Anthony McCarthy has written an important article regarding the Holy Father's recent comments on condoms. He has had some trouble getting it published elsewhere so I am happy to post it here as a Scribd file which you can view, download, or print as convenient.
I think that this is an important and helpful contribution to the debate that the Holy Father has instigated and I agree with Anthony.
Pope Condoms (McCarthy)
24 comments:
We have received an interesting e-mail which contends that the Holy Father never even said the exact words which are being attributed to him.
This is being put down to a mistranslation from the original in relation to the fact that the words begrundete and giustificato - ''justified'' - were not even used.
The text is on our blog today. Hat-tip to Paul Vooght.
God bless
Alan and Angeline
I appreciate the honesty in this article. The problem is not so much in what the Pope said. The problem is that the message is so easy to misconstrue -- especially by those with an agenda. Was it prudent for the Pope to entertain such delicate questions within the context of a casual interview? It was a risky move.
(Apologies for length)
To quote Jamie Bogle, Chairman of the Catholic Union:
The media are reporting that the Pope said this in his interview with Peter Seewald, in the book Licht der Welt, "Light of the World":
"Es mag begründete Einzelfälle geben, etwa wenn ein Prostituierter ein Kondom verwendet, wo dies ein erster Schritt zu einer Moralisierung sein kann."
Which translates:
"It may be justified in individual cases, as when a (male) prostitute uses a condom, where this is a first step towards morality"
However, he, the Pope never uses the word "begründete" or "giustificato" or "justified", neither does he say that "individual cases" of condom use may be justified.
While it is sad if because of the media nonsense, many people truly believe the Catholic Church has changed her teaching, the blame-slinging is beneath us I think.
Imho we are over-reacting. I mean they crucified Jesus - why should we not expect to be lied about, attributed wrong notions and so on. Sure, the likes of Catholics for a Free Choice will be jubilant - but they and their audience evidently neither knew or accepted the full teaching of the Church anyway - and lets be honest - are not seeking to.
Whenever the Pope speaks or writes, not only do the media start 'spinning' but so few of his words ever filter through to a huge number of 'Sunday Catholics', never mind the rest of the global population.
Perhaps, if we seek a return to those days when 'the Pope was a prisoner in the Vatican...' we might also return to a time where faithful Catholics wait and pray and reflect before casually judging any of his words or actions.
I remember a very devout Catholic family whose unmarried daughter became pregnant. They stood around her at Mass every Sunday, and loved her, and supported her. No doubt their private discussions dealt with the sin and the consequences; and there was no doubt that their lives as a family exposed their undying faith - so they didn't (to my knowledge) publicly criticise, blame her or put her down.
I suppose I am asking, in a 'familial' sense, if we can't start doing something similar for our Pope.
Especially as his actual words are unarguable.
I loved the last quote (which I hadn't come across before) about preachers who 'fram[e] their sermons so as to displease nobody.' Who 'do not fling all restraint aside and burn with the great Fire of God.'
Well, it seems the 'offended' ones are numbered among us at the moment! Don't we need to step back ... or go back ... to the original book, and read all in context, with faith?
I like Janet Smith's explanation best...
Unfortunately, Jamie's email, though entirely well-meant, was flawed. The text that Sandro Magister had was presumably the original text which was subsequently modified to produce the text that was published in German, of which the English translation which was published, is entirely correct. (And therefore the BBC cannot be blamed for using it.) The later text is more "nuanced" than the text that Magister had access to. Therefore we can assume that the Holy Father meant what he said.
Our beloved Holy Father has, in my humble opinion, stepped in a wrong direction here. The quotation from St Teresa is quite apt. I have another from St Catherine of Siena which is also to the point and will publish it soon.
After reading all the commentaries available, plus blog comments, it is refreshing to read the commentary from Dici the website of the SSPX - clear as crystal. They don't take the ridiculous line of defending the indefensible as just about everyone else has done; they speak the truth - the defend the Faith, as St (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine instructed we should, even against heretical popes.
Hilarious, then, that these defenders of the Faith are the alleged "schismatics" while all the "Catholics in good standing" are defending the error.
Hilarious doesn't even begin to cut it.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/note-on-the-remarks-of-benedict-xvi-concerning-condom-use/
Administrator: this post should replace my previous one. Sorry for any confusion caused.
I do think we owe it to the Pope to read his words carefully and thoughtfully, and to attend to the clarification which follows within the text, which, in my opinion, makes his meaning abundantly clear.
If a man says something which could be misconstrued; then is asked to clarify; and then we ignore what he says in his clarification, I don't think we are doing him justice. I believe the relevant question to ask after the controversial statement ('there may be a basis, in individual cases, where this is a first step...') is: 'in what respect is this a first step'? The Pope answers that question immediately in a way that cannot be misconstrued: the first step consists in the good intention 'in der Absicht' (which of course does not render the act moral: 'it is not a real or moral solution').
Patricia - yes the DICI paper is very good. I'll be addressing that soon.
Fr Tim writes:
"Our beloved Holy Father has, in my humble opinion, stepped in a wrong direction here. The quotation from St Teresa is quite apt. I have another from St Catherine of Siena which is also to the point and will publish it soon."
I am sure the Holy Father can quote from the saints too. I must confess that I think the Rev Fr protests too much on this one!
I think this is an important and well argued discussion of the Pope's intent and of the topic in general. Thank you for publishing this essay and for a most interesting blog. I look forward to reading more about this issue.
Regards,
Interesting commentary by Cardinal Burke here:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/
Well said M.Hendrickx and especially RJ!
I had no trouble understanding that the Pope's comments only referred to the situation in the mind of the prostitute - not the objective morality of the act,as the Pope's original words make clear.Bishop Anthony Fisher of Parramatta Diocese summed it up succinctly within days of the perverse media campaign.Unhappily Anthony McCarthy's rather lengthy contribution seems to me to obscure the simple facts.I am happy to trust the Holy Father's judgement in the whole matter.
If Anthony McCarthy's paper is so 'important', why is he having such difficulty getting it published? I would suggest, it is because the logic is fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, this is not a particularly well considered commentary.
In the article the author uses the analogy of pilots dropping nuclear bombs. Using prostitutes is always wrong. Has the church officially taught that dropping nuclear bombs is always wrong? That pilots (or in our case submariners) who have responsibility for these weapons are in an 'immoral occupation?'
Not the main topic of this thread but it has pastoral significance for me.
Big Benny - well thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't agree that his logic is fundamentally flawed.
Big benny: There is not much point in saying that the logic of the article is fundamentally flawed unless you say in what way it is such in your view.
Nicolas Bellord
I think it's important because it not only considers the issue but does so from a perspective that is not 'intra-Catholic'. In other words McCarthy is not just writing about Catholicism for Catholics but with an explanatory approach that explains fully why the Pope, and Catholics in general hold these views. That, for me, is the important bit. You see, I'm not a Catholic.
In order to accept each others arguments and viewpoints we must first understand them. IMHO this explains the Pope's/Catholic church's viewpoint quite succinctly. It's not enough to know what the rules are, but why they are. Without such reason you have only fear. And ignorance.
Well I certainly hope that Taliban Catholics who wish to defend their position on condoms etc continue to draw parallels with using nuclear weapons - it will provide an unmissable target for ridicule.
I'm not sure this is a matter purely of logic, Father. As one of the great philosophers once said: 'A small error in the beginning leads to major errors in the conclusions'. If you start with a false premise, perfect logic will take you to a false conclusion.
I think one must start with a preliminary question. Has the Pope actually said what has been attributed to him, effectively: that it's ok sometimes to use a condom? I'm not convinced.
But if you start with that premise (and that seems to be the premise of the DICI article), I guess you will conclude that the Pope has erred.
There is a very good exposition of both schools of interpretation of the Pope's words here:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/11/26/pope-benedict-and-the-great-condom-conumdrum/#more-26660
Conclusion: 'Today, what the world thinks Pope Benedict said is almost exactly the opposite of what he clearly intended'
But please read it for yourself.
Fr. Tim,
As I reflect on it, the Holy Father's comment on condom use sounds to me rather like the way a confessor would evaluate culpability before imposing a penance, rather than marking any moving of the goalposts of traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality.
However, the fact that Cafod, for example, sees in his remarks a vindication of their own heterodox policies confirms me in my view that the "first step towards a moralization" remark should never have seen the light of day. It is just too easy to take it the wrong way -- and the fact that it has "initiated a debate" doesn't justify all the confusion it has caused.
Anthony McCarthy writes:
big benny - If there is a logical flaw in the argument then please point it out. I will be happy to accept any valid point. If you supply none I can't think why your statement shouldn't be withdrawn. You have a hearteningly innocent view of the vagaries of publishing.
RJ - I don't think anything you say contradicts what I am saying. Indeed I make it clear that the Pope is not sayig it is morally ok to use condoms. But what he does say is, I think, problematic and for the reasons I outlined.
If vexilla regis can tell me where I've obscured 'simple facts' then I urge her to. I am as in need of correction as anyone else.
On nuclear weapons, I take it that, in practice, they involve the deliberate killing of innocent human lives when dropped on cities (as my example specified). To argue re side-effects seems disingenous to me in the context of bombing cities. Furthermore it's difficult to see how their use on a city could ever be proportionate in terms of just war theory endorsed by the Church. See the excellent Nuclear Deterrence book by Finnis, Grisez and Boyle.
Anthony McCarthy
Anthony, my quotation from Aristotle was aimed at the DICI article, which starts out with the assumption that the Pope has admitted the use of condoms.
I believe Elizabeth Anscombe's argument was that condomistic intercourse was an entirely different kind of act from normal intercourse, because it lacked an essential element, namely that of being procreative. (Just for anyone not familiar with this kind of argument: this doesn't mean that every act must result in procreation; to be a procreative kind of act, it merely has to be apt for procreation.)
This is a different argument from that relating to the unitive dimension and, I suspect, a stronger one. It could bear being revisited in its own right.
Perhaps the thing to do now is to clear up any confusion about the Pope's remarks or, even more importantly, about the issues on which they bear.
Post a Comment