I think that he is saying that those who sin regularly shouldn't compound the sins by endangering others.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJU2dz_FwsPjYGXFjYDkbEH5VHfA?docId=d01ae88980c54a2da67605575ea0e7f6

Seems like even women are now included ...... and even sinful me LOL....

Rita

The Vatican has painted themselves into an ideological corner on many issues. I think we should allow them to escape with some shreds of dignity.

If they have painted themselves into an ideological corner, and wish to get out, then shouldn't they have to be open and honest about it?

Judd, I am never a fan of allowing escape when escape leads to more abuse. If they (or anyone) are caught in a corner,  let them admit they were wrong and transform. To me, that is far better than simply allowing escape.

Religious ideology (or political ideology et al) that underhandedly takes advantage of people - to maintaining power, controlling the masses, stealing their money, taking their pride, breaking up families, robbing them of their very lives.... is nothing to just let go by. Personally, it would not matter the name of the denomination. For some, I understand they like picking at Catholicism. That is not me.

Religion for me is about God, the holy, the just, the kind, the compassionate...
The objective is not supposed to be power, economics, politics...It is supposed to be humane.

It is not humane when you refuse to reexamine beliefs and structures when the bodies pile high. I, personally, find defending law instead of love hard to swallow when say you follow Jesus.

If the ideology is full of holes or deceit filled, holding it up to the Light suits me better. A rabble rouser like Jesus was not content to let it slide.

When policies show more evil than good, I want everyone to shout "No More" whether it is about a denomination, a religion or a political party.

If God spoke tomorrow, God would say we have not been speaking for the Holy - we got it right sometimes and wrong others - and lots of people would be out of work.

Claims of legitimacy that anyone has some hotline to God, that they speak God's words on God's authority is a sham.

I stand chastened.

Nice rant!  Now, take your little blue blankie, go back to your corner, pout, let the tears trickle down your cheek, suck your thumb and mutter 'Stupid old Catholic Church'.  After your tantrum, take a paint brush and a canvass, use only black paint and paint pictures of everyone the same colour and with the same brush and don't forget to mutter, "Stupid old Catholic Church'. (BTW, i"m non RC nor a member of any church, but this unsubstantiated bullshit gets to be a bit much).

Sadly, the vast majority posting comments to this thread are entirely clueless to what the Pope has expressed in his writing and during a certain discussion now misrepresented by secular media (having their own agenda to propagate at any cost).

First, I wouldn't put great faith in the [toronto] star newspaper to present accurately what any spiritual faith community espouses as belief and doctrine least of all a fair representation of Catholicism.

Second, contrary to all the headlines, the Pope and Church has never indicated use of condoms as being alright under certain circumstance.  This type of headlining is a deliberate attempt to manufacture controversy and definitely scandalous behaviour by the journalistic community who have lost all objectivity being little more than lobbyists for any new idelogy they fancy.

So what message did the Pope send?

Well Pope Benedict didn't say using condoms is alright, that should be made clear.

He didn't exclude women (had to mention that for all the confused feminists complaining female prostitutes are neglected)

He didn't express a belief of, "accepting condoms as the lesser evil in the fight against the spread of disease" Nor did he make any statements for mere publicity. (all contrary to the comments first posted by chasen in the OP)

All he said was, that the decision to use a condom might indicate some moral awakening that one couldn't just do whatever one wanted. However, the Pope said condoms were neither a real nor effective solution to the problem. All he was really talking about was the intention of the person to reduce harm to another person.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said.

Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging.

The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances”, Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases”.

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use”, though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?
By Dr. Janet E. Smith

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/i...2010&Itemid=70

GO READ IT! Then come back and discuss it.

The book will be published very soon. Mine is on pre-order at Amazon!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-World-...0312512&sr=8-1

Outlining the orthodox Catholic conclusion in the case of those infected with AIDS:

A. If unmarried, abstain.
B. If married, abstain.
C. If unmarried and unwilling to abstain, do what you will. (the Devil's moto). Condoms may hhelp to prevent the spread of disease, but as the Pope said, they are neither a real nor moral solution to the problem of AIDS.

The big uproar is this:

the Church is in the business of saving souls. The Church is not in the business of advising sinners on how to sin in a more socially aware fashion. That is the work of social workers. The Catholic Church cannot advise people how to sin or how to engage in illicit and dangerous sexual activity. If people want to sin, they will sin, and as the Pope says, they will get condoms anyway. It is not for the Church to be handing out condoms. That is not appropriate, although some agencies are doing exactly that.

some critical commentary of what the Pope said:   http://www.cfnews.org/b16bombshell.htm

EXCERPT

            As we go to press (November 24), the controversy still rages.  Perhaps by next month a clearer picture will emerge. (I hope to have read the Pope’s book by then.)  I will close with three points to keep in mind throughout this entire calamity:

            1) The lesser of two evils is a Protestant concept, not Catholic. It has no place in the history of Catholic moral teaching. We cannot choose the lesser of two evils because the lesser evil is still evil, and evil can never be the direct object of our will.

            2) Romans 3:8 condemns the principle that a person may do evil that good may come from it. St. Paul teaches that those who do so, their “damnation is just”. It is forbidden to do evil to achieve good.

            3) The use of these immoral devices is nothing new, so it seems odd anyone would suggest a new morality to go with them. Randy Engel, a veteran journalist who has written extensively about the dangers of modern sex-education and today’s homosexual agenda, noted, “Keep in mind that various forms of sheaths or prophylactics have been used by female and male prostitutes for centuries for two primary purposes: (1) to prevent infection including deadly diseases transmitted by sexual activity; (2) to prevent pregnancy, especially out-of-wedlock pregnancies that would endanger inheritance rights and weaken marriage alliances. Yet no saint or Church Father or Pope has suggested that their use for any reason was licit.”