Thoughts. Go. James, that means you. By the way, happy consistory day! Woo Cardinal Burke! 😀
The puzzling part to me: “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.”
How exactly would such moralization work? What would the monitoring process look like? How would letting a male prostitute use a condom to prevent disease help him “on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants”? It’s the Pope we’re talking about here, so I’m not asking these questions flippantly. I just don’t get it.
The friend who sent me this link emphasized the importance of “reading the whole text”. Presumably there is more to what Benedict said here in the actual book. Looks like I will have to read this one. (Maybe this is all a marketing ploy by Ignatius Press… let’s bring in the conspiracy theories… heh heh. Maybe this isn’t even an excerpt from the book at all… maybe someone made it up… heh heh heh.)
Nota bene: THIS WOULD BE A GOOD CHOICE FOR THE ST. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY CHRISTMAS BOOK EXCHANGE. AHEM.
Related: another friend sent me this link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/?hpt=T1.
The notable from this is that apparently John Allen suggested what BXVI said could also be applied to heterosexual couples. I think that’s a stretch. Rather than retype, I’ll just post what I wrote to said friend:
“I think Allen makes a jump saying that it would be ok for heterosexual couples too. Presumably the only reason why it would be ok for a male prostitute to use one at all (in very early stages) is that somehow his being a prostitute would be justified… by what, giving him a source of income to live by? I don’t know exactly. That’s the really mysterious part that I’m trying to figure out. Even if that is the case, how practically could one monitor the development of such a person, etc. But if that’s the reasoning, it can’t apply to heterosexual couples. Really… if sex must be both procreative and unitive, I don’t see how condoms ever work… but maybe my understanding of sex is wrong.”
There’s a lot here. Let me know your thoughts.
One last thing… can’t wait for the BC Students for Sexual Health come out on Monday and distort HH’s words like none other.