(kreuz.net, Sankt Pölten) "The expression of the Pope means no change to the teaching of the Church."
This was according to the Condom-Bishop of Saint Pölten, Msgr Klaus Küng, in an interview with the German newspaper 'Tagespost'.
Bishop Küng expressed himself on the most recent scandal revelation of the Pope about the condom.
For that reason he attempted to make things look as if Benedict XVI. supposedly had spoken against the fight against the sexually transmitted disease AIDS.
At the same time he explained that one that one has the experience world wide that the fight against AIDS is especially successful if people change their behavior:
"Where the fight against AIDS is only aimed at distributing condoms, only intensifies the spread of the disease."
That is proven -- the Bishop argues correctly.
The Condom Doesn't Avoid Infection
The comes -- as expected -- the big but.
There are people, who as far as the expectation of responsibility, to honorable truth and abstemiousness are "absolutely not amenable".
In the mileu of drugs or prostitutes there is no situation, where it is supposedly better, to a supposed "avoidance of infection by using a condom".
That is no relativism of the Encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' (1968).
It is "exclusively for the avoidance of infection".
Truthfully the Bishop had only to have spoken of a mere reluctance of infection.
Something Bad is never Responsible
At the same time Msgr Küng values it as "new that the Pope has held the use of condoms in these cases as a first step toward the discernment of responsibility."
This fatal rejection of every moral teaching alters -- according to the Bishop -- supposedly nothing, that the "object" always consists "in changing false behavioral pattern".
Confusion as Clarification
The expression of the Pope's -- which has led to incredible confusion worldwide -- is for Msgr Küng a contribution "to a necessary clarification."
Msgr Küng remembers then that he himself some months ago "in a similar way" had defended the prophylactic for male sexual organs:
"Still another time: It doesn't come down to changing the teaching of the Church, rather for an important differentiation."
He said, here:
"On the other hand I have maintained that it is -- according to the same Church teaching-- possibly allowed to gives condoms to people, who are not prepared, to listen to the teaching of the Church, for example people who are dependent on drugs."Then the Bishop rumages for a notable example:
"When for example a man suffering from AIDS is in a way is understandable and a non-correspondence of his employment of force after he attracted, could his wife in such a situation justifiably suggest that a condom is used, because it means an avoidance of the danger of infection."
That is in any case not in contradiction to "Humanae Vitae" -- explained the Bishop: "In such situations it is not contraception which is the goal of the use of the condom, rather the protection from infection."
That's right, but it has nothing with sexual morality, rather it only has to do with self-defense.
In contrast, the Pope explained that the use of condoms could be "a first step to a moralization".
With that he maintains that through the purchase and use of condoms, he might become a better man.