As Austen Ivereigh previously reported, the Holy Father has now said that he intended his comments about the use of condoms in the prevention of passing on HIV/AIDS as applicable to (according to the Vatican spokesman Frederico Lombardi, S.J.) "a man, a woman, a transsexual." It applies to anyone "in relations" or "in relationship," depending on the translation from the Italian. "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 [or are "in relations]." This is something of a game-changer when it comes to the Church's discussion on the overall use of condoms. While it doesn't mean at all that Pope Benedict XVI -- or the Catholic church -- has approved condoms for use in terms of birth control, it is the first time that a pope has given voice to what many moral theologians and bishops have been saying for years -- and have gotten into trouble for saying.
Over the past few days, some have interpreted very narrowly what Pope Benedict said in his book-length interview with Peter Seewald, a German journalist, about condoms as a "first step" in the "moralization" of someone like a "male prostitute" who uses one to prevent the spread of infection. (The idea seemed to be that the prostitute would be doing something moral by thinking about preventing the spread of disease.) As soon as the embargo on Light of the World was broken (view excerpts here), many took issue with the notion that anything had changed at all.
Some of the arguments ran as follows: The pope wasn't talking about "average" men and women, some said: he was only talking about male prostitutes, and thus it applied only to such cases. The pope wasn't talking about sexual intercourse that could lead to procreation, some said: he was only talking about an act not open to childbirth; that's why he was using the admittedly strange example of a male prostitute, who presumably would be having homosexual relations with another man. (The notion of a male prostitute having relations with a woman apparently wasn't considered by some.) The pope wasn't even talking about an act of sexual intercourse, others said: he was only talking about an intention.
It seemed odd that some who are normally great admirers of the pope were trying to narrow his comments so as to be applicable only to one particular case, nearly stripping the pope's words of any meaning whatsoever. It was also odd that some who support the pope's authority on matters both great and small seemed to be waving aside these comments, on an issue of great importance for people across the globe (i.e., the prevention of HIV/AIDS) as if they were entirely meaningless, or as if the pope didn't know what he was saying. But agree or disagree with him, Pope Benedict understands what he is saying. And the pope seems to be showing us that his understanding of the topic, particularly as a theologian, was far different than anyone had previously thought.
Change can be frightening. At the same time, some in the church are often skittish of change, because it is often believed that change on one issue might mean that the faithful will think that everything is up for grabs. John W. O'Malley, S.J., the dean of American church historians, once told our church history class at Weston Jesuit School of Theology that when the church begins to alter its course on a particular issue, it says either one of two things, "As the church has always taught..." Or, "There has been no change whatsoever." That last tack was also taken over the last few days. Nothing has changed, said some, because moral theologians and several bishops, particularly from the developing world, have long said that condoms should be used to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
And that is true. Several bishops and theologians have indeed taught that. The difference is that those who taught it were sometimes censured by the Vatican when they said it. Or the Vatican has simply rejected their arguments. So it is false to say that nothing has changed.
Indeed, I know two priests who wrote an article on that topic, an article which was seen as problematic by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was its prefect. It has been a hotly contested topic within moral thheology. Entire books wrestling with the such subjects have been written. But that particular conclusion on condoms and the spread of AIDS had not been accepted by the Vatican.
Once again, the Catholic Church has not changed its teaching on the use of condoms as a means of birth control. Nor has the church "officially" changed its teaching on the use of condoms: an interview is not the same as an encyclical or a document from a Vatican congregation. But the previously out-of-bounds discussion about whether condoms can be used as a means to prevent the spread of disease is now in-bounds. That is change, by any definition. And that change is a good one, for if it moves the conversation ahead, it may mean a further lessening of the spread of HIV/AIDS and the prevention of death. As such, it may be seen as a new kind of pro-life initiative on the part of the Holy Father.
Change for the better is to be welcomed, not feared. (A good resource on this John Noonan's A Church that Can and Cannot Change.) As Blessed John Henry Newman said, "To grow is to change. To be perfect is to have changed often." That would be the same John Henry Newman beatified by Pope Benedict XVI.
This article originally appeared in "America: The National Catholic Weekly"
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.: Science Is What Will Improve Health in America
Pope Benedict XVI: Condom use OK, in certain circumstances - but ...
Pope Benedict XVI: condoms make Aids crisis worse - Telegraph
Vatican Pope's condom comments apply to women too - Yahoo! News
Pope says some condom use 'first step' of morality - Yahoo! News
Pope Benedict edges away from total ban on use of condoms | World ...
The Pope's main concern is not losing face, for the sake of the Church. Everything and everyone else doesn't matter much.
I particularly liked this:
John W. O'Malley, S.J., the dean of American church historians, once told our church history class at Weston Jesuit School of Theology that when the church begins to alter its course on a particular issue, it says either one of two things, "As the church has always taught..." Or, "There has been no change whatsoever."
And this:
Once again, the Catholic Church has not changed its teaching on the use of condoms as a means of birth control. Nor has the church "officially" changed its teaching on the use of condoms: an interview is not the same as an encyclical or a document from a Vatican congregation
God forbid women might have control over their own reproductive lives. But... as long as men are safer from sexually transmitted disease... and peripherally, yes, women too.... well, it is, as you say, a step forward. Even though i have been told my whole life the birth control ban is a thing written in stone by popes present and past. So... i am confused what, your words, this "conversation starter" might be good for? Where exactly do you see this going?
Institutions are grudging in accepting Truth. Human sexuality is still in the dark ages, as DADT
is trying to get to less obscurity. Sexuality is the creative force embodied. Free minds understand that
people can improve their lives with advanced thinking. Churches mix some truth with fiction, which is how myth and fable still reign. If you want to grow up, read the philosophers.
-Arthur Miller
....the other part of coarse is his dressing up like Boy George !!!
The pope just announced he wants to put condoms on male prostitutes.
I ask, with ALL of the problems in the world, blatant poverty, people starving, genocide in Africa, the collapse of the world's economies, the situation in Haiti, muslims stoning women to death etc, etc, etc, is putting condoms on male prostitutes REALLY the best this pope can do to help ease the world's problems, or is it a field he feels most comfortable in ?
I had a HUNCH something like this would happen. I mean you can't just BLOW something like this off, but then again there's no sense in getting all down in the mouth over it.
I can understand why they are having a HARD time COMING to some sort of consensus on this. Condoms can be such a SLIPPERY issue.
I'm sure the pope will stand FIRM to his Missionary position on this issue, but he has gotten himself into a very STICKY situation.
I remember him being devastated when Vatican II failed to approve birth control for the Catholic laity. The crosses came down off the walls for two years. He finally got over it, but it boggles my mind that any one would describe as movement what has occurred in the ensuing 50 odd years. The only thing that has changed is that TSDs have become much more virulent and worrisome than they were then, and the church is accordingly under more pressure to change. But change it hasn't. As my evangelical sister loves to gleefully point out, Catholicism is a dead religion; osified to the point of no return.
........It's never good to stand on condoms. They might rip. THEN what would the Catholic priests use on all those altar boys?