The Vatican on Sunday rushed to clarify a recent interview by Pope Benedict XVI, in which the pontiff states for the first time that there may be some cases in which the Roman Catholic Church’s ban on condoms isn’t absolute.
The pope made the comments in a book-length interview over the summer with the German writer Peter Seewald that will be officially released this week. Mr. Seewald asked the pope about criticism of the Vatican’s perceived opposition to condom use to fight the spread of HIV-AIDS in Africa.
The pope’s response, while carefully couched, has ricocheted around the globe, reigniting one of the most tensely debated issues facing the Roman Catholic Church. To some, the interview signaled a radical shift in the Church’s approach to combating the spread of AIDS as well as an unprecedented departure from the Church’s long-time practice of condemning any form of condom use.
they kind of have to since the intentionally irresponsible “reporting” done by folks like the BBC are miles away from being able to accurately portray the nuances in the excerpts. Not that the clarification or truth will get much play.. after all, the front pages have already had their “Pope ok’s condoms!” splash. Why ruin a fun headline with that pesky truth stuff?
Another article that I think focuses more on other misinterpretation of what the Pope said rather than what he did say. This is what the Pope said:
““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.â€
I get that modern press hacks are too lazy to delve into the simplest writings on Catholic moral teaching let alone its scriptural, theological and philosophical roots. But do they honestly believe the Pope is gonna jettison Church teaching without just a bit of a heads up to the faithful? I know it is useless to remind “the Pope endorses condoms brigade” that even if the Pope said he believed condoms should be used during every act of illicit sexual intercourse it would not change Church teaching one bit. The Pope’s personal opinion is just that his personal opinion and has no force of teaching authority. In this interview though the Pope’s opinion is not in opposition to Church teaching and is being spun to reflect the values the world wishes the Church would adopt.
He is not saying using condoms is o.k. He is saying that part of developing a moral view of sex is the realization that there are limits to what is permitted and that our sexual behavior has consequences. For a male prostitute that realization may result in the use of a condom. He is speaking here of somebody moving away from an anything goes, no consideration for anything except sexual gratification, to taking steps to protect themselves or another from AIDs. In the life of a male prostitute this is an improvement in THEIR sexual morality.
In order to develop a moral understanding of human sexuality one must first have a moral awareness. Essential to having a moral awareness is the idea that behaviors do not occur in isolation and that what we do may be and often is harmful to others. Usually that awareness results in actions to minimize any harm. In the case of sexual behavior the minimization of harm is not a final answer. It is not a final answer because it does not satisfty the reason and chief end of our sexuality. That resaon and chief end has been revealed to us by God in Holy Scripture. This is the humanization of sexuality the Pope spoke about. Any other use of sex dehumanizes us. The use of condoms separates us from the true purpose of the gift of our sexuality.
If the awakening moral awareness of the male prostitute does not move beyond using a condom he is still trapped in a life of deathly sin and desperation. Can anyone think the Pope would endorse such a condemnation for anybody?
O
[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253679/deflating-nyt-condom-scoop-george-weigel?page=1]See George Weigel’s response to the NYT’s report[/url].
Thanks for the link, Fr. Kimel. As soon as I saw the headlines on television, I had no doubt the media had it wrong.
You’ve explained the real content of the Pope’s statements very well in your paragraphs 5 and 6, Paula. I have been following this news flame-out in the Italian as well as the English-speaking press, and it has been a journalistic free-for-all based on a mis-translation from German to Italian, perhaps even timed to take attention away from the Consistory last week-end, who knows, or to try to sell more books.
Pope Benedict XVI’s capacities for productive thought and communication are much more greatly developed than even those of the average churchman, let alone of press hacks, and most simply read what they wanted to, choosing words here and there without apprehending the actual content of the remarks at all. The phrase ‘a first step’ sent some off on a tangent to suggest, if not trumpet, that this opinion is a first step in altering the Church’s teaching, whereas it referred merely to the possibility of [i]a first step[/i] in an individual’s moral development – as Paula well explained. Despite all the references to ‘nuance’ many still aren’t getting it…..
I have not seen it explained anywhere else, except possibly in passing in Dr. Janet Smith’s remarks (see Zenith), but the Pope seems to have carefully chosen male prostitution as an example of a (disordered) sexual act in which there could be [i]no possibility of procreation[/i], a different situation from even that of an HIV-infected man with his wife. In the example chosen, the only consideration about the condom in such circumstances is that it acts as a barrier to the infecting virus, and the thorny issue of a contraceptive barrier is not involved. (Of course mis-translation from the German into Italian that changed the prostitute’s gender didn’t help here!) Any opinion or conclusion from this example thus could not usefully be extended even to the situation of an infected man and his wife, which reportedly has long been under discussion at the Vatican.
Perhaps the Pope sought an example to dove-tail with the ‘condoms to fight AIDS’ crowd’s health objectives, that would isolate non-contraceptive condom use as potentially having a self-giving rather than only a selfish dimension, reflecting, in the user’s concern for partner’s health, slight moral progress. He was able to suggest one, from the far fringes of such behaviors and which most developed societies have traditionally regarded as degenerate anyway (though not the ancient Greeks I guess), and yet some in the press and some liberal Catholics also jumped on it as a possible first step in a direction they wish society to change – thus revealing their own unconscious inclinations to degeneracy, really.
Although the condoms-to-fight-AIDS crowd believe in their own purpose they have not thought carefully enough to recognize they are putting their own poorly developed moral consciences ahead of genuine concern for the [i]consciences[/i] as well as pressing health concerns of those they purport to be helping. This issue of conscience is why abstinence and being faithful far outweigh condoms (‘ABC’) as the preferable means to fight AIDS, as the Pope explained to the press on the plane to Africa. The new mis-interpretation of his remarks in the book comes ironically from his answer to the interviewer’s question about the fallout from the remarks on the plane to Africa! Benedict XVI’s consistency of thought as well his prodigious capacities for creative reasoning are a priceless gift of God to the Church and humanity, and yet, their value continues to escape those with corrupted value systems.