It is comprehensive in addressing every inanity by theorists proposing this was the green light for people having irresponsible sex. The focus of Christendom, society and the State is liberating people chained to immoral and sinful practices.
The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18).
The statement also affirmed that the Pope was not separating the unitive and procreative meaning of human sexuality.
My favorite part was addressed to the luminaries who were frantically asserting the teaching of abstinence was now trumped with the 'pastoral approach' of the "the lesser of two evils":
S
ome commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77).
An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed...
In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage.
I'm very relieved the Holy See responded to the pandemonium so thoroughly.
It was good to have a day of from thinking about condomversy, wasn't it?
Fr. Z continues to post coverage with his thoughts. Fr. Z is a bit more of an optomist than I. I'm not sure I see the kerfuffle as the Pope saying something controversial that contradicts fidelity to Church teaching so that we the people in the pews can kick the conversation around.
What purpose would this serve? The Pope is the interpreter of teaching. Anything we now say to our children or anyone else has been undermined.
When somebody is asking you about morality in sexuality and condoms, and asks you whether it would ever be moral to use a condom, specifically in preventing the spread of HIV, it would be easy to say, "No, though I understand the intention, condoms are unreliable and will actually increase a partner's chances of getting HIV. The morally responsible thing to do is to accept your cross and abstain from sex."
It is not rocket science.
There are very serious consequences to lives and souls.
Think of our own sons coming to us and asking if it is morally responsible to use a condom when sleeping with the whores on Columbus Avenue. Well, no actually. Because you just might get HIV and pass that long someday to your wife and children. More importantly, there's responsibility to talk about abstaining from situations that jeopardize their salvation. We are not here to give constructive permission. We are here to hold the line of truth.
If our mind was somewhere else and we make a mistake in answering our children - and they spread that error up at the high school, we'd be frantic to set the record straight, right? We wouldn't read what we said in the school newspaper and in a followup question about whether we meant the advice strictly for our sons or whether it's also okay for our girls to use condoms, we wouldn't send somebody imprudent out to say "yes, the most important thing is to think about saving the life of the person you're sleeping with".
What purpose in matters of the soul would it serve to throw out something that was received poorly and with errors and let the immature and uncatechized hash it out at the high school?
A lot of times lowly bloggers are taken out of context to say things we never intended to convey. Or sometimes, we even make a boo-boo. It is important to correct them. It stands to reason the Vicar of Christ would be subject to the same hysteria. As Cardinal Burke says HERE, it will be important for the Holy See to clarify the mess.
If the media has misunderstood it, is this perhaps a failure of Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican to communicate effectively? Is there a need to “dumb things down” so the media gets it?
I believe the fact that the media has interpreted this in a way, at least from what I can gather from the communications that I’ve received, that is false interpretation and is rather widespread, that it will be rather important for the Holy See now to clarify the matter. [The Vatican Press Office did indeed issue a clarification Nov. 22, saying, “The Pope again makes it clear that his intention was not to take up a position on the problem of condoms in general; his aim, rather, was to forcefully reaffirm that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved simply by distributing condoms, because much more needs to be done: prevention, education, help, advice, accompaniment, both to prevent people from falling ill and to help them if they do.]
That’s what’s going to have to happen now, because even some of the commentators who might be in general well disposed to the Holy See could misinterpret this and take it that indeed the Holy Father is making some change in the Church’s position in regards to the use of condoms, and that would be very sad.
It would indeed, but as some spiritual advisors have told me somewhere along the way, we can't stop what is predicted in the Book of Revelation, can we. Sowing confusion is very much a part of the sifting and at every step of the way, we choose Christ and Truth and His Church, the Sacraments.
But this is Christ’s Church, and thus, we have to recognize the hand of Our Lord upon this difficult moment, that God Himself is directing His Bride’s destiny. Pondering on St. Gregory’s word should give every Catholic pause to ask the question: "Am I in unity with Christ and His Church or not?" By this I mean, if Christ is the "truth", am I in unity with truth? The question is not a small one:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. (John 3:36)
Jesus died to set us free from sin saying, "the truth will set you free." As I wrote in Living the Book of Revelation, the battle between the "woman" and the "dragon" begins as a battle overtruth that culminates, for a brief time, in the reign of anti-truth—the reign of the beast. If we are living in the proximity of those days, then the slavery of mankind will be achieved by leading them into falsehood. Or rather, those who reject the teachings of the Faith revealed by Christ and transmitted through Apostolic succession will find themselves serving another god.
Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned. (2 Thess 2:11-12)
A GREAT SIFTING
Jesus said that, at the end of the age, there would be a great sifting of the weeds from the wheat (Matt 13:27-30). How would we be sifted?
Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. (Matt 10:34-36)
What is the sword? It is the truth.
Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
And so we see this sword is indeed double-edged. On the one hand, it has been used to strike many shepherds:
Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered. (Zec 13:7)
Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves! You did not strengthen the weak nor heal the sick nor bind up the injured. You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost… (Ezekiel 34:1-11)
On the other hand, the sheep have often followed their own desires, ignoring the truth engraved on their consciences, and following after idols. And thus, God has permitted the sheep to go hungry in many places:
Yes, days are coming, says the Lord GOD, when I will send famine upon the land: Not a famine of bread, or thirst for water, but for hearing the word of the LORD. (Amos 8:11)
THE POPE AND THE CONDOM STORM
What does all this have to do with the Pope and his spontaneous remarks about the use of condoms?....
The Holy Father’s words are no doubt controversial and ‘risky.’ The result has been mass confusion. But his remarks are also (whether intended or not) serving to "penetrate even between soul and spirit" exposing "the reflections and thoughts of the heart." Of course, what the Pope said was not the Word of God much less an authoritative statement. It was his personal viewpoint—a theologian theologizing. But the response to his words are revealing much about the "thoughts of the heart" of both sheep and their shepherds, not to mention the wolves. We are seeing a further sifting in the Church…
So the real story here is not the theological speculation of a pontiff, but the response rebounding throughout the world. Will some simply bail on the Holy Father for what is said to be yet another public relations gaffe? Will others use this as an excuse to uses condoms particularly for contraception, ignoring the official teaching of the Church? Will the media use this to sow lies and confusion to further discredit the Holy Father? And will yet others remain on the Rock of Truth, despite the pounding waves of mockery and misunderstanding?
That is the question: who will run from the "Garden" and who will remain with the Lord? For the days of sifting are growing more intense and the choice for or against the truth is becoming more defined by the hour until, some day, it will be definitive—and then the Church will be handed over to her enemies as was Christ, her Head.
The clarification was...well, to be honest, it wasn't really all that helpful.
The statement says Pope Benedict states that AIDs cannot be solved only by the distribution of condoms, and, in fact, concentrating on condoms just trivializes sexuality, which loses its meaning as an expression of love and becomes like a drug.
At the same time, the Pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the Pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a “first step on the road to a more human sexuality”, rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others.
Father Lombardi’s statement clarifies Pope Benedict XVI has not reformed or changed the Church’s teaching, but by putting it in perspective reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.
But condoms do not reduce the risk of infection, the Pope and the Holy See should be advising that the moral action to avoid risking lives of others is abstinence. Further, this makes it seems like throwing on a condom reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.
As I said the other day, it is enabling somebody to resume sexual activity and put their partner at risk when they might have followed the old advice from previous Popes and abstained from sexual activity which leads to a zero incidence of giving HIV to your wife or husband.
This reminds me of an incident about a decade ago when prolifers were fighting some piece of nutty sex-ed legislation with the Massachusetts Legislature and one of the local Bishops here at the time volunteered to testify. He did a great job. On the way out, the press was waiting for him outside of the hearing room and baited him into some question that they blew up the next day in the paper. We somehow managed to keep it stalled and when it came time for the second hearing, God Bless this Bishop, he came again to help us out. Again, he did a fantastic job. Again, the press was waiting for him and baited him into saying something else that had the potential for our side to lose some ground but the bill didn't go anywhere.
When the bill was scheduled for the third hearing, the day before I met with the Bishop to touch base with him and also tell him how much we appreciated his willingness to go personally to help us. Near the end of the conversation I said (with a grin on my face) "Your Excellency, after you testify, keep walking to your car without stopping to speak to the press." "REALLY??" he asked. "Really", I said, "if they ask you anything just say "Sorry, I'm on my way to a meeting. My testimony speaks for itself". We had a good laugh but I got the feeling nobody ever told him his forte was not answering questions 'off the cuff' and how to deal with it.
I know there's a lot of blame on the press and I agree that they jumped on the confusion but on the other hand, the statements themselves are less than stellar.
We think and hope we know what he's saying.
If you're going to get stinking drunk and drive home from your Thanksgiving dinner at Aunt Fran's, the first step in moral responsibility is not to put anyone else in the car with you. For the sake of value and dignity to human life send your children home with somebody who is sober and hope for the best.
Perhaps if you're a prostitute and you come down with HIV, you might want to switch to selling crack pipes or something like that.
Ok, I actually don't know where he was going with it. I understand that he was saying there was a shred of grace left because his thought process is that his own sins have consequences to others and should take a step towards responsibility but it could have been said without the examples used which are definitely confusing. As is the clarification. I love our Pope but to be completely honest I can't rationalize the safe sex advice. We'd all be a lot happier if somebody/somebodies who has a little more savvy with the secular press and culture circles back with the Pope to take another whack at the clarification.
For years, divisions in the Vatican have held up any effort to reconcile the church's ban on contraception with the need to help halt the spread of AIDS. Theologians have studied the possibility of condoning limited condom use as a lesser evil, and reports years ago said the Vatican was considering a document on the issue, though opposition apparently blocked publication.
One senior Vatican official said Monday he believed the pope just "wanted to kick-start the debate." He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
For the deeply conservative Benedict, it seemed like a bold leap into modernity — and a nightmare for many at the Vatican. The pope's comments sparked a fierce debate among Catholics, politicians and health workers that is certain to reverberate for a long time despite frantic damage control at the Vatican.
The 'senior official' was so confident about the veracity of his assertions "he spoke on the condition of anonymity" so his name wouldn't be attached to this asinine statement. I wonder what rock he was under when the debate was kick started in 1967 until Humane Vitae was sufficiently kicked under the radar over the last 40 years.
If you want a good look at how some Catholics exploited the situation - check this out.
Thank you Holy Father.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
God Bless
**
I think this is actually going to open up discussions on various issues. For example, the issue of condoms in Africa, where women are being raped by HIV infected men. Or, in a concern outside of sex, it seems to connect to the question of giving out needles to drug users.
**
The more nonsense I see in the comboxes over at WDTPRS, the more convinced I am that Benedict was right on here. Those most upset have no genuine sense of the Catholic ethical tradition at all. You get the impression they’d think it would be immoral to use a condom as a parachute to save a life.
And, though there certainly is confusion in the MSM about “change” in Church teaching, this isn’t all bad. They used to think we said:
“gay sex = bad + condom = bad, therefore gay sex + condom = really bad.”
They don’t think we believe that anymore. That’s a good thing, even if some of Z’s and TAC’s commenters actually do believe that.
**
You do realize he is seriously arguing that the Pope said it’s OK for gay men to use condoms because the Pope is gay himself, yes?
**
Be sure to read Archbishop Chaput, Judie Brown and watch Michael Voris for some excellent analysis. But I think the right course of action here is for the Pope to get a more substantive clarification out there.
The question of condoms arises in chapter eleven, in the context of Benedict’s March 2009 journey to Africa. That trip was largely overshadowed by controversy over comments the pontiff made to reporters aboard the papal plane, to the effect that condoms actually make the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.
Benedict is clearly still annoyed by that reaction, saying he felt he was being “provoked” by the question about condoms. The suggestion was that the church is indifferent to HIV/AIDS, when in reality “the church does more than anyone else,” Benedict says.
Benedict goes on to say that his point was simply that one cannot solve the problem of HIV/AIDS merely by distributing condoms, something that even secular AIDS experts would concede.
While broadly defending traditional Catholic teaching against artificial birth control, Benedict also suggests that in some limited instances the use of a condom might be morally defensible.
“In this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” the pope says....Benedict offers the example of a male prostitute. In that situation, he says, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”
Beyond the question of prostitution, many mainstream Catholic moral theologians have also argued for the moral acceptability of condoms in the case of a married heterosexual couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other is not. In that set of circumstances, theologians have argued, condoms would be acceptable since the aim is not to prevent new life, but to prevent infection....
Back in 2006, Benedict asked the Pontifical Council for the Health Care Pastoral under Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who has since retired, to examine precisely that question. Having polled the doctors and other health care professionals, as well as theologians, who consult with the council, Barragán presented the pope with a tentatively positive response – that in the case of couples where one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not, condoms could be justified.
To date that position has not been officially codified, and some Vatican officials have said on background that they worry doing so would be seen publicly as a blanket endorsement of condoms. Yet Benedict’s comments to Seewald suggest that the pope himself is at least positively inclined to such a development.
There's a lot here, so I'd like to chew off a little bit at a time.
Let's take the easiest to digest.
Could it be possible that the Pope, in mercy, would adjust the teachings of the Church to accommodate condom use between a married couple when a husband is HIV positive?
Catholic teaching about marriage and sexuality is that it is a symbiotic relationship that has to be open to life. When two people approach the Sacrament of Marriage, if the male is for some reason impotent, or in the rare case of a structural abnormality of the woman that would make it impossible to consummate the marriage, the teaching is that the couple is not eligible for the Sacrament of Marriage.
The suggestion the Pope would incorporate the exception of wearing a condom in marital relations would signal a change the definition of the eligibility to Sacrament of Marriage which would be quite a dramatic development.
Each act of marital intimacy is supposed to be open to life. There is some controversy about whether NFP (Natural Family Planning) even violates this principle. But a woman can ovulate twice or something could happen in her cycle that throws off the science of it -- and NFPers are always open to the possibility that God may intervene and bring life into a relationship even with the best laid plans of mice and men and they rejoice in that life.
These new purported papal explanations would signal a change in the meaning and definition of sexuality to an expression of intimacy and pleasure.
If the medical condition of HIV is going to be an exception, a condition that is mostly spread by promiscuity, there would certainly also be exceptions to other medical conditions.
Another way of saying it is, I'm not buying into it.
On a more complex spiritual level, perhaps it's possible an act of dispensation would or could be granted between certain couples but a change in teaching would send such mixed messages to the conscience that would negatively and materially affect the salvation of many.
The secular world treats our teaching as a merciless understanding of societies where men are promiscuous but the distribution of condoms actually enables men to continue to act irresponsibly, sets the expectation that women will accept this irresponsibility and then play HIV roulette with them when the equipment needs some attention. Societies living this way disconnect human sexuality from emotions, holiness, God. Marital relationships and women are miserable from the effects of betrayals of trust the adultery brings into the marriage.
Would the Catholic Church surrender women to accept and enable the promiscuity and build marriages on this shaky foundation?
It isn't gelling for me.
This article in Catholic World Report does a nice job explaining the context of the Pope's statements. I think I mentioned sometime earlier this week that even when we're being misguided and we are lost, if we are still holding on to a spark of grace, a spark can make a fire.
What is Pope Benedict saying?
We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”
Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.
Some time ago, I found out a priest I trusted and who knew me quite well violated that trust by taking my children aside and having a nudge and wink conversation with them about using condoms. He took my 28 years of teaching human sexuality as holy (not to mention extremely pleasurable) expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy and fidelity to God and their husbands/wife and used his Roman collar to water it down to pleasure. Perhaps for the rest of their lives.
I have some insight as to how that could impact their marriages, their relationships with God, their grace.
I'm wagering that the Pope knows exactly what the kind of changes being attributed to him would mean and my thoughts on this are, he was grossly misquoted, taken out of context or misunderstood. I'm looking forward to reading others on the matter...though some, not so much.
Pray for the Pope. The poor man must be extremely frustrated with all of us!
Keep checking the links in my blogroll where I'm sure others will weigh in.
I hate to keep drilling home this week's meme but if you are not in a state of grace, this is a perfect example of how what you're hearing and what people actually may be saying can be radically different and how it can lead you right into temptation and sin.
Take care about with whom you entrust matters of your own soul and the souls of your children.
***UPDATE
My facebook friend Norman Servias, who lives in HIV capital of the world (South Africa) gave me a heads up on this article at Zenit that features the spectacular work of his production company on the matter and a great quote from the local Bishop.
First a quote from the Bishop:
Bishop Hugh Slattery of Tzaneen, South Africa, commissioned the videos as part of a program to respond to HIV/AIDS in an authentically Catholic way.
In an interview with ZENIT, Bishop Slattery said that the aim of the second video, completed last year, is to show that "abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage will quickly stop the spread of AIDS."
A third production entitled "Called to Care", will deal with "caring for the sick, the dying, and the AIDS orphans," and a fourth video, due for release later this year, will show "marriage and family as the real solution to the AIDS pandemic."
Change
A new Web site offers videos that document the fight against AIDS from a Catholic perspective. Metanoia Media, producer of the award-winning video "Sowing in Tears" and its follow-up, "The Change Is On," released the site last Friday to give a different perspective on the Pope's words about condoms. "The Change Is On" features unique footage and testimonies of abstinence activists and Catholic AIDS workers in South Africa and Uganda. It documents their successes and the challenging issues they face in the fight against the pandemic.
Norman Servais, head of the South African production company, told ZENIT: "My country, as you know, is the AIDS capital of the world, so speak to us about condoms if you like and we'll tell you that they are not the answer!"
How degrading and frustrating it must be to women trying to correct the culture to have our village idiots running around throwing promiscuous men condoms.
I bumped into this spoof of the condomaniacs that is worth a read.
The Holy Father was asked in a recent interview to comment on the behaviour of terrorists who plant no warning bombs in heavily populated areas of cities, close to schools and nurseries. He said it was a bad thing.
He was then asked if it was better if the terrorist telephoned in bomb warnings so that buildings could be evacuated.
The Holy Father said that while engaging in such acts of terrorism was always morally wrong, telephoning a warning "can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with political issues or demands for justice".
Media: "So you're saying it's okay to plant bombs so long as you use phone warnings?"
Holy Father: "No, of course not, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of serious injury or death to an innocent person...
Not surprisingly, the theological screwballs at Vox Nova jumped right on the situation to exploit and confuse Church teaching. It's hard for me to swallow that educated people would believe that the Pope would change Church teaching by leaking it out statements for us all to crack the code in some individual's book. Therefore, I have a hard time swallowing their 'work' is being done in good faith.
I'm going to tell you a little story. A recent convert to the faith, who is on the internet trying to learn about it, was grateful for the Snarlson uproar because it signaled to her that she ought to do more serious diligence about whether Vox Nova is sound. She spent significant time researching herself, sent me some links that confirmed for her Vox Nova is cleverly wording their dissent.
Characterizing Vox Nova folks as faithful to Church teaching is damaging to people who are recent converts and poorly catechized Catholics. We need to help our apostolates understand they've got to characterize Vox Nova properly.
Dissent at the National Catholic Reporter is very obvious but for Catholics who know their faith and are trying to teach it to others, it is damaging to link and reference apostolates and people in a way that implies they are sound Catholic thought.
There's no such thing as 'the truth wins out in the public square' when you are talking about matters of the soul. It is much more complicated. When you are operating under the notion that you can give a voice to everyone and the people who have come to trust your judgment are relying on you to point them in the right direction, there are some who may get caught up in the tangled web - especially if they are not in a state of grace or they are a new convert. We don't offer our space to Richard McBrien, even if a thing or two he writes about the poor could pass the muster of Catholic teaching. By doing so, people will think they can link and follow what Richard McBrien teaches as important to pay attention to.
There are some self-appointed arbiters of 'charity' around the internet who have derailed because they can't see the bigger picture and do not understand matters of the soul. Don't be one of them. If you run into one of them, do what you can to advise them.
Take some advice from this fool and keep 23rd psalm handy when you do because you might just find yourself getting a 'charitable' boot in the fanny.
