used for a good intention,” said Father James Martin from New York. “Just a few years ago, the Vatican would have rejected these ideas outright, even though they had great currency among theologians. Clearly, something has changed.”
Ack! Yes because the normal ways the Papacy and the magisterium handles theological shifts is via interview books. Exactly what part of “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.” and “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution” does Fr. Martin not understand! If it is not a moral solution it can not be advocated.
Plus as I saw from my comment boxes and other places Catholics applauding this phony shift and happy about promotion of condoms to fight HIV.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
There seems to be an almost Gnostic disconnect in this view. To encourage so-called safer sex when people are committing objectively grave sins. No mention of any effort to discourage such behavior. While your health is of supreme importance, the health of your soul is even more so. If you do commit a grave sin and fulfill the three-fold conditions of mortal sin the Devil is not going to give you time off for good behavior for using a condom. Plus adding the intrinsic evil of contraception is not going to help you either. The gospel of “They are going to do it anyway” is the preaching of Hell. We are all called to holiness and with God’s grace and our conformance to his grace we can answer that call. This false gospel so often preached ignores the fact that Jesus will always give his aid to not be tempted beyond our limits. When Christians are the enablers of “They are going to do it anyway”-ism they deny both the Gospel and grace.
The Pope repeatedly talked of “first steps” towards moralization. First steps are not the arrival towards living that morality. Making the first step is not the end of the journey. On a level of conversion we can see grace move in what might seem to be small steps, but the ends of conversion is growing in holiness – not just limiting the evil you are doing.