B - Pope Benedict XVI finally deviates from RCCs hitherto rigid stance on condoms (no pun intended). Although what he said is a kind of a mess. I mean, condoms ok for (male) prostitutes, but still a no-no if they can prevent pregnancy. It's a small step for Ratzinger but hopefully a start of a giant leap for the Roman Church toward the more modern understanding of human sexuality and procreation.

And Allen, why are you so reluctant to talk about this? I mean, issues like soccer moms punching referees are important and all, but you couldn't find an hour out of 15 you do per week to devote to this?

Good comments overall. Keep up the work of our Lord.

Hey Allen;

Let me take care of your light work here. To The Last Cainanite - leave it to the media to misrepresent Catholic teaching. They do it every time, without fail And if you had actually read the excerpt instead of having it filtered to you by the media you would have understood that there is no change in teaching here in the Pope's statements. See link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/9aS1VgoUxbE

Contraception is and always has been an intrinsically evil act. The Church has stated this from the beginning and always will. And she tells us this simply because Christ told us that His Church cannot teach error. She is "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and if she did teach error the "gates of hell" would certainly prevail against her (Matthew 16:18). It is this consistency and veracity in teaching that testifies to the otherworldly authority of the Church. There is no manmade convention anywhere that can hold a candle to the consistency of the infallible majisterium.

That said, the Pope is saying nothing new concerning the Church's long standing teaching about contraception. Rather, he is commenting specifically upon condoms which are not intrinsically evil - nor can they be. They are simply amoral objects that can be used for good and/or evil intents just like any other object. It is perfectly fine, therefore, to use them for non-contracepting purposes such as making water balloons or the Pope's example (of that of a male prostitute using them to prevent the spread of AIDS). In no way, however, does the Pope advocate the practice of male prostitution (another intrinsically evil act). He is merely stating that by the prostitute's use of the condom (in a non-contracepting act) he is showing evidence that he is starting to see things from a higher perspective than that of a calloused hedonist. The Church's teaching on contraception is another example of seeing things from a higher perspective that many people today (having been indocrinated by a pro-hedonistic media) have difficulty seeing.

And contraception, incidentally, is in no way a modern innovation. This evil is ancient, predating history. The use of contraceptives is the first step towards converting a God fearing culture into one that worships death. It teaches us to hate our children and it doesn't curtail pregnancy for the unmarried, either. Rather, unwanted pregnancy has skyrocketted as a result of the unbridled condom use that began in the 60's. Why? Because, contrary to what the false prophets were preaching, it made us all even more irresponsible than we already were (not the other way around). And this ultimately led us to embracing that most egregious of all intinsic evils - abortion (just as Pope Paul VI predicted). Is it any wonder that with the moral depravity of our present administration, post-natal infanticide and death panels are suddenly also on the table?

So no, there is nothing modern about contraception. Satan, as Christ told us, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44) It is the Judeo-Christian rejection of contraception that is the only thing new here. Adherance to these teachings is what civilized humanity long ago. And our rejection of these Truths today is what is causing our demise. Yet the modernists call this progress. The world has been turned upside down as was also prophesied. (Isaiah 5:20, 2 Peter 2:2, George Orwell, etc.) Good is thought evil and evil good. Who will surviive?

tgoc said in comment # 3...Who will surviive?

Nobody. Either way, nobody.

tgoc said in comment # 3... And she tells us this simply because Christ told us that His Church cannot teach error. She is "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and if she did teach error the "gates of hell" would certainly prevail against her (Matthew 16:18). It is this consistency and veracity in teaching that testifies to the otherworldly authority of the Church. There is no manmade convention anywhere that can hold a candle to the consistency of the infallible majisterium.

So when the Church outlawed the teaching of heliocentrism- that was not an error?
When Innocent IV authorized torturing heretics- this too was not an error?
I suppose God himself demanded the Cathars be exterminated.

tgoc said in comment # 3...infallible majisterium.

Mr. Delirium and his infallible majisterium.

tgoc said in comment # 3...Contraception is and always has been an intrinsically evil act.

Allen is on record supporting the use of contraceptives in third-world countries.

Reponse to Erik;

1. Who will survive? Or rather, "who can withstand it" Is actually a veiled Scriptural reference from chapter 6 of the Book of Revelation. And that Book answers its own question in the next chapter. Those who have the seal of God on their forehead and whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb will be saved.

2. Papal infallibility is often misunderstood by non-Catholics. But if you want to argue against it you first need to know how Vatican I properly defined it. The common thumbnail definition from that great Council is that it must be a proclamation made by a sitting Pope (during his appointment to the office) made to the entire Church (that is, the world) concerning a teaching on Faith and Morals. Once you play by these rules about 95% of the complaints fall away leaving only a handful of discrepancies to deal with. And considering that handful of discrepancies is spread out over 2,000 years it doesn't leave a lot of room for objection.

As to your complaints they can be largely dismissed simply by noting that no one ever said that the Pope is infallible in behavior nor that he is infallible in his opinions on science. God knows that there have been some horrendous Popes (especially in the middle ages) but being so busy in selfish endeavors they generally had very little to say to the Church as a whole. And remember it is only in the areas of Faith and Morals where the Pope is consiedered to be infallible.

3. Infallible Majisterium: Consider this. When Vatican I formally defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility they did so with enormous courage. For in that one statement of Faith they gave the world the means to prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church if anyone so chose to do so. And it is simple. Anyone can do it. Forget about your previous arguments. They are all subjective. What you consider error others consider dogma and there is no way of settling the issue.

Focus instead on what each Pope has said on Faith and Morals. For if you can find any two that disagree you have proven that the Pope is not infallible and the entire Church is a sham. So there you have it. It was pretty stupid of the Church to have given the world such a loophole don't you think? Do you think they would have done so if they hadn't researched it to the nth degree prior to proclaiming it? Hmm.

Well all I can say is good luck in your search. I've personally researched this quite a bit (as an atheist prior to my conversion) and have not found anything that can legitimately be called a smoking gun. I've only uncovered, as I've said, a handful of questionable discrepancies and given the multitude of proclamations made over the years by 266 very different Popes this is quite an accomplishment (especially given that the vast majority of those proclamations were made prior to the formal definition of Infallibility made by Vatican I. Name one institution of this world where all of its CEOs were in accord on every important detail for their entire existence (let alone 2,000 years). There are none (except for the Roman Catholic Church). In fact no other institution comes remotely close. That is what has made the Catholic Church such a beacon over the years. Her consistency can only be thought of as being of supernatural origin just as Christ declared. But that's just what I've found as a result of my research. Perhaps your search will yield different results. If so let's hear of it.

4. As for Allen being on record saying that contraception is ok in third world countries, I've not heard him say this but if he did he is not in sync with Catholic teaching on this matter. With all due respect, however, no one ever claimed that Allen Hunt is infallible - least of all Allen.

tgoc said in comment # 5...Focus instead on what each Pope has said on Faith and Morals. For if you can find any two that disagree you have proven that the Pope is not infallible and the entire Church is a sham.

Where can I find an official list of these statements? I don't think there is one. And isn't everything the Pope says a statement on 'Faith and Morals'? I mean what other kind of statement could he make- restaurant reviews? Auto repair?

tgoc said in comment # 5...Forget about your previous arguments. They are all subjective.

If you were being tortured for being heretic I bet it wouldn't be 'subjective'.

tgoc said in comment # 5...What you consider error others consider dogma and there is no way of settling the issue.

And what some people call child rape others call 'training for the priesthood'. I guess there is no way of settling these things.

Response to Erik;

1: There is no official list but many Encylicals, Papal statements etc. can be found at the Vatican Website and other Catholic links. As for other sources there have been many Catholic haters who have accepted the challenge of Vatican I on papal infallibility. And their arguments are all over the internet. For the most part they do not comply with the rules set down in my previous e-mail. And those few arguments that do I've found extremely weak. But that at least might make for a good starting point for you.

Regarding your question as to what constitutes a statement by the Pope on Faith and Morals you've answered it yourself. Loosely it is a statement pertaining to the deposit of Faith set down by Jesus and the Apostles either as to what to believe or how to behave. And again as I stated in my last e-mail, the Pope's own behavior is not governed by the infallibility charism just as Jesus seems to have foretold (Matthew 23:2-3). It is only his pronouncements that need to be examined.

So yes, as you say the Pope's opinions on restaurants and auto repair, algebra, astronomy, etc. are not considered to be infallible.

As for your other two comments they are highly subjective, emotional, irrational and unworthy of comment. Such arguments are very typical of atheists since their main motivation seems to be irrational hatred for the Church. And I am speaking here from experience. Are you an atheist?

The bottom line is I've (or rather the Church has) given you an enormous opportunity to destroy that which you irrationally hate simply by disproving the doctrine of infallibility. Yet by your last statement you seem to be running away from this challenge. And I can understand why it might be more amenable for you to continue to slay strawmen of your own design rather than attack the real thing. But in doing so you accomplish nothing but support your self delusion.

Is that your final answer then - that "there is no way of settling these things" even though I've just given you a means fo doing just that? If so I will accept that statement as your resignation from this debate.

So the papal bull authorizing torture was 'infallible'- divine wisdom straight from the lips of God. OK.

You know this is quite a coincidence. As it turns out I am infallible too. Not all the time, but when I make certain grand pronouncements. Here is one: religion is bulls***. Now all you have to do is prove me wrong. Of course many have tried, but their arguments are very weak.

Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. Therefore I win.

tgoc said in comment # 3...Let me take care of your light work here. To The Last Cainanite - leave it to the media to misrepresent Catholic teaching. They do it every time, without fail And if you had actually read the excerpt instead of having it filtered to you by the media you would have understood that there is no change in teaching here in the Pope's statements. See link.

Light work? You wish!
I don't know about the generic "media", but I misrepresented nothing. These statements by B16 are significant, although they do not represent an overt break with Church's teaching. Sure, the RCC still thinks that "every sperm is sacred" but this is the first time the Church affirmed that it is ok to use condoms in certain cases.
Note also the pope's use of the term Prostituierter (male prostitute). If one assumes he wanted to imply a male prostitute catering only to men there is no problem with the anti-birth control dogma. But the Vatican spokesman, Frederico Lombardi, promptly clarified B16's statement to include all prostitutes. And in that case it is clear that the condom use would act as a contraceptive as well. Hence, it is a small step in the right direction as I initially stated.

Contraception is and always has been an intrinsically evil act.

That is just obviously wrong. Birth control has been known since antiquity but the Bible, which finds room to condemn wearing of mixed fibers and eating of shrimp, does not condemn usage of birth control at all. In fact, use of sex for pleasure is hinted at in various places.
The first condemnation of birth control by a church father is from very late 2nd century, but to my knowledge the RCC did not codify their rejection of birth control until 1930.

And she tells us this simply because Christ told us that His Church cannot teach error. She is "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and if she did teach error the "gates of hell" would certainly prevail against her (Matthew 16:18).

The pastoral epistles are very late pseudoepigrapha. And note that neither them, nor the gospels, nor indeed the rest of the Bible condemns the use of birth control although it was certainly known to them.

It is this consistency and veracity in teaching that testifies to the otherworldly authority of the Church. There is no manmade convention anywhere that can hold a candle to the consistency of the infallible majisterium.

Haha! Infallible majistarium(sic)! You are just too much dude!

Rather, he is commenting specifically upon condoms which are not intrinsically evil - nor can they be. They are simply amoral objects that can be used for good and/or evil intents just like any other object. It is perfectly fine, therefore, to use them for non-contracepting purposes such as making water balloons or the Pope's example (of that of a male prostitute using them to prevent the spread of AIDS).

It is a significant departure from what many Catholic prelates have claimed so far regarding use of condoms to prevent AIDS. For example, the late Cardinal John O'Connor claimed that condoms were not effective in preventing an HIV infection and that the use even by gay persons (where it cannot act as a contraceptive) is a grave sin.
So for you to say that B16's statements are nothing new is blatantly wrong.
And that is even before Lobmardi's clarification that using condoms to prevent AIDS applies to all prostitutes, even female ones, where condoms indeed can and do act as contraceptives.

And contraception, incidentally, is in no way a modern innovation. This evil is ancient, predating history.

Making the Bible's silence on the practice rather deafening, don't you think?

The use of contraceptives is the first step towards converting a God fearing culture into one that worships death. It teaches us to hate our children

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Birth control does not worship death. The culture that forces people to have children they can't afford to feed who then starve to death does worship death.

and it doesn't curtail pregnancy for the unmarried, either.
Rather, unwanted pregnancy has skyrocketted as a result of the unbridled condom use that began in the 60's.

Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because two things ocurred in succession does not mean the former caused the latter.
In fact, all evidence points out that contraceptive use reduces unwanted pregnancies (duh!). For example, the Gutmacher Institute found that Catholics are 29% more likely than Protestants to get an abortion despite their church's strong teachings against abortion. That's because Catholic women are much more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy because of lower rate of contraceptive use.

Because, contrary to what the false prophets were preaching, it made us all even more irresponsible than we already were (not the other way around). And this ultimately led us to embracing that most egregious of all intinsic evils - abortion (just as Pope Paul VI predicted).

Again, statistics show the opposite.

So no, there is nothing modern about contraception. Satan, as Christ told us, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44)

Interestingly, John's Jesus tells us nothing about Satan being peddler of birth control from the beginning. Face it, you have nothing except taking Bible quotes out of context.

Erik, I am not on record supporting contraception in third world countries

TGOC, you are right. I am not infallible. Although I do play one on TV.

LC, I did actually spend part of the show two weeks ago addressing the Pope's comments and the media's inability (to put it optimistically) to understand Catholic teaching or what he said. Become a gold subscriber and you can listen to that show right now. :)

Allen said in comment # 10...Erik, I am not on record supporting contraception in third world countries

Naaaah you are you are. Check the tapes.
I've been scrounging around the archives looking for the show.
One of the first Allen Hunt shows. First time I called in.

Erik, you could be right. I do not remember that conversation. Maybe like Reagan in that way

Frankly, I never really thought about the topic much until the past few years. My recent shows on this and an article I mentioned on the blog a while back reflect more of my current thinking

Allen said in comment # 12...Erik, you could be right.

Erik = infallible.

Tgoc,
is this crickets I am hearing? You talk a good game when it comes to minutiae of Papal authority, but fall deafeningly silent when the substance of the doctrines ("birth control is bad, m-kay") you affirm is challenged.

Allen said in comment # 10...Erik, I am not on record supporting contraception in third world countries

So you actually believe that people in third world countries should continue to "fill the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed" no matter how much suffering that causes both to them and to their children you so callously want to condemn them to have?

Allen said in comment # 10...LC, I did actually spend part of the show two weeks ago addressing the Pope's comments and the media's inability (to put it optimistically) to understand Catholic teaching or what he said. Become a gold subscriber and you can listen to that show right now. :)

If it was two weeks ago, then it should be up for us hoi polloi by now.
By the way, do you have any comments about what I wrote on the matter above?

Erik said in comment # 11...Naaaah you are you are. Check the tapes.
I've been scrounging around the archives looking for the show.
One of the first Allen Hunt shows. First time I called in.

For some reason, Andy took down the audio for shows older than April 2006. Bloody shame too, as some of the best shows are from the early period. I found this out when I was looking for a particular old show myself some time back and could not pull up the audio.

Allen said in comment # 12...Frankly, I never really thought about the topic much until the past few years. My recent shows on this and an article I mentioned on the blog a while back reflect more of my current thinking

Erik, you forget that back then Allen was still a Protestant (and fiercely proud of it). As such he could wear whatever he wanted on his John Thomas and did not feel the need to toe the Catholic Party line on this and other issues.
Allen, don't even think you can convince us your change in stance on birth control comes from thinking it through for yourself and not from the fact that you think that as a good and loyal Catholic you must swallow the Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker.

The Last Cainanite said in comment # 14...Allen, don't even think you can convince us your change in stance on birth control comes from thinking it through for yourself and not from the fact that you think that as a good and loyal Catholic you must swallow the Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker.

It's a catch-22 for him. Actually worse than that- an existential dilemma. This is what Sartre means when he says man is 'condemned to be free.' Allen can either say (as he seems to above), 'well, I thought it through and I'm against X and Y' OR he can say, 'this is the church's position, and that's all I need to know." But we all see the difficulty here, yes? If he has arrived at his own conclusion then what the hell do we need the church for? The church...sorry The Church would only serve as a starting point. If I make up my own mind then I rob them of their authority.

If he takes the second position- well, that's a bit more theologically consistent, but very unappealing in practice. He is then saying he's just a zombie basically, and does not- CAN NOT evaluate dogma. The only answer he could EVER give for a question of dogma is, "it's the church's position." That's it.

Still this is no escape. One is always affirming one system or another. No matter how hard we try to escape we are still prisoners of our own judgments. Might as well declare that you think for yourself ("Judge and prepare to be judged"- Nietzsche) than try to evade your own mind.