Pope says condoms are “ok” in some situations

No, you aren’t dreaming or suffering from hallucinations; in a new book, the Pope has admitted that condom use may not be the big scary soul-sucking bogeyman the Vatican has claimed it is. Of course, it’s not like the Pope promised to distribute condoms to AIDS riddled Africa anytime soon, even though their own moral blindness on this issue has caused the death of untold millions.

The Pope gives the example of the use of condoms by male prostitutes as “a first step towards moralisation”, even though condoms are “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection”.

He says that the “sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of sexuality” where sexuality is no longer an expression of love, “but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves”.

I’m so sick of this bullshit the Catholic Church fights to ensure that sex is merely an expression of love. They want everyone to have their kind of sex: missionary, for procreation only, and not with anyone of the same sex. Sounds pretty dull, am I right?

As for his statement that condom use isn’t the best “solution” for the evils of AIDS, what the hell else is supposed to work? Telling people they are going to hell for slamming their private parts together doesn’t do the trick. You need to stop living in a fantasy land and realize human beings are built to fuck like bunnies, and plan accordingly, jackass.

Spread the outrage

Comments (5)

  • avatar

    Shamrock

    It’s important to point out that Ratzinger specified condom use by male homosexual prostitutes – since the condom would not be involved in preventing procreation. If the case was a female prostitute riddled with STD’s then the condom use would be sinful and wrong. Similarly, the church still holds that if a man riddled with STD’s is forcing himself on his wife then she must submit and never use a condom.

    They still have more than enough crazy to go around.

  • avatar

    Wendy

    Wow. Thanks Pope.

  • avatar

    Jon

    Despite what some people are bound to say, I’m not going to give Ratzi any credit whatsoever for taking a half-assed step toward a position he SHOULD’VE taken well before the bodies first started piling up. Fuck him and the rest of his limp-dick apologists.

    Although I’ve got nothing to back it up with, a part of me wonders how much of this is an actual response to the AIDS epidemic in Africa and how much of this is just for the sake of PR. Paedophiles? What Paedophiles?

  • avatar

    Name: Mark

    Fr John’s seeing this condom use as not aggravating an already gravely immoral situation – therefore merely a prevention of further disorder ; bearing no laudible credit whatsoever…a neutralising of aggravation is not direct moral agency – like kicking a cat into the road but waiting till the bus passes rather than kicking it under it.

  • avatar

    jeannie

    Does it say in the bible that sex is an expression of love? I was always under the impression that the reference to sex in the bible was for procreation only. Love has nothing to do with procreation, and vice versa.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top