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.
Bishops must guide their faithful to use their vote to oppose efforts to legalize abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict XVI told bishops from Brazil.
"Dear brother bishops, to defend life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world's way of thinking," the pope said Oct. 28 during a meeting with bishops from northeast Brazil.
The bishops were making their "ad limina" visits to report on the status of their dioceses.
This is part and parcel of the scandalous fallout of an encyclical that leaves a door open to be interpreted by the communist/new world order whackadoos as evidence the Pope is to the left of Obama and sees him as a favorable light leading America towards salvation and good ends.
When President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow, there will be no right-wing Catholic demonstrators upbraiding the pontiff, as they did Notre Dame earlier this year, for conferring the church's legitimacy upon this liberal politician.
But the Vatican clearly views Obama through a broader prism. Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio in Washington, has privately warned American bishops that harsh attacks on the president threaten to make the church look partisan.
The Vatican press has been largely sympathetic to Obama, and in a recent article, Cardinal Georges Cottier, who was the theologian of the papal household under Pope John Paul II, praised Obama's "humble realism" and on abortion went so far as to compare the president's approach to that of St. Thomas Aquinas. (Pray this won't go to Obama's head.)
The Vatican's stance and the broadly positive response to Obama's Notre Dame speech have at least temporarily quelled the vocal opposition to the president among more conservative American bishops. Now, parts of the hierarchy are working closely with the administration on health-care reform, immigration and climate-change legislation.
Benedict's encyclical may provide the best perspective for understanding why a pope seen as a conservative views Obama more favorably than do most Catholic conservatives in the United States.
In the New Testament and The Book of Revelation, as the goats are separated from the sheep and the devil comes to collect his goats, he baits more traps.
Without a doubt, Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate was intended to reiterate the absolutes that a government operated with the pro-death agenda of Obama and his Administration is godless and doomed, the United Nations is a disaster in urgent need of reform, the flaws of the planned parenthood and abortion types have been a disaster, with the primary focus of drawing the befuddled and misled towards their conversion.
It is doing the opposite of it's intention. People are being hijacked.
I hope the Pope uses the opportunity to set the record straight. Unambiguously. Let's let devil bait the traps on his own. When we trip up and foolishly provide him with bait, we have a duty to untwist their logic and let he who has ears, hear.
