Isn’t this always the way? Write something on how the Pope has remained steadfast of issues of sexuality and life, and next thing you know he shifts. The one church body in the world with the boldness to consistently maintain that children are a blessing to be received with joy now suggests that perhaps condoms should be used in some cases where disease might spread. Officially the church’s teaching hasn’t changed but no doubt this statement made about the use of condoms among male prostitutes will be interpreted as an underhand endorsement of their overall use, especially outside of marriage.
So, what is wrong with that? Shouldn’t we endorse their use when it could stop the birth of children outside of marriage and stop the spread of disease, especially one as deadly as AIDS? No, we shouldn’t. Why? Because our main concern should be God’s main concern, the salvation of souls. We never just suggest safer sinning. We confess that is does not exist. Better to enter the kingdom of heaven with AIDS that to be cast outside with your prophylactics in hand.
But unfortunately the Roman Church has in many ways decided that the point of the faith is to simply to alleviate human suffering. We are not to be apathetic towards the plight of the suffering, but neither can we alleviate their suffering by suggesting that the effects of sin can be avoided while the sin continues. I tend to agree with the man quoted at the end of the article, “the Vatican lost its collective head.”
Condom remarks may alter AIDS fight, pope’s legacy
VATICAN CITY – Vatican officials insist it’s nothing “revolutionary,” but to many other people Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments regarding condom use mark an important moment in the battle against AIDS and an effort by the pontiff to burnish his image and legacy.
Just a year after he said condoms could be making the AIDS crisis worse, Benedict said that for some people, such as male prostitutes, using them could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”
The Vatican’s ban on contraception remains, but Alberto Melloni, an Italian church historian, said Benedict “opened without a doubt a crack that cannot help but have consequences.”
Dr. John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethic Center in the United States, said that when L’Osservatore published the excerpts in advance of publication he wondered “had the Vatican lost its collective head.”
 |
This is an interesting article and post. How far do we take this though? Do we stop giving people prescription medication to tame down the effects food/drink because of, sometimes, sinful lifestyle choices (heavy drinking, gluttonous eating of McDonald’s, etc.) and say that if you continue to make these sinful choices we aren’t going to approve of any medication that helps (prevents or slows) any problems you may encounter?
Phil,
Do we not put in seat belts in cars of people who have numerous violations on their record for speeding? Is it better to enter into the kingdom of God dead b/c of speeding than to miss out b/c you were saved by your seat belt?
Are we picking and choosing which sins we are going to address? Don’t take your Prilosec in the morning if you want to eat the foods you love later in the day (even if those foods may be fatty, greasy and you may over-indulge in them) – b/c this is just safer sinning. Don’t buckle up before you drive because you know you are going to speed and we would just be encouraging safer sinning.
These sins (and many more) eventually affect other people – but yet with the two that i’ve mentioned we encourage people to “buckle up” and “take your meds”. I am not disagreeing with what you have said just trying to think through the implications and where you, me and others may be selective in our application. Sexual sins seem to be the big targets in the church – but there are a whole lot of other sins that the prophets, Jesus, Paul, etc. seemed to be concerned about as well.
How do we deal with safer sinning with other issues and not just sexual ones? I understand that this sexual sin was the point of your post – but, again, i am trying to think through the implications.
Tom,
Your thoughts are good to consider as always. There is though a difference between sexuality outside of marriage which is always sinful and your other examples where sin in these areas is ultimately a question of idolatry. Eating is not sinful, neither is heart disease or high blood pressure. Gluttony is sinful. Some gluttons has heart disease and others do not. Some not given to gluttony also have heart disease. So therefore, judging sin in these areas is much harder. A fat stomach does not necessarily mean sin and a flat stomach does not rule it out.
Also, the medicines that are given for these things are often given with the instruction to leave behind a gluttonous lifestyle. And well they should be if this is present. It should be done by doctor and church. There is no safe sin. But still, giving a condom to a prostitute is certainly not the same. I think if I were saying don’t give ex-prostitutes AIDS medications the comparison would be closer.
As far as just picking on sexual sins, you are right that we must make clear that all sin is not safe. But we must say that the scriptures themselves attend to sexual sins perhaps more than any other (with the only possible . Perhaps this is because determining sin in this area is much easier. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful. Judging may other sins is much harder because it ultimately involves judging the heart and not just the act.
Your turn. 🙂
Phil,
You are right. It is always dangerous to judge. You are correct that it is hard to tell with a couple of the other sins that i listed (the food one being primary – b/c there is more involved there). I think speeding is always sinful and to tell someone who consistently speeds to “buckle up” is providing a “safe sin” experience based on your post.
Yes, scripture does speak to sexuality but it speaks just as much (if not more) to issues of taking care of the poor and needy, fatherless, the widow (and the sin of not doing those things). Jesus doesn’t spend a lot of time with sexual sins and the woman caught in adultery was told to leave her life of sin but more or less judges the intentions of those who caught this woman in order to trap him. Paul speaks of sexual sin but in the context of people inside the community of faith who have erred in this arena.
You are so right though (and God truly help me in my own life) judging is so tricky – i guess this is why God warns us about it. Thoughts?
Whether judging is encouraged or discouraged in the bible is a complicated question. Here is something I write a while back on that. http://ihoppe.com/blog/?p=178. In short, we are to judge those professing to be Christians, and yet we are to do so with humility.
I assume you say speeding is always a sin based on submission to authority. However, I still do not think the comparison is completely congruent (holy alliteration, batman). Seat belts were not designed to make speeding safer. I don’t think many are encouraged to drive faster when they are wearing one. I have never heard anyone suggest that wearing one makes driving like a lunatic safe. Back to you….
Alliteration….you got it! 🙂 I agree completely Phil…judging outside the community of faith is not what God calls us to. Judging appropriately those inside the faith is something we are called to.
And yes, the speeding example breaks down…but i still find that it is an implication of your post. If someone gets in a car and knows they are going to speed while driving (habit, they want to, maybe they are being challenged by the guy at the light next to them), at that point shouldn’t we be encouraging people to remove their seat belts? Again, at this point, wearing a seat belt (and being encouraged to) is enabling the “safer sinning” you talk about. You said that, “but neither can we alleviate their suffering by suggesting that the effects of sin can be avoided while the sin continues. To reiterate, I am not saying this is a great or even good argument…i am just trying to tease out a possible implication of your post as we apply it to other sins that just a sexual one.
And true…seat belts weren’t designed to make speeding safer but as a safeguard. Just like condoms. Originally they seemed to be designed to prevent pregnancy (a whole other issue, i know). Now they are used to do that and also help prevent STI’s. Seat belts – originally a safeguard – now, when one sits behind the wheel and they know they are going to speed while driving then they “buckle up” to prevent (or at least inhibit) what could be a life-ending injury due to sinful behavior. The comparison may seem silly or even uneven but the issue, to me, is drawing out the implication of what you are suggesting (and I am not saying that you are wrong or that i completely disagree).
BTW,
I should have a closing quotation after the phrase ‘while the sin continues’. And my statement of, “i am not saying this is a great or even good argument” is about my example of speeding….not your statement that i had just quoted.