On the one hand, we know that the widespread distribution of condoms to tackle the problem of HIV/AIDS has not worked in practice: the Holy Father affirms that and it has been the subject of much comment around the internet over the years. On the other hand, secularists and militant gays use the condom issue to attack the Church as heartless and out of touch since in some individual sexual acts, a condom will reduce the risk of infection. (There are, of course, acts in which condoms do not apply, so to speak.)
The Holy Father uses the example of a male prostitute (Prostituierter in the original German), saying that the use of a condom 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."I think that this is an unfortunate example. Many male prostitutes are not doing whatever they want to do, on account of being controlled by a pimp and compelled to meet the standard requests of their "client". If he is required to be the passive partner in a sexual encounter, wearing a condom will not do him much good - he would need the "client" to wear one. If he is required to be active, he might want to wear a condom out of an instinct for self-preservation but probably would not see it as a step in the direction of moralization. Surely the only proper response of a good Catholic wishing to help someone caught up in male prostitution is "Is there anything we can do to help you get the hell out of this?"
In Africa, the more common situation is that of men who go away to work, consorting with female prostitutes, and then, on returning home, infecting their wives or girlfriends. Again, the poor prostitute may well have little choice in the matter of whether a condom is used or not. In an individual encounter, if the man agrees to wear one, a condom will reduce the risk of infection but in the process of "risk compensation" may encourage him that his dangerous and immoral behaviour can be undertaken with an acceptable rate of risk to himself and his family. This seems the most likely explanation for the increase in infection rates when condoms are promoted aggressively.
One article I read today said that programmes promoting abstinence were irrelevant in some cases because of the incidence of rape. That is a fair point but it should also be borne in mind that condoms are also irrelevant here unless we are trying to persuade rapists to practise "safer sex". (If we did, would that be a step in the direction of moralization?)
I'm sorry. I love the Holy Father very much; he is a deeply holy man and has done a great deal for the Church. On this particular issue, I disagree with him and I hope that my having sufficient "initial goodwill" is not in question (cf. Pope/condoms I). I have read an embargoed copy of the whole of the interview with Peter Seewald and there is a great deal there to ponder and learn from. I'll now be moving on to that and other topics.
44 comments:
Sorry Father, but amidst everything you've written I seem to have missed exactly what it is that the Pope has said that's something with which you disagree ?
You seem to be saying he's advocating condom use too ?
I'd sincerely love to know how people are inferring this ?
The bit quoted in the box.
It would be a travesty to say that the Pope is "advocating condom use". But he does say that it is a first step in the direction of moralization.
YEAH!
For a male prostitute about to engage in intrinsically morally disordered actions.
Subjectively for that individual - not on a objective moral scale.
It's just like Prof Janet Smith's allusion - robbing a bank with a gun, but choosing not to put any bullets in the gun - is a step in the direction of moralisation.
Burning someone at the stake but putting a pouch of gunpowder round their neck for a quick death - is a step in the direction of moralisation.
The guillotine compared with hanging/drawing and quartering; can be seen as a step in the direction of moralisation
The phrase 'first step in the direction of moralization' in no way sets any precedent towards consent or affirmation or advocation of conduct.
Saying 'well at least Al Capone loved his mother and Hitler was kind to animals' doesn't mean we're advocating the valentine's day massacre or the anschluss...
You say the male prostitute example is unfortunate: it would be, if we were expected to generalise from the example to all male prostitutes. Yes, as you point out, many if not most male prostitutes, like female ones, have no choice; as you say, they may have to be the passive partner. These are real situations which require their own response: but I think at the same time it's fairly obvious that the Pope does not want to make that sort of generalisation.
I suspect the choice was intended to avoid the minefield of heterosexual usage. Since homosexual activity is by definition non-conceptive, the use of the condom is necessarily morally neutral.
Also, a 'first step towards moralization' is certainly not the same as making a morally good choice. It is obvious that if someone is actually thinking about the consequences of their actions (and wearing a condom specifically to prevent passing a disease to another is exactly that) then this indicates *some* level of responsibility. It is a long way from making the right choice, but it is on the right way.
A truly humane sexuality is when the act is avoided altogether. That *might* be the next step for this hypothetical prostitute, and we hope so.
I do worry about the wisdom of touching such a subject knowing the response; but ultimately one should criticise what is actually said and meant (as far as we can tell of course). And the "goodwill" seems to me to involve understanding the Pope's words as far as possible within the light of his own and previous teaching.
Not a step in the sense that it's a good thing (and if he is thinking of sodomy, then it's not contraception, is it?). He says that there might be an inner progress of which the decision to use a condom could be an expression.
I've suggested on my blog that better than Janet Smith's bank robber example would be that of a bunch of robbers who for the first time decide to go back and finish off a badly injured victim rather than leave him to die slowly and painfully of wounds/heat/cold/ants/wolves. It's a very bad thing to kill him, but the thinkng behind it is a step forward from not giving a damn about his slow and painful death.
The very context of the quote suggests that he's not talking about the condom bit in itself!
Thank you for these four posts dealing with what the Holy Father said in his interview with Seewald.
As the story broke, and as a reaction to the claims in the liberal (and not so liberal) press that the Pope had given the green-light to the use of condoms, I assumed that the Holy Father's words had been fundamentally misunderstood. Having had time to reflect on these matters, I do now see that he has, in some ways, opened the door to further debate. Of course, his words have also been grossly manipulated by those with an anti-life agenda.
I still believe that the Pope hasn't said anything that is anywhere nearly as radical as some portions of the press (and the Church) would have us believe. Having said that, I do think he was mistaken in speaking about these issues in the forum he chose - with a journalist during a private interview. Like the Queen, Popes should never give personal interviews. Maybe he doesn't understand how important his words are as one who sits on Peter's Throne?
Also, the Holy Father seems to be using a hypothetical situation (a male prostitute and his "client") which is really nothing to do with Catholicism. One would assume that male prostitutes (esp those who have been doing it for a long time) are not, by virtue of their lifestyle, Christians. Even if some of them did attend Mass now and again, I think we could safely assume that, by virtue of the fact that they choose to disobey God's commandments, they would not pay particular attention to what the Holy Father has to say. In trying to engage with the world on its own terms, I think the Pope has made a bit of a mistake. He must realise that his primary functions now are to shepherd souls and teach the faith - not engage in philosophical musings or theological debates.
Of course, the private man - Ratzinger - will always have the freedom to investigate and mull things over. But, for a man who spent his life as an academic, the Papacy's burden for him is the fact that he can never be anonymous or just a private churchman any more.
I do think he was misguided in what he said to Seewald, but mainly because of the context (a private interview to be published) rather than for his views - which remain quite orthodox. Of course, the fact that he said that the use of condoms could be a first step in the direction of moralization is rather odd - a statement that belongs to the secular world and not Catholic morality. But, we can only assume that he was speaking "outside the box", so to speak.
All our popes have had flaws - some have had really big ones! In fact, I believe that Pope John Paul II had some character flaws (I always thought that the big show type Masses were not how the liturgy should be done). No one is perfect. On the whole, though, Benedict XVI is an excellent Pope, and a brilliant mind...But he just doesn't seem to recognise that every word he utters (esp to journalists) will affect the lives of the faithful!
Thank you for these four posts dealing with what the Holy Father said in his interview with Seewald.
As the story broke, and as a reaction to the claims in the liberal (and not so liberal) press that the Pope had given the green-light to the use of condoms, I assumed that the Holy Father's words had been fundamentally misunderstood. Having had time to reflect on these matters, I do now see that he has, in some ways, opened the door to further debate. Of course, his words have also been grossly manipulated by those with an anti-life agenda.
I still believe that the Pope hasn't said anything that is anywhere nearly as radical as some portions of the press (and the Church) would have us believe. Having said that, I do think he was mistaken in speaking about these issues in the forum he chose - with a journalist during a private interview. Like the Queen, Popes should never give personal interviews. Maybe he doesn't understand how important his words are as one who sits on Peter's Throne?
Also, the Holy Father seems to be using a hypothetical situation (a male prostitute and his "client") which is really nothing to do with Catholicism. One would assume that male prostitutes (esp those who have been doing it for a long time) are not, by virtue of their lifestyle, Christians. Even if some of them did attend Mass now and again, I think we could safely assume that, by virtue of the fact that they choose to disobey God's commandments, they would not pay particular attention to what the Holy Father has to say. In trying to engage with the world on its own terms, I think the Pope has made a bit of a mistake. He must realise that his primary functions now are to shepherd souls and teach the faith - not engage in philosophical musings or theological debates.
Of course, the private man - Ratzinger - will always have the freedom to investigate and mull things over. But, for a man who spent his life as an academic, the Papacy's burden for him is the fact that he can never be anonymous or just a private churchman any more.
I do think he was misguided in what he said to Seewald, but mainly because of the context (a private interview to be published) rather than for his views - which remain quite orthodox. Of course, the fact that he said that the use of condoms could be a first step in the direction of moralization is rather odd - a statement that belongs to the secular world and not Catholic morality. But, we can only assume that he was speaking "outside the box", so to speak.
Well, I think the Holy Father indictated that it CAN be a "first step," however, much depends on the "intention" of the moral agent. I think the Holy Father is saying that the (good intention) behind condom use can lead to moralization -- but not the condom in itself. On the other hand, presumably if a condom is used with an evil intention then it would indeed add to the sin leading towards further de-humanization, etc.
Isn't it more helpful to see this in terms of the counselling of a lesser evil where someone is determined on an immoral course of action? In choosing the lesser evil (sodomy which is less likely to cause HIV infection) over the greater (sodomy which is not), one may see a sign that the person is psychologically on the road to the kind of recognition in the other of human dignity which, followed to its logical conclusion, will result in a refusal to engage in non-marital, non-procreative sexual relations. I suspect you're right to say that the Holy Father may be a little naive as to the kind of moral reflection and freedom of choice that exists in prostitution-type scenarios.
I think the analysis by Grisez worth recalling:
It is always direct scandal to encourage anyone to do any moral evil, however slight, so as to avoid any non-moral evil, however great. Moreover, to intend that a lesser sin be committed so that a greater sin will not be committed is to intend the lesser sin, and so give scandal. Therefore, counseling someone to do a lesser evil can be permissible only if the counselor, rather than leading the wrongdoer to choose an evil he or she has not yet willed to do, only tries to persuade the wrongdoer to bring about less harm than he or she has willed to bring about. The counseling must bear on the wrongdoer's outward performance with the intention of mitigating its harmful effects; and the advice -- to do something less harmful -- must be given in such a way that the counselor need not intend, but only accept, the wrongdoer's additional immoral choice to do the lesser rather than the greater evil. For example, a woman whose drunken, brutal husband often beats their son with a leather belt might dissuade him from using a baseball bat by saying: 'Don't hit the boy with that bat! Beating him with your belt as you usually do is bad enough.' A legislator may propose amendments to mitigate the injustice of a bad law which a legislature is about to approve. When Reuben's brothers were about to kill Joseph, he rightly advised them instead to cast him into a pit, from which Reuben hoped to rescue him (Gn 37:20-22).
Grisez, G. The Way of the Lord Jesus v. 2: Living a Christian Life, 237.
I haven't the reference to hand, but the opinion that such counselling is permissible can be found in the writings of St Alphonsus. One might question the wisdom of having the conversation in a climate bound to misrepresent it (but here I think the blame is more with those who engaged in selective leaking than with the Holy Father), but the analysis he presents doesn't strike me as that contentious. He's certainly not endorsing the apparent Ivereigh position that condoms, so long as they are used as prophylactics, are morally unproblematic - which is itself a crude and inaccurate reduction of Rhonheimer's position.
Acknowledging that condom use can possibly be a lesser evil, taking a small step towards moving out of an intrinsically disordered situation, is significantly different from “trying to persuade” a target group to use condoms.
Rather it's a much needed corrective to the pervasive self-defeating appearance that Catholic teaching objects to contraception inside and outside marriage for exactly the same reasons.
With respect, I totally agree with your comments, Father.
And I'm intrigued by the divide between those who will countenance critiquing the Holy Father's comments and those who consider him to be beyond any criticism.
(he latter group are clearly not trads.)
Felix
I can't help thinking that this reminds me of Jesus. I can't remember the Pope's exact words but he said something like he felt he was being put on the spot when the question came up on his trip to Africa. Sometimes Jesus was silent when people were trying to trick him and avoided their questions. And his questioners went away confused and couldn't understand him, because they were spiritually blind.
What can the Pope say when confronted with the question of the use of condoms when people are dying of Aids in Africa. He can't condone their use because it's immoral, but yet he knows that many men will insist on having sexual relations with their wives in spite of having Aids. What are women to do in this situation, while waiting for their menfolk (many of whom visit prostitutes)to understand the real meaning of sexuality??
Before he mentions the use of condoms by male prostitutes in his book the Pope speaks about how the Church is helping people with Aids in many ways. That's where the real work is done not in pronouncements to the media when whatever he says will be misunderstood?
Fr. Tim,
I agree with you. Condoms are fundamentally evil -- part and parcel of the culture of death -- alongside the Pill, prostitution, pornography and homo-eroticism. The raison d'etre of condoms is to frustrate the marital act. Of course, condoms are very inefficient -- they burst, leak and peel off -- and because of this, they have been the cause of countless abortions. It is impossible to draw a neat line between their anti-life characteristics and any secondary prophylactic properties they might have. To suggest that they could have a role to play in preventative medicine is irresponsible, to say the least: Catholics should avoid them like the plague.
If you distribute condoms as an HIV-prevention measure, the vicious circle surely escalates -- you line the pockets of the amoral multinationals that manufacture them and reinforce the lie that condoms are all about "safe sex." The more condoms are distributed, the more fornication, sodomy, adultery and abortion. When you consider this broader picture, how is it possible to describe any form of condom use as a "step towards moralization", especially in the context of a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance?
I presumed media distortion, but I think Fr Finigan and Fr Boyle are right: the pope has opened a can of worms, and I'm not sure for what end. Again his tendency for nuance (a virtuous characteristic of the academic mind) has spread anguish and confusion.
By using the extreme and unrealistic example of a homosexual prostitute who, by wearing a condom to protect his 'client' from HIV, is accepting that not 'everything is allowed' (thereby seemingly implying that the male prostitute acts as he does to some degree for pleasure), the Holy Father has admitted of the possibility of the same principle being applied to less extreme situations. By extension, any use of the condom in almost any situation can be understood as 'a first step in the direction of a moralization', even those in which the condom is used as a contraceptive; a promiscuous man is admitting that using a condom protects the girl from pregnancy and single-motherhood, or the real possibility that the possibly conceived baby is aborted; the young married couple engage in sex using barrier contraceptives because they are too poor to have a child, thereby minimising the greater evil of (to the modern mind) a child being raised in relative poverty. In all, by arguing that in individual cases a condom my be a positive development, he has introduced the idea that the use of the condom is down to the individual(s) conscience. This is almost ludicrous and disestablishes previous declarations of the Magesterium, not least Humanae Vitae.
I dearly love the pope (was blessed by his presence at Cofton Park) but it is beginning to appear that his approach to evangelisation takes the form of releasing a fox into the chicken coop; it certainly shakes things up but to what end, I don't know. One may presume that he sees the Church as an institution as having ducked so many issues for so long (abuse, Islam, liturgical abuse, decline in the West, the Church-wide rejection of Humanae Vitae and the consequent empty pews and seminaries, a more thorough pluralism in liturgical matters, corruption) that he sees his role as simply to bring these issues to the forefront so that the Church as an institution and as communities of people with a priest, can formulate strategies to address them.
At times like this I am reminded of the then Joseph Ratzinger's words in his interview book Salt of the Earth, in which he envisioned the future Church as smaller but more faithful. It is a terrifying thought.
I've been passed a comment that in fact the Pope's original text did not say "male prostitute" but just "prostitute" with the following Italian text:
"Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione, un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l'infezione dell'Hiv. È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità ."
I imagine that only complicates the interpretation of what he says, rather than makes it easier.
Dear Father, Of course we can all agree that it is possible to disagree with the Holy Father on a comment made not in the form of a teaching for the faithful.
But for you to say:
He does say that it (condom use)is a first step in the direction of moralization
is also a travesty! He goes on to explain:
"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." (my emphasis)
He has said that condoms are not an authentic solution, that they are not a moral solution and that they make the problem of AIDS worse. That should be clear enough. It is the good (though misguided - since condoms are neither safe nor moral)intent in the person he sees hope in not the use of the condom.
(It is also clear that he means a prostitute who is already HIV+ since otherwise, as you say, the man may only wish to protect himself).
It's easy to say he shouldn't have said it, but he didn't actually say anything like what it is being claimed he said. And we should remember the context, his point was made in response to the charge:
“It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,”
so the Pope is actually saying: Look, this is a useless solution - you might possibly see some hope in the good intentions of someone- maybe a turning point in the life of someone - who uses them in a totally depraved lifestyle to try to prevent harm to another, but the only real solution is for him to view sex in a totally different way.
Anyone with friends who have lived under Communism will recognise the way this has been reported instantly. Let's not have our shepherds joining in please.
Also can I say this has entirely taken the focus off the Vigil for Nascent Human Life, described by one Cardinal as "unprecedented", and (with the exception of Westminster Cathedral) being celebrated by nobody and his cat down here in the South.
An excellent response to this distraction would be for every Priest in the country to celebrate that Vigil.
God bless, Clare
May I point out that the original German does not say that "There can be individual cases that are justified, for example when a [male] prostitute [ein Prostituierter] uses a condom." The phrase "There can be individual cases that are justified", which gives the impression that the action can be justified is NOT THERE.
The Pope says:
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.
There is an abrupt transition between the 2 sentences which the translator appears to have tried to smooth out. What the Pope says in the second sentence is: "I would say that, if a male prostitute uses a condom, that can be an initial act towards moralisation,..." Is this not perhaps a more tentative statement than the one in the published English version?
By the way, I translate German on a professional basis, though this is not to say I am right.
I have to say I'm staggered at reading this, on two counts.
First, like OTSOTA, I simply cannot fathom what on earth there is to disagree with the Pope on.
The key words, surely, are "may" and "basis"?
His Holiness throws it out there, with heavy conditionality and speculation (in the right sense) that only in such exceptional circumstances "may" there be a "basis" to even start to consider the irony that (prophylactic) condom use could signal a moral re-awakening in someone.
That is: Catholic teaching is so sound and solid and non-negotiable in 99.99 of variables in the areas of condoms, contraception etc, that it would have to take an utterly extreme (the Pope even had to contrive such a thought) example before it could even begin to even consider (conditionality upon conditionality) whether there was even a basis to even consider if there was even a spark of morality. Even!
Are you disagreeing then, Father, that there "may" not even be a "basis" even in that exceptional circumstance, to even consider this as a talking point, regardless of the conclusions one would reach?
The Pope has issued the classic "exception that proves/tests the rule" consideration here and it seems to me that people are completely missing the genius behind his musing. He is hammering the white hot metal for all it is worth, down to every last remnant of its former ore to test its solidity and it's being found to be true and sure at every note.
In one sublime fell swoop he touches on at least five major issues for us to consider (i. the true nature and reasoning behind the Church's teaching on contraception, why it applies and where it may not apply because, pathetically, there's actually no potential act of conception to even consider such is the heaven crying out sin that's already underway; ii) the Church's teaching on the homosexual act; iii) the nuanced and reasoned way we should aspire to reach as we approach moral theology; iv) the nature and depths of morality and the human awakenings to it; v) how the faintest residual glimmer of goodness may yet still lurk in the hearts of those consumed by multi-layered evil would that they even know it - [it screams "good thief" teaching to me: even at the last you may start to save your soul]).
Really, it took just one speculative sentence for His Holiness to bring all that to the fore. The Petrine skill and mental dexterity he has demonstrated in doing so is thrilling - exhilarating even.
Where are there grounds for disagreement?
The second reason I'm staggered to have read this is that it plays right into the hands of those who disagree at will with the Holy Father whenever they choose.
"But Father, what's the difference between me disagreeing with the Pope on blah blah and you disagreeing when you feel you must...we're really the same aren't we?"
May I say, Father, that I really don't agree with you and I wonder just how wise it was for you to have so publicly expressed your disagreement with the Holy Father on whatever issue it is that you've found grounds to disagree on.
Something, though, tells me that the fact you used the Le Mesurier device (the true subtlety of which may be lost on non-UK "HOCers") might indicate that, deep down, you're not so sure yourself how wise it was to say so?
davidforster - the German has "prostitute" in the masculine so the presumption is that the Italian is mistaken (some Italian blogs have noted this.)
Thank you Father T for the comment on the German. It's a pity if the Italian version - one that's going to carry weight in and around Rome - has been mistranslated.
Clare - I quote (again)
"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..."
He did actually say that so it is not a "travesty" to quote his words. I think they were unfortunate.
This maelstrom has indeed drawn attention away from the Vigil for Nascent Human Life (and indeed the addresses he gave to the new Cardinals and all the good things in his interview.) I agree that priests should all celebrate the Vigil.
Dear Felix,
Would you care to supply the Constitution for Trads?
Actually, on second thoughts, no need. You can stick yourself in any box with any label you think suits.
Plain old "Catholic" suits me fine.
RJ - many thanks indeed for examining the German.
The two sentences are separated in the English version by a paragraph break.
Your translation of the first part of the second sentence reads:
"I would say that, if a male prostitute uses a condom, that can be an initial act towards moralisation,"
The published translation is:
"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,"
If anything, I would say that the second is more tentative but in fact all he has really done is to add in the phrase "in the case of some individuals, as perhaps...".
He has also inexplicably rendered "Ich würde sagen" as "There may be a basis" instead of your perfectly sensible and obvious translation "I would say".
So I don't think the translation betrays what the Pope actually said except that it adds some unnecessary waffle when the Pope is in fact more direct.
With the deepest respect, I think there is confusion between 'moralization' (making decision according to some morality) and 'morality'.
It seems fairly clear to me that 'a first step towards moralization' indicates the beginning of thinking about consequences above and beyond one's own self interest. This is not in the least bit the same as making the correct choice.
An infected prostitute seeking to avoid infecting the client is clearly a case of someone taking some sense of responsibility, if still misguided and still committing a mortal sin. What is so problematic about this observation?
You gave the example of the rapist using a condom, and asked whether that would be a first step towards moralization - and the answer is unequivocally that it is. It is hardly as if pointing this out is another way of saying that condoms are acceptable in rape situations; and it is not as if that would lessen the sin by any noticable amount, perhaps; but it is not nothing.
So I'm afraid I don't see this as opening a can of worms at all, although I would still be in the camp of asking "do you think that's wise, sir?" It is unwise because it must have been clear how it would be interpreted, and the Church does not need this source of confusion now of all times.
Nonetheless, it was an answer to a question, and he probably felt it ill-became him to duck out of such questions; and he gave an honest, and I think ultimately correct answer, which actually doesn't really tap that much into the debate that you highlighted between theologians in one of your earlier posts. I think we owe it to him to understand it in the best possible light and work with it from there.
Sorry, Father. I assumed that was the complete version...I'm too tired or too lazy to follow this up much further.
Re. the Pope's choice of the masculine "Prostituierter": apparently, Fr Lombardi has now said:
“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me no.. The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”
“This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point,” Lombardi said...
We are going, I think, down a very slippery slope here.
The teaching should be that sodomy is NOT to be practiced, period. One understands the remark about the condom being the first step etc., but:
a) the example is highly likely to let people believe that they **can use condom in certain circumstances**;
b) this shifts the attemption from the avoidance of sin to a "responsible" way of sinning. The Church can't endorse such shift, on no account. I've never heard an homily about how responsible it is for the unfaithful husband to use a condom when he has intercourse with his wife.
Even more slippery has the slope become today. If a prostitute "can" use a condom, than every married couple can. Which wife can be absolutely sure that her husband has not betrayed her without using a condom? Then the husband is being responsible, right?
Every assertion that the use of a condom is "justified" is inherently wrong. Sodomy is not justified, adultery is not justified, prostitution is not justified. Moral teaching is not about the "responsible" way to sin.
Let this become a fashion and we'll have catholics saying "the Pope says that you can use a condom whilst practising sodomy" in no time.
Mundabor
Well if that is the case that the Pope says it could equally apply to a female prostitute as to a male prostitute then that really does change matters. Good grief - where does that land us?
Nicolas Bellord
Father, if we attempt to teach that condoms are acceptable in preventing infection of a partner then we are encouraging promiscuity. Gay groups and adulterers will just feel happier with their lifestyles knowing that the Catholic Church is now advocating "safe sex". I am in agreement with you and felt perturbed at the extract. I think JPII rarely if ever gave such journalistic access. I think one of his books was answering questions left by journalist but not face to face.
Thankfully I have so far managed to avoid facing any fatuous questions and cynical comments from friends and colleagues over this issue.
What this does show is the sublety of the Devil, who has scored a potential 'multiple whammy', by exploiting the human frailties of Joseph Ratzinger the academic theologian, who would find it hard to resist the temptation of subtle philosophical discussion, involving debating possible extreme 'exceptions to prove a rule', and for a short while losing track of the fact that he was doing so while also being a spiritual leader in the full glare of the 'popular' (not with me at the moment)media.
What is paramount is that the Magestrium of the Church has definitely NOT changed, and that the various sins mentioned ARE STILL SINS.
Sadly the Devil has achieved (a) confusion, (b) possible scandal (c) damage to the reputations of the Church and the Holy Father in some quarters (d) distraction from several important evants in the Church such as vigil for nascent life, and creation of numerous new Cardinals, among many other significant events, and (e) (perhaps most worrying) possible entrapment of souls who misunderstand what the Pope has said, and so become at risk of serious sins.
Hopefully the media furore will soon die down. Let's pray for that and also that the damage done is minimised.
On my blog I have made the example of the mexican gang member accustomed to rape and torture his victims before killing them and who, in what *might* be a first awakening to the sacredness of human life, decides to finish them off with a pistol without rape and murder. This doesn't mean that the Church endorses mudering people with a pistol and it doesn't mean that the Church says "if you really, really must murder, the use of a pistol is justified". Least of all does it mean that Church teaching has now been modified.
Mundabor
Thank you Father. I do see what you are saying but do you not think his words are moderated at all by the comment following this that condoms are not a real/authentic or MORAL solution?
If something is not moral it is not right or good. That is why I can only see the first point as commending the intention of the person rather than the condom use itself.(He does specifically mention the good intention in response to the next question). It would seem odd to have the Pope saying using condoms is the beginning of moralization of a person but they are immoral! And they don't work and make the problem worse but prostitutes should use them!
In response to other commenters, there is no principle of the lesser of two evils in Catholic theology (as Humanae Vitae clearly states). Catholic teaching states:
It is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil but it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from.
Clare
Father
history has in general not been kind to those who try to be more Catholic than the Pope. Moreover, to insist as many have done that this is not a magisterial pronouncement - although correct as far as it goes - is to miss the point. Many over-zealous apologists on the internet have regularly poured scorn on those who wish to apply principles like the lesser evil to condom use, suggesting at best that they are "wet liberals", and sometimes accusing them of disloyalty. Now that it is the Pope himself who has taken this line, the "militant tendency" finds its position fatally weakened. The attempt to present the rigorist position as the only possible Catholic one has failed.
How sad that no one is thankful for the Holy Father's courage! All of Christian life is a move away from vice to virtue; and there is very rarely a move from vice which isn't incremental. A good pastor recognises the first signs of grace at work in the human heart, where ever the sinner is, and does everything to encourage it like a shoot in parched earth. The preoccupation with condoms, sodomy and the like sounds just like the Pharisee saying thank God he isn't like the tax collector next to him. Thank God we have a Holy Father who proclaims the timeless truths of Christ mercy that seeks out the lost sheep and recognises that mercy in situ, and not the prejudices of the sanctimonious.
"Well if that is the case that the Pope says it could equally apply to a female prostitute as to a male prostitute then that really does change matters. Good grief - where does that land us?"....Gosh!..maybe you actually have to think for yourself!
'Surely the only proper response of a good Catholic wishing to help someone caught up in male prostitution is "Is there anything we can do to help you get the hell out of this?"'
Surely, nothing in the Holy Father's words to suggest that the proper Catholic response should be any different from this.
PIUSXXX
I think this blog is for polite and thoughtful discussion. My question as to where Fr Lombardi's statement has landed us is an invitation to think the position through which evidently several others who post here are doing.
My view is that Father Lombardi, a Jesuit, tends to embellish what the Pope has said and add to the confusion. I rather hope somebody will tell his Holiness that there is considerable confusion and that his statement needs clarifying as a matter of urgency and not left to others, who have may have different agendas, to interpret what he has said. We can then think about it further!
Nicolas Bellord
'“This is if you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point,” Lombardi said...'
But that's rather obvious isn't it? A first step towards moralization can be taken by anyone: I suspected, and still do suspect, that the choice of example was deliberate in so far as it represented an extreme case to illustrate the principle; but it would be bizarre if the principle only held for male prostitutes.
I'm still struggling to see the difficulty here.
Agree with Frs Hugh and Paul, and 'I', but am only a pleb in the pew!
I agree with you Father, I too believe the Pope was very unwise to make these remarks.
If the past 50 years have taught us anything, it should be that 'difficult' cases are always exploited by the forces of the Culture of Death to dismantle Christian moral teaching. One thinks of other topics, such as assisted suicide where someone has a crippling illness, or abortion in the case of rape. Now we have the same technique from the secular press applied to condom usage. Sow doubts about some difficult or rare application of the Church's moral teaching and soon the whole can be undermined. Those latching on to the Pope's remarks couldn't care tuppence about the welfare of a prostitute's 'client'; they have another agenda.
Unfortunately, the Pope's ill-judged remarks have unwittingly given these forces something to work on.
I don't think the additional clarification, removing the restriction to cases of male prostitution, need make a difference to the argument.
The Pope says clearly that the use of condoms is "not a real or moral solution". If it is not a moral solution, then it is not a morally acceptable solution, therefore it is not a solution. What is left? Only the recognition of a psychological movement in the right direction, even though this is "not a real or moral solution", i.e. is a mistaken choice.
The uncomfortable, rarely admitted fact is that using a condom is no guarantee of safety when it comes to the prevention of disease. Far from it. The reasons are manifold and are well documented.
To quote Cardinal Pell (May 2009) :
Other studies support my claim that condoms encourage promiscuity and irresponsibility. UN AIDS has found that even when people use condoms consistently, something goes wrong about 10 percent of the time. Condoms give users an exaggerated sense of safety, so that they sometimes engage in "risk compensation." In one Ugandan study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners.
That’s one in ten, which is worse than playing Russian roulette with a 9 mm Browning.
Other studies also provide disturbing evidence of the inefficacy of condoms :
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=10706 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=10706
http://www.prolife.com/LICKONA.htm
http://www.dherbs.com/articles/condom-sense-6.html
http://www.culture-of-life.org/content/view/255/
On the basis of these facts, I believe to encourage/endorse/suggest/approve their use amounts to what might even be called a death sentence for a very unfortunate minority.
And I am rather worried about latest developments.
Poimier
Well, I must say that this whole thing is becoming very complicated indeed. Who said what about what whoever said what about what ? Frankly, I don’t know and I’m definitely not changing. Things are in a right mess, that’s no maybe. Common sense has departed.
May I add a quite separate comment please ?
Because of my interest and my belief and concern, I read about these developments. And then I take the plunge and comment, maybe not always a fantastic decision. Or not.
But, in so doing, I find myself* using words and phrases, describing certain things, certain actions and certain behaviours (I refer to the sexual side of life) which I would previously NEVER have spoken about, not in such language to anyone. For instance, I would never have mentioned them to my dear wife, a deeply Catholic lady with the advantage of a Methodist upbringing. She would have been scandalised.
* So does the Pope !
Does this mean I am therefore an object of contemporary curiosity, a relic from some Neolithic age, a Catholic dinosaur ? And that Catholic modesty (one of the 12 Fruits of the Holy Ghost) is no longer relevant ? What lies ahead for us ?
Or did I miss something along the line ? What happened ? How did I miss the boat ? Why are we so freely talking about things which would never have been considered mentionable in public forums, not so long ago ? My general personal rule about whether a thing is right or wrong, in modern terms, if I have doubt, is to consider what my wife would have thought about it. If I need a “second opinion” I think about an Archbishop whom I met and what he would have said. A luxury these days, maybe ?
Perhaps I should add I am seen by most as a reasonably modern type of man, not immediately identifiable as stone age relic.
Just a passing, though troubling thought.
JM
Indeed, we should not have to speak of these things. The children of Fatima and other great mystics of the 20th century warned us of the consequences of sin.
Post a Comment