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:
By bringing these "exceptional cases" into the discussion, the Pope will be pointing to the fact that homosexual relations are "sexual" only by name.
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.
Does anyone have an authoritative source on these rumors?
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
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.
Richard
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"... 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.


