Ads


Open, Disarming, and Inevitably Misunderstood

In his foreword to this remarkable book—structured as a conversation between Benedict XVI and journalist Peter Seewald—George Weigel praises the German Pope for his “frankness, clarity and compassion.” This is very true. It's also an understatement. No serving bishop of Rome has ever spoken so openly and disarmingly as Benedict XVI does in Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.

Benedict (as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) and Seewald have worked together in the past. While Seewald asks blunt questions, the Pope's trust in him is clearly high. The resulting exchange between the two men is bracing and memorable, an absolutely mandatory read for anyone who wants a sense of the Petrine ministry and its burdens from the inside.

And yet, one comes away from this text with a mix of exhilaration and sympathy. The exhilaration springs from meeting in Benedict an extraordinary Christian intellect, articulate and unfiltered; a man prudent, generous, and penetrating in his judgment, candid in his self-criticism, brilliant but accessible in his thinking, and unshakeable in his faith. The sympathy flows from knowing that, in the current media climate, almost anything Benedict says may be hijacked to serve other agendas. And exactly this happened even before the book's formal release—but more on that in a moment.

Seewald covers a lot of terrain with his questions, from China to liturgy to Fatima to the theology of the End Times. Each reader will gravitate to the themes that most interest him or her. But a few are worth special attention.

First, Seewald deals early and extensively with the Church's sexual abuse scandal. Benedict's answers are patient, tranquil, humble, and honest. This Pope is not a leader who downplays the damage done to innocent children and families, or evades responsibility, or makes excuses for evil actions. He is well aware of the scope of sexual abuse in other religious communities and public institutions, but he does not use that as an alibi for the sins of Catholic clergy. Nor does he ever stray from the priority of healing for victims.

Second, for a man once thuggishly caricatured as Rome's doctrine police, Benedict speaks with convincing sensitivity about the sanctity of human freedom and conscience, and the dignity of other religious believers. Like his predecessor, John Paul II, Benedict has a profound respect for Judaism as the root of Christianity and the Jewish people as our “fathers in faith.” His discussion of the challenges inherent in dialogue with modern Protestantism, which takes so many different forms, is masterly for its fraternal charity and candor.

And while some readers may find his assessment of Islam too optimistic and irenic—time will tell whether secularism or Islam poses the greater challenge to today's Christian believers—Benedict wisely notes that


Islam is lived in very different ways, depending on its various historical traditions. . . . The important thing [is] to remain in close contact with all the currents within Islam that are open to, and capable of, dialogue so as to give a change of mentality a chance to happen even where Islamism still couples a claim to truth with violence.

Finally, and maybe most powerfully, Benedict offers a withering critique of modern notions of “progress” and the practical atheism that infects nearly every developed society, beginning with Europe. For the Pope, the real battle lines in the modern world do not divide Christianity from other religious traditions.

Rather, “In [today's] world, radical secularism stands on one side, and the question of God, in its various forms, stands on the other.” When secular society seeks to reduce progress to material development, to exile God from public life and to ignore humanity's profoundly religious needs, then it starves the human spirit and attacks real human progress, which always has a moral dimension.

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. One of the sensitive issues that Benedict treats in this book is the question of AIDS in Africa and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of infection. No institution in Africa has done more to combat AIDS and support its victims than the Catholic Church.

But intense controversy—at least in Europe and the United States—has always surrounded the Catholic rejection of condom use in AIDS prevention. The Church holds that condom use is morally flawed by its nature, and that, equally important, condom use does not prevent AIDS and can actually enable its spread by creating a false sense of security.

In the context of the book's later discussion of contraception and Catholic teaching on sexuality, the Pope's comments are morally insightful. But taken out of context, they can easily be inferred as approving condoms under certain circumstances. One might reasonably expect the Holy Father's assistants to have an advance communications plan in place, and to involve bishops and Catholic media in a timely way to explain and defend the Holy Father's remarks.

Instead, the Vatican's own semi-official newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano, violated the book's publication embargo and released excerpts of the content early. Not surprisingly, news media instantly zeroed in on the issue of condoms, and the rest of this marvelous book already seems like an afterthought.

Don't let that happen. Don't let confusion in the secular press deter you from buying, reading for yourself, and then sharing this extraordinary text. It's an astonishing portrait of an astonishing man.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop of Denver.

Comments:

11.22.2010 | 4:34am
The "condom headlines" are all over the place. As Your Excelency says, people will hear what they want to, often with complete disregard for the full context—this is similar to what we see all the time with biblical interpretation. Again, as you say, this kind of thing ought to be anticipated. It's frustrating to see missed opportunities like this. From now on when I pray for him , I'll add, "and for his advisors and aides."
11.22.2010 | 5:41am
Andrzej says:
It's too big of an issue for it to have "just happened". Just as with Regensburg, this remark is no coincidence.

By bringing these "exceptional cases" into the discussion, the Pope will be pointing to the fact that homosexual relations are "sexual" only by name.
11.22.2010 | 5:52am
The breaking of the embargo on the book by Osservatore Romano looks terribly like sabotage from within. Who was the bright spark that did this?
11.22.2010 | 6:24am
Ed Snyder says:
Archbishop Chaput's column is the usual delightful mix of charity, virtue, and brilliance I've come to expect and enjoy. That is, until he writes, "Don't let confusion in the secular press deter you from buying, reading for yourself, and then sharing this extraordinary text."

Didn't he just say in the previous paragraph that it was L'Osservatore Romano that leaked the text to the public by publishing it even though it was not supposed to?

As a Catholic myself, I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!" with someone to whom I owe my loyalty and respect. My reason for pointing out this disconnect is to say that this is not the first time I've noticed cases where someone inside the Vatican seems to be deliberately trying to undercut this Pope's credibility.
11.22.2010 | 8:40am
Bill says:
There are even occasional reports, that the pope has mentioned his childhood membership in 1) Hitler Youth; and 2) a German Panzer division, in WWII?

Does anyone have an authoritative source on these rumors?
11.22.2010 | 10:03am
The Pope talks about male prostitutes using condoms as a first step of moral responsibility. This really has nothing to do with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa which chiefly spreads through heterosexuals and not homosexuals.
11.22.2010 | 11:41am
Dusty says:
Bill:

Both of these were addressed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in The Salt of the Earth, an earlier book-length interview by Peter Seewald.

http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Earth-Millennium-Interview-Seewald/dp/0898706408
11.22.2010 | 12:37pm
I suspect some damage has already been done. What I heard from the television (BBC and Aljazeera) which I foolishly rely on for international news, is that the Pope has piped down on his condemnation of the use of condoms! Reading a whole book to get the true picture is a luxury in these parts of the world.
Is there a way of the true content of such weighty issues being leaked first to Bishops world-wide before the ever biased western press releases its un-Godly version?
I also pray for the Pope and his advisers.
11.22.2010 | 1:04pm
Will Huys says:
Ed Snyder - I'm pretty sure the Archbishop was referring to 'Light of the World' the book, not L'Osservatore Romano.
11.22.2010 | 1:12pm
Richard says:
I think that the Pope was tragically imprecise in his language. Damage has indeed been done, and the enemies of the Gospel of Life are already attempting to exploit it. We have not seen the last of this.

Richard
11.22.2010 | 1:13pm
Tom says:
Doesn't Archbishop Chaput have obligations to his archdiocese? He seems to spend all of his time writing au courant pieces for First Things and other more or less relevant publications.
11.22.2010 | 1:15pm
Peter H says:
It would help if Catholics learned how to see-through and explain the way the liberal media hype and twist important papal messages out of context. For example, this was done previously when pope John Paul II supposedly admitted Darwinian evolution, and this rather purposeful twisting of facts is also done here.

Actually, in this case the pope's assistants don't need to go to any extreme length to defend the pope. One can get the jest of it even from the most liberal media, like the Huffington Post.

The Church's teaching is correct and consistent. Pope's exception, or rather a health concern justification refers only to such extreme and pitiful cases, where the application of condoms is outside of what the Church teaching considers moral anyway. Even Huffpo admits as much:

"The pope says in his own writings that he takes personal responsibility for the remarks, meaning they are not official church teaching."

The key to what pope Benedict said is in this clarification :

"...where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/vatican-pope-condoms-aids_n_786526.html
11.22.2010 | 1:37pm
Patty says:
I'm gonna trust and pray that Mr. Fitzgerald's suggestion of "sabotage from within" by some "bright spark" at l'Osservatore Romano might indeed be the spark of the Holy Spirit at work. Let's all pray for that. He can turn apparent evil into good. Hope springs eternal. Many thanks to Archbishop Chaput for his quick response. God bless all your faithful efforts to bring us the fullness of the truth and guard guide and protect us from this kind of harm. Glory be to God!
11.22.2010 | 2:16pm
Hieronymus says:
The problem with the Holy Father is that he is far too intelligent for the media whose attention span and depth of understanding are practically nil. Benedict XVI expressed his nuanced position on the exceptional and subjectively beneficial use of condoms with great clarity but the chattering classes and the talking hairdoes of course did not understand a word. As for the traitorous action of L'Osservatore Romano, a lot of housecleaning remains to be done in the Vatican...
11.22.2010 | 2:25pm
David Nickol says:
I think it must be acknowledged that if the secular press is confused by what Benedict said regarding condoms, it is because what he said is open to many different interpretations. We are told there has been no change (which in my personal opinion is the most plausible interpretation), and yet the Vatican has released a statement from the Secretary General of Caritas Internationalis saying, "The Pope's reported comments in this book illustrate the importance of compassion and sensitivity in dealing with the complexities of HIV/ AIDS prevention. Caritas delivers its HIV/AIDS programmes in line with Church Teaching and we will consider, in close consultation with the Holy See, whether there are implications for our work in these reported comments of Pope Benedict." Clearly there is some thought in the Vatican that there *might* be some kind of change implied by Benedict's remarks.

Catholics all over the Catholic blogosphere are trying to puzzle out exactly what the implications are of the pope's example -- a male prostitute with AIDS using condoms. Certainly it was a very unusual example, since male prostitution has, to the best of my knowledge, never been a topic in the question of what the Catholic approach to AIDS prevention and treatment should be. Does the same example apply to a female prostitute? Was a male prostitute chosen so that the issue of contraception was not involved (assuming a male prostitute's clients are other males)? Does the example apply only when the male prostitute makes the decision on his own, or is it now licit for Catholics involved in AIDS prevention and treatment to say (at least to male prostitutes), "If you won't stop what you are doing, at least use condoms to protect your customers"? Is a stepwise approach to morality commendable only in retrospect, after the final steps have been taken, or may Catholics encourage wrongdoers to take things one step at a time, and commend them for each step along the way?

So far, I would have to say the mainstream media are doing a reasonably good job of reporting this matter. If the MSM reported all such matters flawlessly, there would be no need for the Catholic press.
11.22.2010 | 2:28pm
Sarah says:
Theology of the Body scholar Dr. Janet Smith addresses in-depth the misunderstanding of the Holy Father's message regarding the use of condoms. Please read her commentary. I found it to be very interesting.

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
11.22.2010 | 2:29pm
mdegnan says:
@Tom, the archbishop is fully engaged here in Denver. If you lived here, you might realize how foolish the snarkiness sounds.
11.22.2010 | 3:00pm
C.Apodaca says:
Tom, your concern is appreciated. Thanks to the interwebs and other technology, Archbishop Chaput is able to write timely pieces for various publications AND to shepherd his flock here in Denver. Praise God for that technology and for our intelligent, loving and pastoral leader in Northern Colorado!
11.22.2010 | 3:11pm
Bob G says:
Charles J. Chaput is himself a major jewel in the Church's crown. How wonderful to have a bishop who writes as well and as courageously as he does. Another is Cardinal George.

Haven't we seen this sort of thing time and again—the secular media jumping on an isolated point and trying to force the Church's hand? How about the earlier "case" of Pope Benedict: supposedly guilty of protecting child molesters in Germany, but as the facts came out that all fell apart. Archbishop Chaput's pointing out the huge significance of the Pope's new book will already start sending the pendulum back. Just continue to point out the importance of the book and the controversy will fade away fast.

And isn't this becoming a trend: the Church attacked over and over with what is supposed to be the final blow, yet the Church adjusts and goes on—serenely in the Pope's case? Probably the enemies are becoming exasperated: nothing works!

Thank you Archbishop Chaput for publicizing the significance of this book. I'm ordering my copy today.
11.22.2010 | 3:22pm
Michael says:
“First, Seewald deals early and extensively with the Church's sexual abuse scandal. Benedict's answers are patient, tranquil, humble, and honest. This Pope is not a leader who downplays the damage done to innocent children and families, or evades responsibility, or makes excuses for evil actions. He is well aware of the scope of sexual abuse in other religious communities and public institutions, but he does not use that as an alibi for the sins of Catholic clergy. Nor does he ever stray from the priority of healing for victims.”

How many times does Chaput have to hear this before it sinks in? There are two scandals, not one. The first is the sex abuse. The second is the hierarchy’s collusion and cover-up of the sex abuse.

Everyone of good will understands that sick men and women will find ways to abuse children and that abusers will seek out the helping professions, such as clergy and teaching.

What I and many others don’t understand is why sane, rational bishops aided these abusers, helping them perpetuate more crime. The Roman Catholic Church must hold these men accountable. Their institutional guilt is far more grievous than the guilt of the abusers, for it compounded their crimes.

I know that Benedict is responding, punishing some bishops and doing the important work of revising procedures so that episcopal collusion and cover-up do not happen again.

But the wound reopens every time I hear someone refer only to the abuse and not to the collusion and cover-up. I hope that Seewald asked Benedict about the collusion and cover-up, but Chaput refers only to the abuse. The effect is to shift the focus to the sickness of the abusers and away from the sickness of the hierarchy.

Abuse can’t be stopped, but collusion and cover-up can. I hope Chaput is listening.
11.22.2010 | 3:43pm
bt says:
From what I have read, Archbishop Chaput's writings have a benefit to all people, whether inside his diocese or outside.
11.22.2010 | 3:43pm
Bob G says:
Michael, above, makes a good point. The bishops have never apologized for the $3 billion (and climbing) sex-abuse scandal, which was their fault, not the priests'. Far from it: the triumphalism goes on as if nothing ever happened. The new cardinal of Washington DC drags a train of 400 people to his elevation. They each pay over $2000 just to get in, not to mention the living expenses. A couple of million to watch him get a red hat. But it seems the Pope really is different: he doesn't give a damn for all the pomp and circumstance. If only he would pull the plug on all that. The hierarchy needs a thorough reform.
11.22.2010 | 4:49pm
John2 says:
@Peter H
"... One can get the jest of (these attackers) even from the most liberal media, like the Huffington Post."

Nice bit of wit, that. Yes, they are jesters.
11.22.2010 | 5:08pm
Don 't the jesuits teach that committing a SIN IS PERMITTED TO AVOID A WORSE SIN?
11.22.2010 | 5:19pm
The Archbishop says: "condom use does not prevent AIDS"

But not according to the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

When someone like the Archbishop says something like this, it just makes them sound willfully ignorant. If you want to say that condom use is immoral, that's fine. But don't say that something is ineffective as a preventive measure if experts say it is highly effective (although not perfectly effective, because no measure is ever declared 100% effective, scientifically).

Condoms do prevent AIDS.
11.22.2010 | 5:59pm
Tony Esolen says:
The comment above falls under Esolen's Rule Number 16: "All quantitative descriptions of human behavior are necessarily unrigorous."

There are two questions here, or rather two and a half:

One: do latex condoms inhibit the likelihood, in a given act of heterosexual intercourse, that the HIV virus will be transmitted?

One and a half: do latex condoms inhibit the likelihood, in a given act of homosexual intercourse, that the HIV virus will be transmitted?

Two: does the promotion of condom use actually tend to inhibit the spread of the HIV virus?

You see, people are people, not inert matter. When you encourage the use of condoms, you do not leave the people you are encouraging unaffected. They change their minds: some will engage in sex who otherwise might not; some will engage in more encounters than they otherwise would; some will engage in riskier sex, rationalizing it by referring to the times when they are 'protected'; and the general moral tenor of the society will be corrupted.

A partial analogy: the helmets used in the NFL. Does the helmet protect against a given blow to the head? Yes, sure. If you have a helmet on, and somebody thrusts his head against yours, you'll be better off than if your head had been bare. But does the use of helmets conduce to fewer head and neck injuries in the NFL? No, not at all. The reverse is probably true, as Joe Paterno, coach of Penn State, opined a couple of weeks ago, and his suggestion was confirmed by a sports doctor who studies these things. That is because football with helmets is not the same game as football without helmets. The same thing may be said about boxing gloves. In one sense, they protect: a given blow from a gloved hand may be (and may not be; the gloves may act as weights appended to the end of a sling) less acute than a blow from bare knuckles, but bare knuckles fighting was almost certainly less dangerous than gloved fighting.
11.22.2010 | 6:23pm
Bender says:
**protection against HETEROSEXUAL transmission of HIV**

I notice that you conveniently left out any discussion of homosexual transmission.

**when used consistently and correctly**
**It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV**

Just exactly WHAT did the Archbishop get wrong??

He is absolutely right. The advocacy of condoms for disease prevention is a lie. It does not make sex "safe." There is still a risk that remains, and that is when they are used correctly -- which is not all the time. Frequently, they are used incorrectly, which makes the activity even more "unsafe." Condoms are a lie, they are a lie against the truth of science, they are a lie against the truth of the human person, they are a lie against the truth of human sexuality.
11.22.2010 | 8:09pm
Hieronymus says:
@Siger Brabant,

"Prevent" means "not allow to happen". You yourself admit that condoms do not offer 100% protection against AIDS. Therefore Archbishop Chaput is absolutely correct: condom use does not prevent AIDS. QED.
11.22.2010 | 10:39pm
Thomas says:
Lombardi is a good man, but he's copiously inadequate to run the Vatican Press Office. The man has no media sophistication and practical genius to use this powerful machinery to aid and protect the Holy Father's mission. More often than not, he has dropped the ball disastrously on a PR and Communications level. The gaffes we've had in recent years would never have happened under Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who as a lay professional, knew how better to negotiate the treacherous currents of the secular media for the glory of God. Instead of preventative measures or pro-active salvos, Lombardi's press services are mostly applied to trying to put out fires after an attack, and often with quite clumsy and archaic responses too.

Part of JP2's success in nullifying much media hostility and garnering a strong cohesive image even when he defended unpopular Catholic ideas, was due in no small part to the effectiveness of Navarro-Valls' practical genius.

In appointing an old Jesuit hat like Lombardi to the post, the Holy Father has fallen into the old curial trap of promoting senior clergymen over truly qualified candidates, whether they be lay or religious Catholics. For the sake of the papal office and the universal church, I pray that they change the Vatican Press Director for a start. Get a good orthodox Catholic professional who at least has the umption to manipulate the secular media to the Church's advantage. Navarro-Valls did it for most of JP2's reign. It can be done.
11.22.2010 | 11:12pm
@Hieronymus

Read it again: The CDC says "The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners."

Latex condoms prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus. It is that simple. Of course, they don't work if you don't use them correctly. They don't work if you, for example, put one on after you've had sex once already. But the science confirms that they do effectively prevent the transmission of the disease.

And shame on Chaput for saying what he knows is not true.

Even if, per impossibile, condoms could be shown to be 100% effective in preventing AIDS transmission, not just in 99999 out of 100,000 cases, Chaput would still believe, as the Church does, that condom use is immoral. But why go out of your way to say they are ineffective, when they are?

On the other hand, you can be abstinent and still get AIDS, e.g. from a blood transfusion, or as a child in the womb, etc, so clearly abstinence isn't 100% effective either.

The important thing is: what is the failure rate for abstinence as a strategy vs condom use? Have there been any studies on that?

This study shows that abstinence-only programs were only 80% effective in preventing subjects from having intercourse in the following 24 month period. Among 12-year-old girls. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home
11.23.2010 | 1:29am
Hieronymus says:
@Siger Brabant,

By saying that condoms prevent AIDS in theory and that abstinence does not prevent it in practice, you are applying two different criteria which is illogical. In reality, abstinence - IF FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY - always prevents AIDS, and condoms - EVEN IF USED CONSISTENTLY - don't. This is quite obvious. Don't get confused by studies and experts, just use common sense.
11.23.2010 | 4:25am
Patrick says:
We've been carpetbombing Africa with condoms for decades now, and that hasn't stopped AIDS. It simply has not got the job done. Now that the pope has relented somewhat on the anti-condom stance, perhaps the scientific community could find something to say about abstinence being more effective than condoms?
11.23.2010 | 8:45am
To Our Author, Archbishop Chaput of Denver:


I've followed your career for many years; from the days when you began appearing on, and being quoted by, the radical right-wing “Catholic” network, EWTN/RN. In those years, I've found you to be a rather too-saavy politician. You seem easily capable of issuing remarks that would seem to support “conservative”/right-wing causes, like EWTN's radical one-issue anti-abortionism; while caging those remarks in too-subtle caveats, and rather contrasting remarks made elsewhere.

In the present case for example, you 1) appear to congratulate the Pope, Joe Ratzinger, for his firm stance against child-molesting priests. On the other hand though, 2) you yourself published an earlier article in First Things, in which you argue that bishops are not responsible for the earlier cover-ups and whitewashing (2006; see republished version? With readers' comments, May 26, 2010). This earlier article by you does not seem at all, to have the bishops and pope stepping up to the plate to take responsibility.

So my question to you, Archbishop Chaput: which of the two rather different views that you've expressed on this subject, is your real view?


Sincerely,
Joe
11.23.2010 | 8:57am
@Hieronymus: I'm not being inconsistent. Condoms are highly effective at preventing AIDS in practice. In a small number of cases, you might get AIDS even if you use a condom correctly. Abstinence is also highly effective at preventing AIDS in practice. However, in a small number of cases, you might get AIDS even if you are completely abstinent: for example, if you get a bad blood transfusion, if you are infected by your mother at birth, through sharing needles, etc. Because abstinence doesn't prevent AIDS in every case, even if used consistently, you shouldn't say that abstinence is a lie. Nor should you say that condoms don't prevent AIDS, when used consistently and correctly, unless they are 100% effective.

We all hear: "seat belts save lives". This doesn't mean that no one has ever died in a car accident who was wearing a seat belt. It means that you are far less likely to die if you use one. The fact that seat belts aren't 100% effective at saving lives doesn't mean that seat belts are a "lie against science" and a "lie against the human person" as @Bender would put it.

The same goes for condoms and AIDS.
11.23.2010 | 10:45am
j says:
Dear ArchBishop Please read my comments. Dear sir, i f you think you want o use condoms to help some people , why not tell it to Jesus who employ the church leader and us all? or you want to replace Christ saving power? honestly Bishop where are the old days Christians who turned to Jesus to tell tell Him about their problems? where are the repentant people like those of Nineveh who repetented at Jonah's preaching. Did not the people preached to by St Paul repent at his preachings and turned around their ways. now it is suggested to us give a little blind eye to the Gospel, use a condom and try to turn around a later! condoms are nongospel like. the defenders of the comments even if served in a smoothed lines from spokesmen are serving to bruise the gospel which works not by condoms but the Word , the faith inspiring word and nothing else, even a little bit as it is not faith. matters nongospel like should not be served to us sugar coated nor sin careful words for it is corroding.
11.23.2010 | 10:50am
j says:
yes and no truth is no truth. condoms is yes and no solution even to scientist themselves, then the christians want that in exchange for their gospel truth? a yes and no solution not sure? christians should turn back to Christ and ask the Holy Spirit to help the church with His saving power.
11.23.2010 | 11:36am
Richard says:
POPE CHANGES POLICY

I suggest that everyone interested in this issue read the article linked below:
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40331930/ns/world_news-europe/

If this report is accurate, it seems to me to reflect a major shift in Church policy on condom use.

It also hangs out to dry all those who defended the Church's no condom policy in the face of heated criticism. The Vatican, it would appear, simply cannot be trusted not to abandon its defenders, and I will not again defend its policies in public, if appearances are not deceiving.

Richard
11.23.2010 | 12:28pm
NancyD. says:
Siger, one cannot compare seatbelts to condoms because, while there is no correlation between the use of seatbelts and the liklihood of being in a car accident, there is a correlation between condom use and the liklihood that one will engage in risky sexual behavior that is destructive to both the body and the soul. That being said, I want to know who in the Vatican is responsible for the quotes that were given to l'Osservatore Romano, violating the book's publication embargo. This attempt to undermine the Pope and The Teaching of the Magisterium by omitting parts of the text, knowing that the fact that the text was not yet available as a reference would add to the confusion, seems to be a deliberate deception.
11.23.2010 | 12:43pm
Francesca says:
There is an analogy with seatbelts. People drive less carefully when their passengers are wearing seatbelts.
11.23.2010 | 1:26pm
Peter H says:
Analogies used — of a football helmet, boxing gloves, or a seatbelt — are misleading. Simply put, helmets, gloves and seatbelts do protect from otherwise much more serious injuries, so it is foolish to argue that they don't. Why would the soldiers or hockey players or boxers insist on using them? Or why would the law of many states mandate the compulsory use of seatbelts?

All these protective device are good and serve a good purpose. The nature of pope Benedict's example deals with an immoral or bad act, or with a bad or evil purpose or behavior. Very much like when Jesus dealt with a prostitute whom the crowd wanted to stone.

Here is a much better analogy by Dr. Janet E. Smith:

"If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would be 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."

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
11.23.2010 | 2:24pm
@Peter H

Exactly.

The fact is that wielding a gun without bullets (in the course of a robbery, an immoral act) is safer than wielding a gun with bullets. By analogy, using a condom is safer than not using one in terms of transmitting AIDS. But wielding a gun is immoral, and the Church believes that using a condom is immoral. It counts nothing against this statement of immorality to admit that condom use is effective in preventing harm just as removing the bullets is effective in preventing harm. The Church believes that the use of the condom is immoral whether or not it is effective. But claiming it is ineffective because it is not 100% effective is just incorrect and disingenuous.
11.23.2010 | 7:21pm
Hieronymus says:
@Siger Brabant,

If you insist on using words in imprecise ways, I have no answer to that. I can only say that I am totally opposed to such lack of precision in a discussion, and that semantic carelessness makes the said discussion pointless to continue. Thank you for your time.
11.24.2010 | 12:51am
Mark says:
"We've been carpetbombing Africa with condoms for decades now, and that hasn't stopped AIDS."

Africa's problems with HIV are large, indeed, but read up on Thailand sometime before drawing sweeping conclusions. Condoms help prevent HIV both in theory and in practice.
11.24.2010 | 9:10am
So now we have the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH of the NOW-HOLY CONDOM? Or the Church of the not-holy comdom? Either way, isn't something wrong here?

Part of the larger problem is that the Church began deviating from the Bible much too far; to invent its own "new" doctrines c. 1964. At that time it begin specifying its own opinion, in all too many areas outside its own expertise or competence. So that today, we witness the absurdity and hilarity of the Pope pontificating on rubbers.

In part, it is the fault of religious "Conservatives"; who decided that Jesus tells us what to do in every micro-managed situation; and tells us to vote Republican.

And now to wear condoms?

Why not just stick to the Bible? The Church would be on far more solid ground.
11.24.2010 | 2:09pm
Peter H says:
Siger Brabant,

You are defending the use of condoms for their effectiveness. The Church is advocating the use other moral means. The effectiveness of condoms has been a hotly debated issues and it really depends on whose numbers and scientific methodologies you use. You would have to get down to the devilish details of each such study. Typically, these studies say that the condoms are 80-95% effective. Most studies are done under laboratory conditions and not real-life situations.

Now consider other factors that will significantly decrease effectiveness, and each factor may more or less add to the lowering of effectiveness, until you may end up with a rather dangerous and deceiving scenario.

A simple argument against the effectiveness was raised by those who pointed out that in real life situations, or due to the sheer greed and profit, the condoms shipped to the third world countries might not be the expensive "high quality" condoms, but cheap ones, with much less effectiveness, say 50%. There are other potential drawback which further reduce the effectiveness — the sizing and the thickness also matters, the condoms may slip-off, some people are allergic to latex and will not use them. More expensive polyurethane condoms have been approved by the FDA, but they are more likely to slip-off or break than latex. Further, even good quality latex condoms can be damaged by lubricants. There was a confusion about using spermicide nonoxynol-9 lubricated condoms — once it was believed (based on scientific studies) that these provided additional protection against HIV, but more recent studies showed that nonoxynol-9 actually decreased effectiveness against HIV and even the Planned Parenthood stopped using them. Another key factor is the "proper" and systematic use, and even with such high quality condoms and proper use the pregnancy rates are still 2%. Experience and the "cool head" also matters, and these factors cannot be typically expected from younger people or from people who are not frequently engaging in sexual activities. There are also other unexpected and bizarre influences that will dramatically decrease the effectiveness, such as the sabotage cases, say if one partner wishes to have a child, or cases where some people (like in Nigeria) sabotaged condoms out of spite, or in retaliation for being forced to use condoms.

So as you can see, in real life the effectiveness can be much less than what the theoretical studies under ideal conditions project. Add to that the sense of false security when using such ineffective condoms, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Actually, if you re-read archbishops words, he did not say the condoms were ineffective, he wrote:

"condom use does not prevent AIDS and can actually enable its spread by creating a false sense of security."

This is a much wider statement and considering the real-life effectiveness of condoms those words are very wise.

P.S.

I suppose your name is a pseudonym — I am just curious why you have chosen the name of this controversial medieval character who was condemned by the Church for spreading a dangerous heresy.
11.25.2010 | 10:33am
Jeff says:
I really think the Holy See needs to give the "Jews are elder brothers" thing a rest. They are giving the message that Catholicism is inferior to Judaism, an offshoot of it, when that is false. Catholicism is an offshoot of Jesus Christ himself. Why the constant pandering? The weakness and ambiguity? Can't they stand fast a little, and tell the truth openly?
11.28.2010 | 3:58pm
JohnRDC says:
Pope Benedict IMHO never speaks imprecisely or carelessly.

Therefore, his carefully chosen phrases regarding condoms need to be considered as ground breaking. The Chaputs (and Eberhardts) of this world, the literalists among us, will try to "walk back" what the Pope has said to reconcile it with Paul VI's broadside condemnation, but of course, Pope Benedict in thi interview has fatally pricked that particular balloon, and the air will continue to leak out. In their hearts the literalists must feel alarmed, an attitude the Archbishop seems to convey. I expect further circumlocutions from Bottum & Co.

In an action long overdue. the present Pope has begun the process of undoing the damage, a process that will, unfortunately, take many more decades. But it has begun, thank God.
12.1.2010 | 11:32pm
Thomist says:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010
Regarding the Pope’s interview, “none of this has any bearing on the Church’s traditional teaching against contraception in marriage. Indeed, no matter what position the Pope or any other moralist may take on the use of condoms in particular situations which are already fundamentally disordered—situations in which sexual activity is already intrinsically immoral—that position cannot affect the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms in sexual acts which are otherwise properly ordered and moral—that is, within marriage. In each and every properly ordered and therefore moral sexual act (that is, in each and every marital act), deliberate contraception remains intrinsically immoral.”

Condom mania in the media, idle desires, wishful feeling, cannot change that.

Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN):
In the case having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.

Note the equivalence of the two comments above. So the Holy Father has changed no doctrine, cannot, and never will.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact