Statement on Pontiff's Words Regarding Condoms
"The Pope Does Not Reform or Change the Church's Teaching"
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a statement released today by Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, regarding the words of Benedict XVI regarding condoms as recorded in a book, "Light of the World," scheduled for release on Tuesday.
On Saturday, L'Osservatore Romano published some quotes from this book, which drew public interest and prompted Father Lombardi to release a statement of clarification. ZENIT will publish excerpts from the English translation of the book over the next couple of days.
* * *
At the end of chapter 10 of the book "Light of the World" the Pope responds to two questions about the battle against AIDS and the use of condoms, questions that reconnect with the discussion that followed some statements that the Pope made on the theme during the course of his trip to Africa in 2009.
The Pope again clearly stresses that at that time he had not intended to take a position on the problem of condoms in general, but wanted to affirm with force that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved simply by distributing condoms, because much more needs to be done: prevention, education, help, counsel, being with people both to keep them from getting sick and in the case that they do get sick.
The Pope observes that even in the non-ecclesial context an analogous awareness has developed, as is apparent in the so-called ABC theory (Abstinence -- Be Faithful -- Condom), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are more decisive and basic in the battle against AIDS, while condoms appear in the last place as a way out, when the other two are not there. It should thus be clear that condoms are not the solution to the problem.
The Pope then broadens the perspective and insists on the fact that focusing only on condoms is equivalent to banalizing sexuality, which loses its meaning as an expression of love between persons and becomes a "drug." Fighting against banalization of sexuality is "part of the great effort to help sexuality be valued positively and have a positive effect on man in his totality."
In the light of this broad and profound vision of human sexuality and the contemporary discussion of it, the Pope reaffirms that "naturally the Church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution" to the problem of AIDS.
In this the Pope does not reform or change the Church's teaching, but reaffirms it, placing it in the perspective of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of responsible love.
At the same time the Pope considers an exceptional circumstance in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real threat for the life of another. In that case, the Pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality but maintains that the use of a condom to reduce the danger of infection may be "a first act of responsibility," "a first step on the road toward a more human sexuality," rather than not using it and exposing the other to risking his life.
In this, the reasoning of the Pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary change. Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures have supported and support analogous positions; it is nevertheless true that we have not heard this with such clarity from the mouth of the Pope, even if it is in a informal and not magisterial form.
With courage Benedict XVI thus offers us an important contribution of clarification and reflection on a question that has long been debated. It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refuting an illusory path like that of the "confidence is condoms"; on the other hand, however, it manifests a comprehensive and far-seeing vision, attentive to uncovering the small steps -- even if only initial and still confused -- of an often spiritually and culturally impoverished humanity, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.
[Translation from Italian original by Joseph G. Trabbic]
http://www.zenit.org/article-31024?l=english
ZE10112103 - 2010-11-21
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-31024?l=english
The Vatican newspaper has betrayed the Pope
by Phil Lawler, November 22, 2010
Pope Benedict has not changed the Church’s teachings, or even intimated that they might be subject to change. The Holy Father has not called for a new debate on the morality of contraception. He has not suggested that condom use might sometimes be morally justifiable.
Yet today millions of people around the world believe that the Pontiff has changed Church teaching, has opened the question of contraception for debate, and has justified condom use in some circumstances. How did that happen?
Yet again, Pope Benedict has been badly served by his public-relations staff. In this case, the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano bears most of the blame for a truly disastrous gaffe.
An exciting book project subverted
The stories that are dominating media coverage of the Vatican this week can be traced to an interview in which Pope Benedict XVI responded to questions from the German journalist Peter Seewald. That interview was the basis for an exciting new book, Light of the World, which is due for publication this week.
The book is the 3rd such collaborative effort between the Pope and Seewald. But it is the first since Benedict XVI assumed the Chair of Peter, and the notion that a reigning Pontiff would submit to a book-length interview is a sensation in itself. Readers who expect something very special from such a book will not be disappointed. Light of the World is indeed sensational.
As an interviewer Seewald does his job well. He respectfully but persistently pressed the Pope to explain his thinking on a host of issues, many of them controversial. Pope Benedict, for his part, is candid and lucid, presenting his thoughts with that simple clarity that makes him such a great natural teacher. In Light of the World the reader will find the Pontiff’s honest thoughts on topics such as:
• the nature of papal infallibility and Petrine authority;
• the real reason for lifting excommunications on the traditionalist bishops of the
Society of St. Pius X;
• the limits of dialogue with Islam;
• the possibility of a papal resignation;
• the message of Fatima;
• the day-to-day life of the apostolic palace;
• the true causes of the sex-abuse scandal and the prospects for reform.
On every one of these topics, this reader found the Pope’s remarks refreshingly honest and thought-provoking. The Holy Father offers a number of fascinating revelations, along with an enormous amount of profound theological reflection. The book is, again, sensational.
Those of us who received advance copies of Light of the World were told that the text was under a very strict embargo. We were forbidden to quote from it, cite it, or even make any specific revelations about its content until the formal launch of the book this week. Such embargos are not unusual in the world of publishing (although the publishers were unusually stern about it in this case), and professional journalists routinely honor them.
Then, incredibly, the Vatican’s own newspaper violated the embargo. Betraying the publishers and breaking trust with all the other journalists who were fulfilling their promises, L’Osservatore Romano reproduced a passage from the Pope’s interview. And not just any passage. The Vatican newspaper reproduced—without explanation or comment—a passage in which Pope Benedict reflected on the possibility that in some extreme cases, the impulse to use a condom might show a flickering of unselfishness in a seriously corrupted conscience.
Moreover, L’Osservatore broke the embargo, and published the excerpt, during a weekend when the Vatican was happily distracted by a consistory. At a time when Church leaders should have been celebrating a joyous occasion—the elevation of 24 members to the College of Cardinals—top Vatican officials were scrambling to explain the Pope’s words, which had been published prematurely and outside of their proper context.
The launch of Light of the World should have been another joyful occasion. With appropriate planning, the publisher was poised to introduce the Pope’s book with a major publicity campaign. Now that publicity—which might have offered an accurate and favorable portrayal of the Pope’s book—will be nearly lost in the deluge of misinformation currently sweeping across the world.
What the Pope said—and did not say
Of all the passages that might have been culled out of the book, L’Osservatore Romano chose some speculative remarks by the Pontiff on the subject of condom use. Any capable journalist should have realized in advance that these remarks would be misinterpreted—especially when they were presented out of context.
In the passage that L’Osservatore published, Pope Benedict was not backing away from earlier statements, in which he had said that the distribution of condoms is not the proper way to fight the spread of AIDS. On the contrary, the Pope was defending that stand! Far from retracting his previous words, the Holy Father was explaining and elaborating on them.
In that context, when Seewald pressed him on the question of whether condom use might ever be advisable, the Pope replied:
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses
a condom, where this 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 the evil
of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
When Seewald asked for a clarification, the Pope quickly added that the Church can never regard condom use as “a real or moral solution.”
Notice that in his hypothetical example, the Pope spoke of a “male prostitute,” presumably involved in homosexual acts. So the question of contraception—the main reason for the Church’s opposition to condoms—was removed from the equation. This prostitute is engaged in profoundly immoral acts. The Pope does not suggest that the use of a condom would make his prostitution less immoral; he says only that by recognizing the imperative to protect his sexual partner, the theoretical prostitute is making a small step toward proper moral reasoning.
Here the Pope was making a theoretical point, not a practical one. He was not teaching, but explaining a point. He was not speaking with authority—in fact, earlier in the book he had explained why nothing the Pope says in an interview should be regarded as authoritative—but speculating. Nothing in what the Pope said, or the way he said it, reflects any change in the Church’s teaching.
In her helpful explanation of the Pope’s words, Janet Smith observed that “the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms.” To place the Pope’s speculative remarks about the male prostitute in the proper context, Smith offered an analogy of her own:
If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person
to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the
task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not
the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could
not use bullets.
Journalistic incompetence
If it is “not the task of the Church” to give safety tips to bank robbers and homosexual prostitutes, why did the Pope offer that example? In the context of a lengthy conversation, with a sympathetic interviewer, it is easy to see how the Pope might have been tempted toward speculative remarks. But in the weeks between the time of the interview and the date of publication, did no one at the Vatican recognize the likelihood that the Pope’s words would be yanked out of context? Did any authoritative Vatican official vet the text of the interview, to ensure that the Pope’s answers to Seewald were not subject to confusion and/or misinterpretation? If not, then this pontificate is now suffering from another self-inflicted wound. Surely any capable journalist would have recognized the potential for trouble, immediately upon reading the Pope’s words. Anyone alert to the rhythms of everyday public debate would have been able to warn the Pontiff that his subtle distinctions about the morality of condom use would be lost upon the secular media. Jeff Miller makes a witty reference to the “Ginger factor”: the tendency of journalists, when they encounter a mention of “condoms,” to block out all other words. Secular journalists, reading the Pope’s words in the fateful paragraph above, would ask themselves only whether the Pontiff was allowing for the possibility of condom use, and conclude that he was. So inevitably the Pope’s statement would be seen as opening a loophole in Church teaching.
Yet it was the Vatican’s own journalists, at L’Osservatore Romano, who put the Pope’s words in print without any proper introduction, any effort to put the Pontiff’s thoughts in context. The Pope’s statement was bound to stir up trouble; its premature publication in the Vatican newspaper exacerbated the problem.
In past months L’Osservatore Romano has often embarrassed the Vatican, with puerile articles gushing about the merits of Michael Jackson, the Beatles, and The Simpsons. But this editorial blunder is far more serious. With its gross mishandling of this very serious issue, the Vatican newspaper has given rise to a worldwide confusion on a very important moral issue—damage that it may take years of painstaking work to undo.
“Ironically, the message of this good and brilliant Pope has been hobbled nearly as much by the baffling failures of some of his own aides as by unfriendly coverage from the world's media,” writes Archbishop Charles Chaput for First Things. For the welfare of the Church, these public-relations debacles must end.
Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474
The Pope on Condoms: from the Anscombe Bioethics Centre
The Pope on AIDS and condoms
What the Pope said:
Peter Seewald: On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican's policy on Aids
once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all Aids victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church's traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church's own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.
Pope Benedict: The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a
single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on Aids. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim.
Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many Aids victims, especially children with Aids.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering.
In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.
This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this 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 the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle
to the use of condoms?
Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case,
there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
(From The Light of the World London: CTS, 2010, pages 117-119]
Commentary from the Anscombe Bioethics Centre:
This is a significant and thoughtful passage, but one could be misrepresented or misunderstood. Hence it is important to be clear about what Pope Benedict is saying and what he is not saying.
1) The first thing the Pope says is that the fundamental response of the Church to the HIV crisis
should be to guide, to support and to accompany the victims - and “she is second to none in treating so many AIDS victims, especially children with AIDS.” [Indeed in 2001 it was estimated approximately 25% of all AIDS care worldwide was provided by Catholic organisations]. Unfortunately this key message of the Pope may well be lost in what follows but an attempt should be made to repeat it, at least to those more sympathetic in the media who may report it.
2) Secondly, in relation to condoms and AIDS prevention the Pope reiterates that, “we cannot solve
the problem by distributing condoms”. To make the point he considers “the so-called ABC Theory”. While the Western media have never taken abstinence or fidelity seriously in the approach to AIDS, the predominant approach of secular AIDS education programmes in Africa and elsewhere is A-B-C: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom so that condom is the third line of defence (or as the Pope says, as “a last resort”) not the starting point. Furthermore, a fixation with condoms can also lead to the “banalization of sexuality” against which the Pope urges a “humanization of sexuality”.
3) Thirdly, (and this is what has been the focus of media attention) the use of a condom could be “a
first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility”. This is indeed a dramatic statement because it is the first time that a Pope has said something positive, albeit in a very qualified sense, about the decision to use a condom to prevent infection. The example he uses is deliberate – a male prostitute, one whose activity is far from the Church’s teaching and is far from a humanized sexuality, and whose actions are already non-procreative. In this case the decision to use a condom could be a “first step” in a moral development – recognising responsibility for others and for oneself – taking care of others and of oneself. What should be clear is that this first step should not be the last step: that someone in this degrading and dangerous situation needs to find a different way of living altogether. But nevertheless, the decision to try to limit the danger of infection (for oneself and for others) can be a first step in a positive moral development.
Note what is not being said here. The Pope is not saying that the use of condoms is in itself moral or virtuous. Nor is he saying that their use can be “justified” on pragmatic grounds as a policy of AIDS prevention. He explicitly denies both of these moves. The use of condoms is “not… a real or moral solution”. Hence the Pope is not endorsing the arguments of some moral theologians that the use of condoms to prevent infection is objectively justified as a ‘lesser evil’ or by ‘double effect’. Rather, the Pope assumes that the use of condoms in not objectively good but that it might nevertheless represent for some person a subjective and partial move towards the good, “a first step” (the Pope repeats the phrase “ein erster Schritt”) on the way towards greater moral understanding. The Pope is thus considering an individual and thinking of his moral development. He is not suggesting that such an act might be objectively morally justifiable.
How significant is this statement? It is the first time that a Pope has said something positive, albeit in a very qualified sense, about the decision to use a condom to prevent infection. It is also a remarkable statement in terms of its tone and for what is not said. The Pope does not say that condoms are ineffective or that they are likely to make things worse. Indeed he says they are sometimes used with “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” which gives the impression that, in an individual case, they may actually reduce the risk. He is clear that condoms on their own are not the “solution”, and that “much more needs to be done”. But he does not deny that condoms might reduce infection rates in some circumstances. He even states that they might represent a subjectively positive moral step in some individual cases, if it is just a first step on a longer moral journey.
It is very likely that this statement by the Pope will be represented as a change of Vatican policy towards condoms and HIV. However, the Pope is not here addressing the question of institutional policy but is addressing a question of moral theology. He is asking whether in some cases the decision to use a condom might be a positive moral step. Some theologians may well argue that this paves the way for a new Vatican policy of at least tolerating the distribution of condoms: which it may to some extent. But this is more than the Pope explicitly says and to move too quickly to further possible implications is to risk losing the significance of what the Pope is actually saying.
A fixation with the policy on condoms is precisely what the Pope wants us to move on from. No such policy can be a “solution” if it is not part of a broader humanization. Nevertheless, what the Pope has done, without denying any part of traditional teaching is to call attention to a case of someone for whom the decision to use a condom is “a first step in the direction of a moralization”. Thus in some cases the decision to use a condom could be positive, at least in a subjective and partial way. But the Pope has said this in the hope of redirecting people away from fixation on condoms. This is why he calls it “a first step” a step that calls for further steps, towards faithfulness and the humanization of sexuality, that is towards the ‘A’ and the ‘B’ of ‘A-B-C’.
Pope Benedict starts by calling attention to the need for solidarity and accompaniment with victims and to the tremendous work the Church is doing in this regard. People may not hear this point, but it is perhaps more likely to be heard in the context of this passage because of the tone of the passage as a whole. As the Pope made an impression in his visit to Britain as much by his tone as by his words, so the tone of these words will also give an impression.
Dr David Albert Jones
Anscombe Bioethics Centre, 21 November 2010
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
posted by Joseph Shaw
Monday, November 22, 2010
http://casuistrycentral.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-on-condoms-from-snscombe-bioethics_22.html
________________________________________
Daily News
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
Freshly minted Cardinal Raymond Burke discusses the controversy regarding Light of the World, and what it’s like to work in Ratzinger’s Rome.
By John Burger
| Posted 11/23/10 at 12:05 AM
Cardinal Raymond Burke is prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the court of final appeal at the Vatican.
The Wisconsin native is the first American to hold that curial position. Pope Benedict XVI, who appointed him to the post in 2008, elevated him to cardinal Nov. 20, along with American Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and 22 other bishops and archbishops from around the world.
In the midst of activities related to the consistory of Nov. 22, Cardinal Burke took some time to read an advance copy of Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, Pope Benedict’s book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, just as a controversy about the Pope’s views on condom use broke in the press. As it became clearer what the Pope actually said in Light of the World, Cardinal Burke discussed the issue by phone Nov. 24 with Register news editor John Burger.
In Light of the World, Peter Seewald poses the objection that “it is madness to forbid a high-risk population (AIDS) to use condoms. To which Pope Benedict answers, in part, “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this 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 the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”
Seewald asks for a clarification: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?” The Pope answers, “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”
What is the Pope saying here? Is he saying that in some cases condoms can be permitted?
No, it’s not. I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that a person who is given to prostitution, at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
By John Burger
Page 2/5
Is “the world” assuming too quickly that the Pope all of a sudden is open to “compromising” on condoms, that this may be a small yet significant opening toward “enlightenment” for the Catholic Church? For example: In rare cases, Pope justifies use of condoms (New York Times). “Condoms OK” in some cases — Pope (BBC). Boston Herald quoting male prostitutes saying “too little too late, but it may encourage condom use, and that’s a good thing.”
From what I’ve seeing of the coverage in the media, I think that’s correct, that that’s what they’re trying to suggest. But if you read the text there’s no suggestion of that at all. It’s clear that the Pope is holding to what the Church has always taught in these matters. He starts out — the context of the question — he starts out by saying that when he was asked this question on the plane on his way to his pastoral visit to Africa, he felt that he was being provoked, and he wanted to draw attention to all that the Church is doing to care for AIDS victims. In Africa, the Church is the main agent of care for the AIDS victims, and so he was trying to draw some attention to that.
The text itself makes it very clear that he says the Church does not regard it as a real or moral solution. And when he says that it could be a first step in a movement toward a different, more human way of living sexuality, that doesn’t mean in any sense that he’s saying the use of condoms is a good thing.
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 hope now 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, this false interpretation 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 reaffirm with force 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.
Did you see any Catholic commentary on this, e.g., Janet Smith, who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit? Do you agree with her interpretation?
I did. I thought it was a good commentary. It’s quite accurate. She goes into it quite in depth. She might have underlined a little bit more the words of the Holy Father himself, although she does: When she was asked if the Pope is indicating whether heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by condoms, she says No. “In his second answer, he says the Church does not find condoms to be a real or a moral solution.” Again, she repeats, “the intention to reduce the transmission of an infection is a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” That is, the intention is the first step, but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Father is justifying the means by which the person wants to fulfill that intention.
So, if nothing has changed in Catholic teaching on sexuality or the use of condoms, has this conversation changed anything?
I don’t see it at all. What I see is the Holy Father is presenting a classical position of the Church from her moral theology. I imagine that self-mastery and self-discipline is not an immediate accomplishment, so we have to understand that it may take people time to reform their lives, but that doesn’t suggest that he’s diminishing the moral analysis of the immoral actions of the male prostitute, for instance.
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
By John Burger
Page 3/5
It seems that perhaps some of what he says in the answers to Seewald’s questions might lead to a renewed conversation on the nature of married love and sexuality.
That’s what I would hope, and I think that’s what the Holy Father was suggesting in the beginning of that part of the conversation with Peter Seewald, where he engages in that whole point about the trivialization of human sexuality. He says for instance, the fact of the matter is people have access to condoms. That shows us in fact, as he points out, that condoms don’t resolve the question, and that’s when he begins, “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a sort of banalization of sexuality, which after all is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as an expression of love, but only a certain sort of drug that people administer to themselves.” He talks about the whole fight against the banalization and dehumanization of sexuality and the need to see human sexuality as a positive good. And sexual activity as having a positive effect on the whole of man’s being, being an expression of man’s goodness. So that’s the context, and I would hope that this matter going forward, in being clarified, there’s a real possibility of teaching more clearly about human sexuality.
Did anything else about this conversation between Pope Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald surprise you?
I think that what is remarkable about it, in general, is that the Holy Father granted the interview and speaks really very directly about a whole wide range of very complex questions, and there’s a great deal of his usual erudition and knowledge of Catholic teaching. And he’s very straightforward too. Peter Seewald, when he gets things mixed up, for example, at one point in the conversation about ecumenism, Seewald said he was quoting then-Cardinal Ratzinger, talking about the dialogue with the Orthodox and so forth, that Cardinal Ratzinger held the position that the pope was “first among equals” — which of course, as the Pope points out to him, is not what he said at all. The pontiff has certain responsibilities in the Church, so he can’t be equal to all the patriarchs, for instance, of the Orthodox Church. There are a lot of excellent clarifications that the Holy Father makes, but I would say that what’s most striking about it is the wide range of topics and the HF’s willingness to comment on them. He also at a certain point simply says to the interviewer that the question was far too complex and that he can’t deal with it in that setting.
Seewald also brought up a question in regard to the declaration Dominus Iesus, and the Holy Father simply said that it’s too complex an issue to deal with in the setting of the interview.
In that discussion about unity with the Orthodox that you reference, Seewald asks, “Will Pope Benedict restructure the papacy in order to foster the unity of Christianity?” The Holy Father corrects Seewald in his interpretation of the phrase “First among equals” applying to the successor of St. Peter. He says it is not the formula we believe as Catholics and add, “the pope has specific functions and tasks. … The question (for the Orthodox) is precisely whether the pope has specific tasks or not.” What tasks is he speaking of?
The pope is the principal foundation of the unity of the Church. That can’t be carried out by a group of people. That is the function of Peter as the head of the apostolic college, the Prince of the Apostles. To put it very plainly, that’s the first task. He is the bishop of the universal Church, and it’s a difficult point for the Orthodox to accept, but one can’t be faithful to Catholic teaching and say that the Roman Pontiff is simply one more patriarch. No, he has a service to unite all — all the patriarchs, all the particular churches into one. And that involves a direct and universal governance.
As you pointed, he also says, “These are contentious issues, which I would have to say more about than I can right now.” That seems to suggest that something is going on in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue that will be major news. What might that be?
I don’t know that. I can’t comment on that. It’s not my area of responsibility in the Holy See, and I would not be competent to talk about it. I do think there’s been a constant effort to try to help the Orthodox understand the
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
By John Burger
Page 4/5
Petrine ministry as the Catholic Church understands it, obviously to achieve a greater unity, and I do believe that over years there’s been progress in that regard. On the other hand — I know (and this is just from my own conversations) it’s a very difficult point for the Orthodox. He starts out that section — he points out that Bishop Gerhard Mueller of Regensburg [thinks that Catholic and Orthodox have achieved 97% of ecclesial unity]. The Pope himself says he would shy away from saying that because it’s clear that we’re not 97% on the way to unity with the Orthodox and that the question of the primacy of Peter is a big question. It’s not something that’s just 3% concern. It’s much bigger than that.
The book gives us a fascinating glimpse into the life of this Pope. From your own perspective, what’s it like working in Benedict’s pontificate, in the Curia under Pope Benedict? What’s it like working with him?
The Holy Father is a deeply spiritual person. I’ve had many contacts with him, strikingly for me, for instance during his apostolic visits, both the one in April of 2008 in the United States and the recent one in Great Britain. People say How is it that visits from this elderly man who holds these difficult doctrines wins over the people? Those who think the visit is going to be a disaster — suddenly they’re captured by the Holy Father. I think that the first thing that captures them is simply his goodness. He’s very close to Our Lord. Secondly, he’s a very gentle soul, a very kindly, understanding person. And thirdly, he’s got a remarkable wisdom and knowledge. I think he has an extraordinary gift for teaching, in putting the most profound truths into language that’s very accessible. People come to Rome, they love to listen to our Holy Father because of his teaching, and so those would be some of the aspects of working with him that I know that are a great comfort to me and also an encouragement and help in carrying out my service.
And you yourself: here you are working at the Vatican for two years. You came from relative obscurity, having been the bishop of remote La Crosse, Wis. Now, at least in many Americans’ eyes, you’ve become a rather prominent cardinal at the Vatican and a great defender of orthodoxy. Have you ever had a kind of “how did I get here” moment?
I’ve been a priest now for 35 years. I think back to when I entered seminary, and the great inspiration for me was the various priests in my home parish and the desire to be a parish priest, the pastor of a parish. Of course, I went in the seminary and I learned as a priest to show obedience and respond to the degree I was morally able to do whatever I was asked to do. As it turned out in my life I was asked to do a number of things that have, for the most part, I’ve had a good amount of parish priestly work and ministry. But I’ve been asked more and more to give that particular service which sort of supports pastors but doesn’t involve me so directly in the pastoral work of a priest, now more so than ever because of the intensity of the matters I have to study and about which I have to write, so that it’s not possible for me to administer a parish, which obviously wouldn’t be appropriate for me either as a cardinal, but I don’t have a particular flock; my service is to the Roman Curia.
So, yes, I’ve had those moments wondering how did I get here, and I’ve often said to people, especially now in the case of this consistory, that I never forget where I came from, my beginnings in rural Wisconsin. … My life as a priest and as a bishop is in my mind, even as I carry out my work here, is an inspiration for me. I try to never lose sight of the fact that what I do here ultimately is at the service of guiding parishes and dioceses.
Why do you think the Pope chose you to head the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?
You’d have to ask him, but what would be the most obvious response to that question is that I am well prepared in canon law and that I worked in that tribunal for five years, from 1989-1995, when I was ordained a bishop and took the office of Bishop of La Crosse. So being an archbishop and now having more years of experience I was in a certain sense a logical choice for the position — not that there wouldn’t be many others who are, I’m sure, more able than myself. But I wouldn’t have been mostly a strange or unexpected choice for such a position.
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
By John Burger
Page 5/5
What kind of cardinal do you hope to be or will strive to be?
Simply one who is 100% with the Holy Father, using whatever gifts God has given me to help the Holy Father, to give him any counsel he asks me. Also in daily activities, simply to be supporting and promoting what he wishes and desires. I would hope to keep that focus always before me. That’s what being a cardinal is all about.
John Burger is the Register’s news editor.
http://www.ncregister.com/site/print_article/27389/
Copyright © 2007 Circle Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
Has Benedict XVI changed Church teaching on condoms?
In fact, the Pope has merely confirmed what is already well established
By Quentin de la Bedoyere on Sunday, 21 November 2010
Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Aids and condoms have lit up the headlines (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)
The Pope’s statement that condom use is acceptable “in certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection” has lit up the headlines. But put the lights out: nothing has changed.
The prohibition on artificial contraception in the two major documents – Casti Connubii (1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968) – and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, speak only in terms of marriage. No ruling on contraception outside marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, has been made, nor has there been any particular reason why the Magisterium should make one.
The most that the Pope has done is to confirm what is already well established: that condoms, used properly and invariably, give a high rate of protection. This perhaps clarifies his former remarks that tackling epidemic Aids through condom programmes has not historically been effective and may contribute to the problem. In many cultures, condoms are very unpopular and promiscuity is common. However the condom promotions may well be giving a false sense of security and thus increasing this promiscuity.
Had the Pope given as an example a serodiscordant married couple, instead of a prostitute (whether male or female is not currently clear) he would really have said something dramatic; and answered a question which many senior churchmen have asked and the Vatican has declined to answer.
When asked whether in fact the Church is not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, he replies, “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality.”
This may be a hint, though carefully no more than a hint, that he approves of the step by step pastoral approach, which is already commonly used. However, a warning against taking this approach too far is implicit in John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (1981): “They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/11/21/has-benedict-xvi-changed-church-teaching-on-condoms/
Pope Benedict on condoms in "Light of the World" --
Web exclusive
What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?
By Dr. Janet E. Smith
This week, Light of the World, a book-length interview given by Pope Benedict XVI to journalist Peter Seewald, will be released worldwide. Several of the Holy Father's statements have already started making news, particularly his comments regarding condom usage in the prevention of the spread of HIV.
To the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” in the context of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving AIDs victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality, Pope Benedict replied:
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this 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 the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
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.
So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms? The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is
speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.
In Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), John Paul II spoke of the
need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:
What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?
By Dr. Janet E. Smith
Page 2/3
To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.
What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)
Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!
Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes? Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.
Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms? No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.
The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.
An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.
Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. She speaks nationally and internationally on Catholic teachings on sexuality and on bioethics, and has published numerous articles and several books on sexuality and bioethics. She is serving a third term as a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family. She is author of The Right to Privacy, a study of Roe v. Wade and related court cases.
Resources:
Edward C. Green, “The Pope May Be Right” Washington Post (Sunday, March 29, 2009);
Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right” First Things (April, 2008);
Edward C. Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries (Praeger: 2003);
Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach The West (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009);
What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?
By Dr. Janet E. Smith
Page 3/3
Susan E. Wills, “Condoms and AIDS: Is the Pope Right or Just “Horrifically Ignorant?” The Linacre Quarterly, 77:10 (Feb 2010) 17-29;
Edward C. Green, AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention (Left Coast Press: 2010) forthcoming
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:pope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70
Pope Benedict XVI: Recent Comments on Condom Usage
Posted by Matthew, The Catholic Life
Posted: 22 Nov 2010 12:08 PM PST
In the past few days, the Internet and much of the media has been focusing on the recent comments of Pope Benedict XVI, when he said that condom usage may be appropriate for male prostitutes (not female prostitutes) as a means to reduce the spread of H.I.V, the virus responsible for AIDS. His comments were not issued in support for contraception by females and was not intended under any circumstance to be used for the purpose of birth control.
I wish to direct your attention to these previous posts of mine on the topic:
• Why not contraception?
• The Church will never recommend condoms
• Uganda's Abstinence Program will Work
**********
Weekly Discussion Topic: Contraception
Posted by Matthew / Monday, July 4, 2005
First off, the Catholic Church is opposed to all forms of artificial contraception.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin for "Human Life") which
reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically evil to use contraception to prevent
new human beings from coming into existence. Simply put, artificial contraception is contrary to the will of
God.
Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its
accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means,
to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier
methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods..." (Read
More)
Artificial contraception is wrong because it is opposed to the natural law of God. Some argue we need
contraception to cut down on unwanted pregnancy and abortion. But, there should be no sex outside of marriage
- fornication - because it is a mortal sin. Even looking at a woman/man lustfully is a sin (Matthew 5:29). Sex
outside of marriage is mortally sinful. Only sexual activity between a husband and wife is permissible, and a
husband and wife must be open to the transmission of human life. Artificial contraception destroys marital
bonds.
Some forms of contraception (such as the morning after pill) can even produce an abortion. These forms of
contraception kill upwards of 12 million lives in the US each year. (Source)
Scripture also condemns contraception:
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful ("fertile") and multiply. A
husband and wife fulfill God's plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 - Isaac's prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
(See More examples)
What about using condoms to stop AIDS?
We still must not use artificial contraception like condoms.
Artificial contraception damages the gift of self. It destroys martial bonds because it prevents the trasmission of life. For those who argue condoms should be supported because they will save lives in the fight against AIDS, condoms will not save lives. What is needed is education to change the lifestyles of these people. They must be taught that chastity is to be valued and sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong. This is a must and if we can teach this we can save more lives.
If condoms are allowed then many countries will begin to support sex outside of marriage and I gurantee that AIDS will skyrocket. People do not realize that the AIDS virus is so small that it can be transmitted through a condom. Condoms are not effective.
From a comment in Catholic News Agency Article:
We can see from results in Africa that the use of condoms spreads AIDS rather than stopping it.
Tanzia went from 3 cases to over 2 million with condom use, while Uganda went from a 30%
AIDS rate to only 6%, after it stopped condom use. Clearly condoms spread rather than stop
AIDS transmission. The Church is right in rejecting them.
And again it comes down to our faith in the True Church of Jesus Christ. We should seek to understand everything and we must never go against the Church's teachings on faith and morals. As Pope Paul VI proclaimed in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, artificial contraception is contrary to the will of God.
**********
The Church will Never Recommend Condoms
Posted by Matthew / Thursday, June 1, 2006
I've noticed that over the past few weeks several groups are claiming the Church will allow condoms. This is
preposterous. As the Pontifical Council for Health Care has recently emphasized, the Church will never do
such a thing. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the
Catholic Church would not back down from its long-standing teaching against condoms (source).
Why you ask are we against condoms?
Artificial contraception damages the gift of self. It destroys martial bonds because it prevents the transmission of
life. For those who argue condoms should be supported because they will save lives in the fight against AIDS,
condoms will not save lives. What is needed is education to change the lifestyles of these people. They must be
taught that chastity is to be valued and sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong. This is a must and if we
can teach this we can save more lives.
If condoms are allowed then many countries will begin to support sex outside of marriage and I guarantee that
AIDS will skyrocket. People do not realize that the AIDS virus is so small that it can be transmitted through a
condom.
From a comment in the article linked above:
We can see from results in Africa that the use of condoms spreads AIDS rather than stopping it.
Tanzia went from 3 cases to over 2 million with condom use, while Uganda went from a 30%
AIDS rate to only 6%, after it stopped condom use. Clearly condoms spread rather than stop
AIDS transmission. The Church is right in rejecting them.
And again it comes down to our faith. We are not to question God's Church. We should seek to understand
everything and not just believing statements immediately, but we must never go against the Church's teachings
on faith and morals. As Pope Paul VI proclaimed in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, artificial contraception is
contrary to the will of God.
Related Post:
• Artificial Contraception from a Catholic Point-of-view
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/06/church-will-never-recommend-condoms.html
**********
Uganda's abstinence programs work
Posted by Matthew
From LifeSiteNews:
Janet Museveni, First Lady of Uganda, has continued her strong support for the country’s successful abstinence
campaign against HIV/AIDS with a statement encouraging youth to live lives of “love, faith and purity,” New
Vision reported December 2.
"I would not be caught advising you to take any shortcuts or compromise your lives by using any device
invented by man, such as condoms, in order to facilitate any desire to go against God's clear plan for your
life,” Mrs. Museveni told students at the Uganda Christian University, Mukono, for World AIDS Day.
“God's plan for your life is that you should honour your body because it is His temple."
Warning the young people that they should not be complacent as HIV infection rates rise, Mrs. Museveni asked
them to encourage other students to abstain from premarital sex.
Ugandan President Museveni and his wife introduced a program encouraging sexual abstinence before marriage
and fidelity afterwards, in an attempt to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
The program has been harshly condemned by international organizations promoting condom use, but in fact
Ugandan HIV transmission rates dropped by as much as 75% in some regions after the program was introduced,
down to 5-7% from a high of 18%.
Uganda is a symbol. Condoms don't work. Abstinence remains the only effective way for countering the AIDS
Crisis. Plus, artificial contraception and pre-marital sex are mortal sins anyway.
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/12/ugandas-abstinence-programs-work.html
Monday, November 22, 2010
The continuing mess at L’Osservatore Romano
While many able others are scrambling to respond to the eruption over the pope’s remarks on condom use by male prostitutes, I want to ask a few questions about the occasion of this public relations fiasco, namely, the decision by L’Osservatore Romano to publish prematurely, out of context, and without commentary, the single most controversial paragraph of the pope’s book, Light of the World, in, if nothing else, apparent violation of the agreement in place between its various publishers concerning a coordinated release of the work.
I frankly wonder whether, even now, L’Osservatore Romano yet realizes what a serious disservice it has committed by arrogating to itself the role of introducing the pope’s book, Light of the World, and by its making that introduction in such a palpably incompetent manner?
Light of the World is a remarkable book, being first, the fruit of a welcome papal willingness to share frank insights and opinions on the Christian message today, and being second, the product of much work by many people in several nations, all oriented to presenting the book in its best light. These latter groups had planned for months to introduce Light of the World as the holistic, positive, and integrated work that the pope intended it to be. A mid-week launch (and, in the vital US market, one day before an extended holiday that is typically slow in news) was carefully planned with writers, speakers, and resource persons briefed ahead of time, all ready to comment on the book and to respond to questions. It was a huge amount of work but, being undertaken by professionals who knew what they were doing, it promised to be effective.
Now, all of that planning has been shredded by the L’OR decision to launch Light of the World on its own.
Worse, L’OR chose to highlight what is probably the single most speculative and controversial papal paragraph in over 200 pages of print, and to offer that snippet out of context and without explanation. Unbelievable.
Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted. Now, instead of being able to present the pope’s interview as a positive and even vigorous affirmation of unified truth, Catholic theologians and spokesmen must respond defensively against secular attacks and distortions, resorting (for the most part) to a level of sophistication that befits a graduate seminar in moral theology, not a reader-friendly presentation of ideas. I mean, great scot, the book is not even published yet, and already the Vatican Press is Office is having to issue hasty corrections and unconvincing clarifications!
And it’s all because of L’OR.
Again.
Yes, again. L’OR’s panting after pop relevance (with pieces on, e.g., The Beatles and The Simpsons) is embarrassing enough. I've learned to ignore that. It’s mistreatment of Brazilian Abp. Cardoso Sobrihno should have been seen as the warning sign that it was. I said so at the time.
But, if this media fiasco is not enough to bring sweeping changes to L’OR, then, I don’t know what ever will.
posted by Dr. Edward Peters
Translation of Vatican spokesman’s statement on pope and condoms
Posted on November 21, 2010 by John Thavis
Full story: Pope’s remarks in book open new chapter in condom debate
VATICAN CITY – Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a statement today regarding Pope Benedict’s comments on condoms in an upcoming book (see below). He called the pope’s remarks couragous and new, but not revolutionary. He said they upheld the church’s teaching on sexuality, but also recognized that in some cases a decision to use condoms may reflect concern for causing harm to others.
Here is a CNS translation of Father Lombardi’s statement:
At the end of Chapter 10 (Chapter 11 in the English edition) in the book, “Light of the World,” the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of the condom, questions that refer back to the discussion that followed the pope’s comments on this topic during his trip to Africa in 2009.
The pope underlines clearly that, at that time, he did not want to express a position on the problem of condoms in general, but he wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more must be done: prevention, education, assistance, counsel, being close to people, both so that they do not become sick, and also in cases where they are sick.
The pope observes that even in non-church circles a comparable awareness has developed, as is seen in the so-called ABC theory (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are much more decisive and fundamental in the struggle against AIDS, while the condom appears as a last resort when the other two are lacking.
It should therefore be clear that the condom is not the solution to the problem.
The pope then takes a wider view and insists on the fact that concentrating only on the condom signifies the “banalization” of sexuality, which loses its meaning as the expression of love between persons and becomes like a “drug.” To fight against the banalization of sexuality is “part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.”
In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that the church “of course does not regard (condoms) as a real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.
In saying this, the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by putting it in the context of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.
At the same time, the pope takes into consideration an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality may represent a real risk to the life of another person. In such a case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, “a first step in a movement toward a … more human sexuality”, as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.
In this statement, the pope’s reasoning certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift.
Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures have maintained and still maintain similar positions; however, it is true that until now we had not heard them expressed with such clarity from the mouth of a pope, even if it is in a colloquial, and not magisterial, form.
Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution that clarifies and deepens a long-debated question. It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refusing an illusory path like “faith in condoms”; on the other hand, however, it shows a sympathetic and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering small steps — even if they are only initial and still confused — of a humanity that is often spiritually and culturally impoverished, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/vatican-spokesmans-statement-on-condoms/
The Pope on the Pope. A Preview
The most piquant passages of the latest book-interview of Benedict XVI. On condoms, sexual abuse, female priesthood, Jews, the burqa... But above all on the future of Christianity, which he sees as being full of light
by Sandro Magister
ROME, November 22, 2010 – The anticipated book-length interview of Benedict XVI, "Light of the World," will be in bookstores on the five continents, in various languages, beginning on Tuesday, November 23.
On Sunday the 21st, various newspapers previewed some passages from it, provided for them by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, owner of the publishing rights.
But already on the afternoon of Saturday the 20th, a different preview of the book – with much more provocative passages – had been published by "L'Osservatore Romano." With an immediate splash in the global media.
Saturday and Sunday were the days of the consistory, with the creation of 24 new cardinals and with the homilies of the pope dedicated to explaining that authority in the Church is modeled on the kingdom of Christ: a kingdom of which an ancient liturgical hymn chants with the words: "Regnavit a ligno Deus," a kingdom exercised by the crucified God who says to the good thief: "Today you will be with me in paradise."
But the consistory was swept aside from the news reports. Defeated and invaded by the passages of the book previewed by "L'Osservatore Romano."
One of them above all: the one in which Benedict XVI justifies the use of a condom by a prostitute (in the masculine form in the original German of the book: "ein Prostituierter"). A use that Catholic moral doctrine already acknowledges – on a par with recourse to condoms by spouses when one of them is infected with HIV – but is publicly approved of by a pope for the first time here.
And then there is more: the passages on sexual abuse by the clergy, on the encyclical "Humanae Vitae," on Pius XII and the Jews, on women priests, on the burqa . . .
Peter Seewald, the interviewer, recorded the interview in a series of six meetings with Benedict XVI, lasting one hour each, last summer in Castel Gandolfo (see photo).
Seewald presented an outline to the pope in advance, but the conversation took place freely, and Benedict XVI did not dodge any of the questions. The pope made only small stylistic corrections to the final transcript, in German.
The following are the passages previewed by "L'Osservatore Romano." The titles of the paragraphs are also from the Vatican newspaper.
________________
"LIGHT OF THE WORLD" / AN ANTHOLOGY
by Benedict XVI
The joy of Christianity
My whole life has always been bound by a common thread, which is this: Christianity brings joy, it widens horizons. Without a doubt, an existence lived always and only "against" would be unbearable.
A beggar
As for the pope, he too is a poor beggar before God, even more so than other men. Naturally I pray above all to the Lord, to whom I am bound, so to speak, by old friendship. But I also invoke the saints. I am great friends with Augustine, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas. So I say to them: "Help me!" The Mother of God, also, is always and no matter what a great point of reference. In this sense, I take my place in the communion of saints. Together with them, strengthened by them, I also speak with the good God, above all begging, but also thanking; or simply content.
Difficulties
I had counted on it. But above all one must be very careful in evaluating a pope, whether he is significant or not, while he is still alive. Only afterward can one recognize what place, in history as a whole, a certain thing or person has. But that the atmosphere would not always be joyful was evident in consideration of the current global configuration, with all of the forces of destruction that are out there, with all of the contradictions that exist in it, with all the dangers and errors. If I had continued to receive nothing but agreement, I would have had to have asked myself if I were truly proclaiming all of the Gospel.
The shock of the abuse
The facts did not take me entirely by surprise. At the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, I had worked on the American cases; I had also seen the situation escalate in Ireland. But the dimensions were still an enormous shock. Ever since my election to the see of Peter, I had repeatedly met with victims of sexual abuse. Three and a half years ago, in October of 2006, in a speech to the Irish bishops I had asked them to "establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected and, above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes." To see the priesthood suddenly tarnished in this way, and with it the Catholic Church itself, was difficult to bear. At that moment, however, it was important not to look away from the fact that good exists in the Church, and not only these terrible things.
The media and abuse
It was evident that the action of the media was not guided solely by the pure search for the truth, but that there was also enjoyment in putting the Church in the pillory, and, if possible, in discrediting it. And nonetheless it was necessary that this be clear: as long as efforts are being made to bring the truth to light, we must be appreciative. Truth, united with love when understood correctly, is the number one value. And the media would not have been able to give those accounts if the evil had not been there in the Church itself. It is only because the evil was inside the Church that the others were able to hold it against her.
Progress
The problem of the term "progress" emerges. Modernity has sought its own way guided by the ideas of progress and freedom. But what is progress? Today we see that progress can also be destructive. So we must reflect on the criteria to adopt so that progress may truly be progress.
An examination of conscience
Beyond individual financial plans, an overall examination of conscience is absolutely unavoidable. And the Church tried to contribute to this with the encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." It does not give answers to all the problems. It is intended to be a step forward to look at things from another point of view, which is not only that of feasibility and success, but from the point of view according to which there exists a standard of love of neighbor that is oriented to the will of God and not only to our desires. In this sense, encouragement should be given for a real transformation of consciences.
The real intolerance
The real threat that we are facing is that tolerance may be abolished in the name of tolerance itself. There is the danger that reason, so-called Western reason, may maintain that it has finally recognized what is right, and in this way make a claim of totality that is the enemy of freedom. I believe that it is necessary to denounce this threat forcefully. No one is forced to be Christian. But no one must be forced to live according to the "new religion," as if it were the only and true religion binding for all humanity.
Mosques and burqas
Christians are tolerant, and as such they also permit others their unique understanding of themselves. We rejoice in the fact that in the Arab Gulf countries (Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Kuwait) there are churches in which Christians can celebrate the Mass, and we hope that this may happen everywhere. For this reason, it is natural that among us as well, Muslims may gather to pray in mosques.
As for the burqa, I do not see the reason for a generalized prohibition. It is said that some women do not wear it voluntarily, but that in reality it is a sort of violence imposed on them. It is clear that one cannot agree with this. But if they want to wear it voluntarily, I do not see why they should be prevented from doing so.
Christianity and modernity
Being Christian is itself something alive, modern, which crosses, forming and shaping it, all of modernity, and which therefore in a certain sense truly embraces it. Here a great spiritual struggle is necessary, as I wanted to demonstrate with the recent institution of a "pontifical Council for the new evangelization." It is important that we seek to live and to think of Christianity in such a way that it takes on the good and right form of modernity, and therefore at the same time distances and distinguishes itself from that which is becoming an anti-religion.
Optimism
If one looks more attentively – and this is what I am able to do thanks to the visits from the bishops of the whole world, and also many other encounters – one sees that Christianity at this moment is also developing an entirely new creativity [. . .] Bureaucracy is tired and worn out. There are initiatives that are being born from within, from the joy of young people. It may be that Christianity will take on a new face, perhaps even a different cultural appearance. Christianity does not determine world public opinion, others are at the forefront of this. And nonetheless Christianity is the vital force without which the other things as well could not continue to exist. Therefore, on the basis of what I see and what I am able to experience personally, I am very optimistic about the fact that Christianity finds itself facing a new dynamic.
Drugs
So many bishops, above all those of Latin America, tell me that wherever the road of drug cultivation and trafficking passes – and this happens in many of those countries – it is as if a monstrous and evil animal were stretching out its hand over that country to destroy people. I believe that this serpent of the trafficking and consumption of drugs that encircles the world is a force that we are not always able to comprehend adequately. It destroys young people, it destroys families, it leads to violence and threatens the future of entire nations. This is also a terrible responsibility of the West: it needs drugs, and so it creates countries that provide it with what will end up consuming and destroying them. It is a sort of hunger for happiness that is not able to satisfy itself with what is there; and that takes refuge in the devil's paradise, so to speak, and completely destroys man.
In the vineyard of the Lord
In effect, I had a managerial office, but I never did anything on my own, and I always worked on a team; just like one of the many workers in the vineyard of the Lord who probably did preparatory work, but at the same time is someone who is not made to be first and to take responsibility for everything. I understood that along with the great popes, there must also be little pontiffs who make their own contribution. So at that moment, I said what I was really feeling [. . .] Vatican Council II taught us, rightly, that an essential part of Church structure is collegiality, or the fact that the pope is the first in sharing, and not an absolute monarch who makes decisions in solitude and does everything himself.
Judaism
I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.
In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one's way of being and respective mission [. . .]
A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.
Pius XII
Pius XII did everything he could to save people. Naturally we can always ask ourselves: "Why did he not protest in a more explicit manner?" I believe that he understood what the consequences of a public protest would have been. We know that he suffered a great deal personally because of the situation. He knew that he should speak out, but the situation prevented him from doing so. Now, more reasonable people admit that Pius XII saved many lives, but they maintain that he had antiquated ideas about the Jews, and that he was not as advanced as Vatican Council II. Nevertheless, this is not the problem. The important thing is what he did and what he tried to do, and I believe that it must truly be recognized that he was one of the great just men and that, like no other, he saved many, many Jews.
Sexuality
Concentrating only on the condom means trivializing sexuality, and this trivialization represents precisely the dangerous reason why so many people no longer see sexuality as an expression of their love, but only as a sort of drug, which one administers on one's own. This is why the struggle against the trivialization of sexuality is also part of the great effort so that sexuality may be valued positively, and may exercise its positive effect on the human being in his totality. There can be individual cases that are justified, for example when a [male] prostitute [ein Prostituierter] uses a condom, and this can be the first step toward a moral sensitization, a first act of responsibility to develop once again the understanding of the fact that not everything is permitted, and that one cannot do whatever one wishes. Nonetheless, this is not the real and proper way to overcome HIV infection. What is truly needed is a humanization of sexuality.
The Church
So Paul did not see the Church as an institution, as organization, but as a living organism, in which everyone works for the other and with the other, being united on the basis of Christ. It is an image, but an image that has profound repercussions and is very realistic if only for the fact that we believe that in the Eucharist, we truly receive Christ, the Risen One. And if each one receives the same Christ, then we are truly all united in this new risen body as the great space of a new humanity. It is important to understand this, and therefore to see the Church not as an apparatus that must do everything – the apparatus also has its place, but within limits – but as a living organism that comes from Christ himself.
The encyclical "Humanae Vitae"
The perspectives of "Humanae Vitae" remain valid, but it is another thing to find humanly accessible paths. I believe that there will always be minorities that are deeply persuaded of the correctness of those perspectives and that, in living them, will be so fully rewarded that they will become for others a fascinating model to follow. We are sinners. But we should not take this fact as evidence against the truth, when that high moral standard is not met. We should seek to do all the good possible, and sustain and support one another. To express all of this from the pastoral, theological, and conceptual point of view as well in the context of current sexology and anthropological research is a great task to which we must be more and better dedicated.
Women
The formulation of John Paul II is very important: "The Church does not have in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women." It is not a matter of not wanting, but of not being able. The Lord has given a form to the Church with the Twelve and then with their succession, with the bishops and the presbyters (the priests). We were not the ones who created this form of the Church, but rather its essentiality comes from him. Following it is an act of obedience, and in the contemporary situation perhaps one of the most burdensome acts of obedience. But precisely this is important, that the Church show that it is not an arbitrary regime. We cannot do what we want. There is instead the Lord's will for us, to which we adhere, even if this is wearisome and difficult in the culture and civilization of today. Besides, the functions entrusted to women in the Church are so great and significant that one cannot speak of discrimination. This would be the case if the priesthood were a sort of dominion, while on the contrary it must be complete service. If one looks at the history of the Church, one realizes that the significance of women – from Mary to Monica all the way to Mother Teresa – is so eminent that in many ways women define the face of the Church more than men do.
The last things
This is a very serious question. Our preaching, our proclamation is in effect widely oriented, in a unilateral way, to the creation of a better world, while the really better world is almost not mentioned any more. Here we must make an examination of conscience. Of course, one tries to connect with the audience, to talk to them about what is on their horizon. But at the same time, our task is to break through this horizon, to broaden it, and to look at the last things. The last things are like stale bread to the men of today. They seem unreal to them. Instead, they would like concrete answers for today, solutions for everyday tribulations. But these are answers that go only halfway if they do not also permit me to sense and to acknowledge that I extend beyond this material life, that there is judgment, and that there is grace and eternity. In this sense, we must also find new words and ways to permit man to break down the wall of sound of the finite.
The coming of Christ
It is important that in every age the Lord is near. That we also, here and now, are under the judgment of the Lord and we allow ourselves to be judged by his tribunal. It was said that there was a twofold coming of Christ, one in Bethlehem and one at the end of time, until St. Bernard of Clairvaux spoke of an "Adventus medius," an intermediary coming, through which he constantly reenters history. I think that he struck the right tone. We cannot establish when the world will end. Christ himself says that no one knows it, not even the Son. But we must remain so to speak always near his coming, and above all be certain that, in suffering, he is near. At the same time, we should know that we are under his judgment for our actions.
_______________
The book:
Benedict XVI, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times", Ignatius Press, 2010.
__________
The original German of the passage on HIV and condoms:
"Die bloße Fixierung auf das Kondom bedeutet eine Banalisierung der Sexualität, und die ist ja gerade die gefährliche Quelle dafür, dass die Menschen in der Sexualität nicht mehr den Ausdruck ihrer Liebe finden, sondern nur noch eine Art von Droge, die sie sich selbst verabreichen. Deshalb ist auch der Kampf gegen die Banalisierung der Sexualität ein Teil des Ringens darum, dass Sexualität positiv gewertet wird und ihre positive Wirkung im Ganzen des Menschseins entfalten kann. Ich würde sagen, wenn ein Prostituierter ein Kondom verwendet, kann das ein erster Akt zu einer Moralisierung sein, ein erstes Stück Verantwortung, um wieder ein Bewusstsein dafür zu entwickeln, dass nicht alles gestattet ist und man nicht alles tun kann, was man will. Aber es ist nicht die eigentliche Art, dem Übel beizukommen. Diese muss wirklich in der Vermenschlichung der Sexualität liegen".
And the clarification made in connection with this on November 21 by Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the press office of the Holy See:
> "At the end of chapter 11 of the book..."
__________
The interesting profile of the pope's interviewer, Peter Seewald, published in "Il Foglio" on November 14, 2010:
> B-XVI e il suo confessore ex comunista. Un colloquio
__________
The two homilies by Benedetto XVI on the days of the consistory, obscured in the media by the scoop from "L'Osservatore Romano":
> Omelia del 20 novembre
> Omelia del 21 novembre
__________
On the consistory, on www.chiesa:
> Twenty-four New Cardinals, Tailor Made for the Pope
__________
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________
The latest three articles from www.chiesa:
20.11.2010
> Pedophilia. The Doubts of the Cardinals Over "Zero Tolerance"
They discussed it with the pope on the eve of the consistory. For some, it is risky to centralize all of the cases in Rome. For others, it is a mistake to proceed by judicial order rather than with regular canonical trials. The pros and cons of an emergency system
16.11.2010
> The Inconvenient Memoirs of Cardinal Biffi
The new edition of his autobiography is being released in bookstores. With a hundred extra pages, and many surprises: on the postcouncil, the Jews, women, chastity, homosexuality. Here's a preview
12.11.2010
> The Pope Rattles the Bishops: "Learn from Saint Francis"
He really knew what true liturgical reform is, writes Benedict XVI in a message that is a severe rebuke to the Italian Catholic hierarchy. Where, in the liturgical field, Ratzinger's opponents continue to prevailme not in vain, but in joy and holiness. With the cross as the "pole star"
__________
22.11.2010
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345667?eng=y
