Patsy says:

Is the Pope really that niave to think that male prostitutes are the only ones who can carry HIV? He must be terribly sheltered or something. What about if a female prostitute is visited by a bi-sexual man? Who's to say that they are going to wear a condom? Surely he should have said all prostitutes. So in around about way he is saying that the risk of AIDS comes from homosexuality mainly or did I hear that wrong?

and later....

Why can't people just be brave enough to say that it is Pope Benedict that has to go. Can a Pope be sacked? I am not a Catholic so I don't know if there is a procedure they follow if a Pope doesn't come up to scratch.

Please remember that the statement about condoms is an excerpt from a book-length interview, not a complete doctrinal statement. No, of course the Pope isn't so naive as "to think to think that male prostitutes are the only ones who can carry HIV," and it's really quite foolhardy to attempt to make that sort of implication. The guy was a distinguished university professor, for heaven's sake. The male prostitute was proposed as an example where a condom could be used to prevent spread of disease, not a declaration that this would be the only situation where using a condom could be morally correct. The general idea is that the Pope conceded that condoms could be useful in preventing the spread of disease. The implication is that prevention of disease is a moral good, and that use of a condom to prevent disease could be morally right - apart from consideration of the morality of contraception or extramarital sex. As far as I can tell, further details have not been published. Still, it is an encouragement to hear that this pope will at least allow for the fact that condoms are effective in reducing the spread of disease.

I think that Pope Paul VI made a mistake by continuing the prohibition of "artificial contraceptives" when he promulgated the Humanae Vitae encyclical in 1968. That was a time when change was possible and necessary, and it appeared at the time that he was going to make that change. It didn't happen, and conservative Catholics still applaud his decision because they claim that widespread contraception has resulted in widespread promiscuity. The decision also found approval among Catholics in cultures that have taboos against contraception. Progressive Catholics have learned to follow their own consciences, especially in the bedroom. This was the first time in recent history that there was widespread dissent against papal teaching, and it helped a whole generation of Catholics to learn to think for themselves.

Church doctrines are very difficult to change. To be credible, changes in doctrine have to reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of believers. The time was right for a change in doctrine at the time of Paul VI, and then he made his declaration in a way that was very hard to contradict later on.

Now that the mood of lay Catholics has become distressingly conservative, I'm beginning to be happy that doctrine is so difficult to change. The 25-year reign of John Paul II could have been a lot harder on us progressives if he could have changed doctrine more easily.

The statement of Benedict about condoms is a very small step, but it is a significant advance in a church that moves with prodigious slowness. I was pleased and surprised that he made even this small concession, and I see it as confirmation of my impression that he is a reasonable and compassionate person. He has not changed the teaching on birth control, but neither has he gone out of his way to condemn anyone who practices birth control.

-Joe-