These are all good points, though I'm going to quibble with a few of them. First, though, a question. Does Catholicism even have the idea that you can be punished (by God) for a sin while alive? I mean, I think it happens in the Bible, but I don't think it's floating around Catholicism. (It actually strikes me as a relatively recent idea in some strains of Protestantism, but I don't exactly have an encyclopedic knowledge of Christianity.)
While, as far as I've ever been able to tell, all non-procreative sex acts and all procreative ones outside the context of marriage are the same sin*, in some sense, I find it very hard to understand the Church as equally hostile to heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity outside of marriage or not hostile to gay people--the Pope's still not ended his campaign against gay priests, for instance. The Church is still a long way from "We like gay people" or even "Well, we like you, but we won't marry you".
I think it's very hard to parse, first, precisely what the Pope meant and, second, what weight it carries. There was initially ambiguity about whether he was referring to male or female prostitutes, which has been clarified to prostitutes in general, which seems to suggest that the fact condoms have a contraceptive use is an acceptable side effect of their use to prevent disease transmission. It's pretty clearly not an official change in the Church position, but I don't think it's so easy to draw a line between the Pope's personal statements and his official statements. Regardless of whether he's speaking as the Pope or Joseph Ratzinger, he's made a theological statement and, to me, that's different if he, I don't know, offered his opinion on a restaurant. The Pope's theological statements are going to carry more weight than another theologian's statements, particularly, I think, this Pope. If he's seen as being movable on the issue of condoms, suddenly the Church is movable, whereas it previously looked like this Pope was going to dig his heels in over everything.
*Though, if you scrutinise the Catechism, one might wonder whether the Church counts sex not involving a person theoretically once capable of producing sperm as sex.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: to clarify a point
Date: 2010-11-23 09:31 pm (UTC)While, as far as I've ever been able to tell, all non-procreative sex acts and all procreative ones outside the context of marriage are the same sin*, in some sense, I find it very hard to understand the Church as equally hostile to heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity outside of marriage or not hostile to gay people--the Pope's still not ended his campaign against gay priests, for instance. The Church is still a long way from "We like gay people" or even "Well, we like you, but we won't marry you".
I think it's very hard to parse, first, precisely what the Pope meant and, second, what weight it carries. There was initially ambiguity about whether he was referring to male or female prostitutes, which has been clarified to prostitutes in general, which seems to suggest that the fact condoms have a contraceptive use is an acceptable side effect of their use to prevent disease transmission. It's pretty clearly not an official change in the Church position, but I don't think it's so easy to draw a line between the Pope's personal statements and his official statements. Regardless of whether he's speaking as the Pope or Joseph Ratzinger, he's made a theological statement and, to me, that's different if he, I don't know, offered his opinion on a restaurant. The Pope's theological statements are going to carry more weight than another theologian's statements, particularly, I think, this Pope. If he's seen as being movable on the issue of condoms, suddenly the Church is movable, whereas it previously looked like this Pope was going to dig his heels in over everything.
*Though, if you scrutinise the Catechism, one might wonder whether the Church counts sex not involving a person theoretically once capable of producing sperm as sex.