Pope Benedict and Condoms, NOT

 Pope Benedict XVI did NOT approve the use of prophylactics by homosexuals, heterosexuals or transsexuals to prevent the spread of HIV. The secular media took his words OUT OF CONTEXT and whenever you TAKE A TEXT OUT OF CONTEXT YOU GET A PRETEXT.

Pope OK's Condoms appeared on one cable network while another said Vatican Allows Everyone to Use Condoms to Pontiff Says Certain Circumstances Warrant Condom Use  All of these are FALSE. Consider this:
all acts of rape are gravely evil, immoral and sinful   that is true and no one would debate it, would they? How about this statement?
intentionally infecting someone with a disease is also evil, immoral sinful   Now, if someone were to say  better a rapist to wear a condom and not infect his victim with a venereal disease does that DE FACTO translate into the person saying  condom use makes rape acceptable ?   
 Of course not.
That a rapist who previously never used condoms but knew he had AIDS
now all of a sudden begins to use condoms to prevent infecting his
victims is still committing heinous evil (rape) but he is showing a sign
of moral improvement insofar as he does not want to infect an innocent
victim with a deadly disease. But it is not construed as a green light
for rapists to attack women just so long as they use condoms. Similarly,
the Pope was NOT approving condom use. He was saying it can be a sign
of moral improvement that someone engaged in immoral sexual intercourse
is at least trying to prevent infecting a person with a deadly disease.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Rape is always wrong. All sex
outside of marriage be it between an unmarried man and unmarried woman
or between two men or two women. Yet, if someone has a VD, not only
should they do everything to prevent spreading the disease, they should
also ABSTAIN FROM ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Rapists have no right to rape.
Sex is not a right but a privilege of marriage which is a covenant
between one man and one woman. Married sex must be oriented to love
(unity) and life (procreation) otherwise it is sinful behavior.
Contraceptive sex is immoral just as in vitro fertilization. If
a bank robber handed out bullet proof vests to the customers and
employees at the bank would that make his act of robbery acceptable? Of
course not. Handing out condoms to prostitutes may prevent venereal
disease but it also promotes immoral activity since the removal of the
threat of physical harm can tempt many to give in to temptation. No
immediate consequences to actions leads some people to fool themselves
that evil actions can sometimes be tolerated.Why
not give condoms to teenagers in high school? Most are having sex
anyway?  Could condom use lure some who would normally abstain now try
"protective sex"?  How about just saying NO? As draconian as it sounds,
human beings are able and have been able to abstain from sex until
marriage for millennia. 
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFIES THE MEANS and the MEANS NEVER JUSTIFIES THE END ALL
Sex outside marriage is sinful and immoral. Contraceptive sex is
immoral. Premarital and extramarital sex is immoral, whether
heterosexual or homosexual.  Spreading venereal disease is immoral.
Having children outside of marriage is immoral.  Abortion is a grave
evil.  Obviously, giving birth as an unwed mother is far better than
killing the innocent life of the unborn via abortion. Nevertheless, the
BETTER scenario is for unmarried people NOT to have any sex and for
married people to practice Natural Family Planning rather than use
contraceptives.The Church condemns suicide.  She also
condemns terrorism.  If a terrorist chooses to kill himself rather than
kill innocent victims, it is a lesser evil and he is showing some moral
movement in the right direction, but no one can construe that as a
blanket endorsement of suicide. Better if the terrorist kill NO ONE,
neither innocent victims nor himself. Better he repent and reform from
his evil ways ALL THE WAY. 
Pope
Benedict was merely making a moral statement that someone already
involved in evil and sinful activity shows signs of moral improvement
when they choose the lesser of two evils.  HOWEVER, any and all evil should be avoided. Why
not give clean needles to college students so they will not get
infections from tripping on heroin? How about not doing drugs at all? 
Why not have wives give their husbands a condom whenever he goes out of
town for a business trip? Is it not better he not impregnate someone he
is not married to OR that he not bring home a VD? How about he remain
chaste in marriage at all times?Imagine
a parent discovered their child is the local bully. He beats younger
children up. What is the proper behavior to be sought? Is it not that
Junior STOP his belligerent and violent actions?  Or would it be
acceptable if the parents got their son to move from physical violence
to mere verbal and emotional violence?  When compared, there is the
lesser of evils, but there is also the reality that all abuse is evil
and UNACCEPTABLE. Some is worse than others but we cannot tolerate ANY
abuse. A sliding scale is not good enough. However, if you are the counselor advising the parents, you can say to them that a movement away from physical violence to only verbal abuse is an improvement BUT IT CANNOT STOP THERE.  Likewise,
use of condoms compared to indiscriminate and prolific sex is less evil
than unrestricted promiscuity but it is not good enough to stop at that
level. The final goal must be what is GOOD and not what is just less
evil.The Pope did NOT promote condom use. He made
a comment on an evil situation which could be less evil in one way but
ultimately the BEST way is to avoid all immoral and evil acts
COMPLETELY.